Independence in Journalism

What does it mean to practice independence in journalism? A lot of it has to do with the journalist's integrity, like avoiding the picking and choosing of facts to frame a story, or the turning down of bribes. The ethical choice should always be made when independence is jeopardized, especially as ambassadors of BYU and the Church. What comes harder is remaining independent when perceptions are altered due to predetermined bias or opinion. 

Journalistic integrity is a huge factor for remaining independent, but becomes a moot point if the perception becomes subconsciously skewed. Journalists have to be close enough to the story to understand the major issues and characters, but far enough away to see the facts without emotionally tinted goggles.

Take sports for example. Here is the final play of this year's BYU--Utah football game. There's five seconds left and the Cougars need a touchdown to tie the game. Taysom Hill rolls left and heaves a desperation throw down field where there's apparent contact between receiver Mitch Matthews and defensive back Reginald Porter.

What happened? It depends on who you ask. Most BYU fans will say that Matthews was undoubtedly  tackled by a defensive player as the ball was in the air, and that a 15-yard penalty and untimed down should have been assessed to BYU. Most Utah fans will say that Porter was obviously pulled down by the receiver as the ball was coming down, and that  (and, naturally, that must have been what the officials saw). 

That's why those covering the event need to remain independent of personal bias; otherwise perception becomes opinionated. Does that play draw a pass interference call 99% of the time? Yes. Would another hail marry from the 37-yard line have changed the outcome of the game? Probably not. The controversy surrounding the final play shouldn't become the focus of the story because emotional reporters let their biases get in the way of their independence.

So, even as hard as it is being a BYU student, I have to agree that the non-call was probably the best call.   

But the 2010 Holy War? Brandon Bradley's knee was DOWN!

 

       

Religion and the media

For a profession that is all about reliable sources, verification and facts, religion can be a tough beat for journalists to cover. But that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be covered; religion is too intertwined within the fabric of American life to be ignored. 

Here's a list of the Huffington Post's top religious news content of 2012:

1. The Sandy Hook shootings and the presence or absence of God
2. 20% of Americans identifying themselves as affiliated with "No Religion"
3. The creation of the anti-Muslim film "The Innocence of the Muslims"
4. The Vatican scolding American Roman Catholic nuns over social justice issues
5. A mormon running for president
6. The first Hindu and Buddhist in American Congress
7. The negative effects of religion mixing with government
8. The gay equality movement
9. The shooting of six Sikh worshipers in Wisconsin
10. Vatican and Pope controversy 

At least six of the top stories are either negative or controversial, which isn't surprising. Journalists will always rush to jump all over the negative and controversial, the same way shoppers rush to jump all over over Black Friday deals at Walmart. But with the thousands of churches in America, there's got to be some positive, uplifting human-interest stories--right?

No matter what faith journalists claim--or don't claim, there is a whole lot of good that is done in the world because of religion. Every denomination deserves to be covered fairly, without their beliefs being misunderstood or ostracized. Indeed, the age old adage applies even in the cold hearted world of journalism: cover other religions as you would have them cover you.  

Covering Race

Race relations is one of the hairiest topics that journalists cover. Not because it's an uncommon issue, but because it's tough to provide balanced coverage for each camp without taking sides--consciously or not. Nothing really gets the vitriol flowing like an argument about racial injustice, and news organizations can profit from higher TV ratings by over-covering the story.  

Think back to the George Zimmerman--Trayvon Martin case. NBC was caught editing Zimmerman's 911 dispatch call that was originally this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

...and changed it to this:   

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

There can only be two reasons behind NBC's decision to edit the tape. Either; 1)NBC, as a liberal news organization, wanted George Zimmerman to be found guilty, or; 2)NBC saw the racially charged debate as good for ratings. Framing the tape to paint Zimmerman as an explicit racist would create more buzz about the story and more viewership for NBC.

Personally, I think it's the latter, which is the reasoning Zimmerman's lawyers gave when they sued NBC. Providing erroneous reports to push a certain angle for ratings are obviously irresponsible and unethical. Which is why it's so scary that some are willing to do it anyway.    

   

The Boston Bombing Coverage

As I've said before, there have been only a handful of news events that qualify as "I'll always remember where I was at" moments. The Boston Marathon bombings became one of those events because of the fluidity of the situation. This was the first gargantuan story to be covered instantaneously by social media innovations like twitter and Facebook, putting pressure on newspapers and networks to be the first to break news. The "be first before being correct" mindset led to a number of blunders, most notably the New York Post's decision to accuse two "bag boys" as responsible for the horrific bombings, and then to publish a picture of them on their front page. The Post's claim, of course, was completely erroneous, as the men pictured had nothing to do with the act of terror.

Perhaps not as egregiously off the mark, CNN's continuous coverage of the Boston manhunt nevertheless drew criticism and ridicule, most memorably by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart in this piece of work.

It's safe to say that CNN will follow the other major networks' suit in the future by having an anchor live in the studio to quarterback the coverage of breaking news, no matter how loud "canine dogs" are barking. 

The instant news era is fully upon us. Reporters are breaking stories at a rate that continues to accelerate. Just be sure to verify before hitting the "tweet" button. 

The Future of News

The future of news has come into question as of late. Newspaper readership has dwindled since the turn the century when new technology began pumping out alternative media outlets the way CBS pumps out new Survivor seasons. "Traditional journalism's" fall from grace, with newsroom cutbacks and diminished coverage, not only happened comprehensively, but also really quickly. If you had told me back in 2003 that in ten years the majority of Americans would be getting news from tweets in their twitter account, I would probably have imagined some Hitchcock-like world where birds have taken over the press. 

But evolution isn't always bad, is it? It's not that Americans have become disinterested with the news, it's just the way they choose to consume it has changed. The problems occur when people are only exposed to quick, 30 second snippets and clips of news, which tend to distort or over exaggerate the issues. So in order to keep the consumer informed, journalists must be able to provide both quality and quantity. Video clips should be comprehensive enough to give the issue the weight it deserves. Reporters can also break down large, complicated stories into a stream of compressed tweets, which can be shared with their followers. Interaction is another huge advantage that journalists didn't have in the past. By providing ways for consumers to interact in the news process, people will have a greater interest in the news.

We won't always know what the future of news will look like. But there will always be a market for stories--for the drama of news. With that in mind, the future of news reporting is bright.  

          

The ethical decision

Journalism ethics have come into question in recent years--to say the least. There was the New York Times Jayson Blair scandal as recent as 2003, with Blair fabricating and plagiarizing his way to the top of the journalistic world before humiliating the Times in his downfall. Before that was the Stephen Glass and Dateline NBC debacles, doing major damage to their credibility with their audiences. After all, these weren't cases of irresponsible ethical behavior at the local, nickel-an-inch newspaper level--these happened at some of the most respected newspapers and news programs in American history! It's like if it was found out that it was bypass surgery and not Subway sandwiches that led to Jared losing all that weight, or if Rocky really used steroids to beat Ivan Drago.

The public deserves to question the media's validity, especially in today's world of corporate consolidation and big businesses that buy up family run papers. It's our duty as the next generation of journalists to exercise responsible ethical principles and adhere to those standards. As flag bearers of BYU and the Church, we need to apply the Savior's teaching of the golden rule: 

Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets. (3 Nephi 14:12).

We can't afford to plagiarize or act dishonestly. Much of this can be prevented by simply putting ourselves in others' shoes. How will this effect this company? This family? Is this objective and fair to all parties? 

Following a high standard of journalistic ethics is the only way to win credibility back. How to define ethics can be complicated for some. As members of the Church, it shouldn't be for us.      

The George Will Devotional

College students aren't expected to know much about or participate in politics. We've been branded with the stereotype that we're too busy partying and eating pizza to spend time waiting in line to vote. I don't know how accurate this description is--it could very well be right according voter statistics, but the overall disenchantment of all American citizens with the political process is unsettling. At least, for me it is.

That's why I thoroughly enjoyed George Will's forum address to BYU students on Tuesday. It shined a floodlight on the chaos stemming from a government that claims to "knows everything," from the correct price in exchange for pressing pants to the exact wage an immigrant should be making in 2014.

Speaking on "the political argument today," Will masterfully laid out the problems America faces today and in the near future. Whereas America had once borrowed money for the future, the ever expanding government has resorted to borrowing money from the future--funding billion dollar programs like Obamacare and immigration reform on the bill of our grandchildren. Watching with my friends, I felt validity for the similar personal opinions I had recently expressed to them. Now I had more than just Fox News to back me up.

Will later went on to explain the dangers of a government too involved in American's lives by relating the details of an event during the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The National Recovery Administration was a chief governmental program of the New Deal. It's goal was to eliminate competition in the market place, with the government setting the "correct" price for goods and services. The program went so far as to prosecute one New York businessman who charged 35 cents for pants pressing, when the NRA believed the service was worth 40 cents. The man was fined $100 and faced three months in jail.

Finishing his lecture, Will emphasized what he called the most crucial verb in the Deceleration of Independence, the word "secure." Government, he said, was to secure the rights naturally endued upon men by their creator. It is not to grant or revoke these God given rights. Unlike Vice President Joe Biden's statement that every achievement within the past decade was in part due to the government, an individual's ability and right to achieve success is granted without the consent or necessity of government.      
----------
This is for extra credit in comms211 and comms239         

What Washington didn't want you to know about Vietnam

People a good secret. They jump at the chance to receive confidential information--even more so when the content are controversial. It's why "insiders" and big news breaking journalists get paid the big bucks.

But what if revealing secretive information poses a threat to national security? Should it be published regardless? And what if revealing secretive information is said to be a threat to national security, just to hide an ugly truth from the people?

In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg, an insider with knowledge of U.S. affairs and in the recent Vietnam war, leaked secret documents to the New York Time--later to be known as "the Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg, who became opposed to the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, leaked papers revealing controversial military tactics, as well as Washington's decision to give military aid to France. He later  faced up to 115 years in prison for treason, only to have charged dropped after it was discovered that the government had been illegally tapping his conversations.

While Ellsberg managed to wriggle off the hook of governmental wrath, an infamous present day  leaker faces major charges for exposing top secret documents. In June 2013, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed information of the NSA surveillance tactics to The Guardian newspaper. The leak reignited controversy in the debate that goes all the way back to the famous John Peter Zenger trial in 1734. Should journalists have free reign to publish any information they see as truth, or do possible national security threats trump freedom of press rights?

When lives are at stake, lines should be drawn. Both the leaker and the one publishing should refrain from putting out any information that could possibly harm U.S. citizens. But where information expose governmental abuse, such as the NSA collecting phone calls and emails of ordinary U.S. citizens, that information deserves to be published, no matter how embarrassing it may be for the government.

In today's age of hackers and leakers, the government can't risk hiding illegal agencies and abuses. If they would be embarrassed by making their actions public, it's a good indication they should not be doing what they're doing. They can admit to and disband their abusive behavior, or wait long enough for a leaker to do it himself. Either way, the people will know.        

Journalistic Independence

I learned a new meaning for "journalistic independence." More than just objectivity, this independence refers to the loyalty of journalists to their audience. It makes sense--above the pressures of the advertisers, the PR, or the editors should be the priority for quality journalistic reporting.

But that isn't the business model for most news organizations these days.

In 2005, The Los Angeles Times entered into a deal with PR representatives seeking to hype the opening of the Staples Center. The Times published a special Sunday edition magazine entirely devoted to the new arena, in agreement to later split the profits from advertising. Controversy ensued with the deal's discovery, and publisher Katheryn Downing was reprimanded.

The problem with this "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" ideology is that it not only deceives the audience, it calls into question the integrity of the entire company. Are they there to report the news or to try and push their product? Corporate consolidation further complicates a company's independence.  

If I suddenly magically became the owner of a news company--either newspaper, TV, or radio--the model I would instill would be a #1 loyalty to the audience. If we report the news with complete transparency with the people, they will read or tune in to our news first. Don't cut corners by taking easy money from advertisers seeking to pump up their product. Honest, straightforward journalism will, in the long run, win the trust of our audience and profits will rise.    

Which, admittedly is easy to say having just magically become the owner of the company. But still.

J.B. Haws spoke on LDS public perception Thursday in the second part of the Raymond E. and Ida Lee Beckham Lecture in Communication series. Assistant professor in the Department of Church History and Doctrine, Haws presented BYU students with a timeline of critical events that have shaped the way outsiders view Mormons—in both positive and negative respects.

Haws’ interest in the Church’s public perception can be traced back to his elementary school days in the small town of Hooper, Utah. As a 10 year old 2^nd grader, Haws vividly remembers the experience of President Ronald Reagan visiting the LDS cannery in Ogden, as well as the glowing remarks the Commander in Chief related of his experience.

“There was something very affirming about the President of our nation speaking well of our church,” Haws said.

Since 1957, the Church Information Service has continued to evolve in its involvement in public relations and affairs. Haws pointed to the Church’s involvement in the 1964-65 New York World Fair as a key moment in exposing Mormonism to the public. Of the six million visitors who passed the Mormon’s designated pavilion, one million requested follow up calls from the missionaries.

But it wasn’t always clear sailing for the Church’s growing public image, as the rise of Republican presidential hopeful George Romney shined a light on the Church’s controversial policy of withholding the Priesthood from African American males. Haws went on to describe other troubles in the 1980’s, as a rising tide of anti-Mormon sediment stemmed from Evangelical targeting.

“During the 1980’s, we witnessed something of a philosophical (search) for LDS public relations,” Haws said. “In these years the department was finding its identity in some way after it’s marketing side was transferred to the missionary department.”

            Despite the controversy that surrounded most of the 80’s and 90’s, Haws pointed to the recent positive experiences the Church has had in the public eye, including the 2002 Olympics and recent presidential candidacy of George Romney’s son, Mitt Romney. Innovations in social media also has contributed to a growth in understanding the doctrine and values of the LDS church.

            “I see LDS public affairs as constantly being with the mission of its parents organization rather than in anyway compromising that mission.”   

**This post is for extra credit in comms 239 and 211

The Mind of a Journalist

Objectivity is the golden standard within the journalism world. Which is a great, trendy cliche that the cable news likes to throw around a lot. But is it really realistic? Can someone be passionate about covering the news and at the same time remain a detached, unbiased observer? 

We can find the answer by turning to Major League Baseball. Unlike the NFL, which televises every game nationally, MLB games are usually only broadcasted through local television stations. Every club has their own TV announcers travel with the team to call games, and  unfortunately, many of them seem to be packing their pom-poms and fan jerseys in an effort to root on the home team.

 A recent WSJ study confirms the bias. After watching game broadcasts of all 30 teams, they proceeded to rank the commentators in an "announcer bias index." Of the 30 teams, 25 broadcasts included at least one remark favoring the home team, while the Blue Jays, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers remained objective.

But the bias goes even deeper. Take for example Ken "the Hawk" Harrelson, play-by-play television commentator for the Chicago White Sox. Infamous for his unbridled homerism, fanatic home run calls, and lack of excitement at opposing teams' success, Harrelson's broadcast had an astounding 104 biased comments--by far the most of any team. Here are two of the Hawk's actual home run calls, the first a Conor Gillaspie shot in the seventh inning to take the lead against the Rangers:

"That ball hit high and deep…stretch--STRETCH! Get on back there…they look up—you caaaannn PUT IT ON THE BOOOOOOAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD! YEEEEEEESSSS! YEEEEEEESSSS! Number three for Gillaspie, and the Sox lead it three to two!"

...and this one, a Nick Swisher blast that put the Indians up a run against the White Sox:

 "And the payoff…it is a nine-eight…Indian lead…four runs here in the top of the ninth inning..."

Although objectivity is dying out in baseball, there is still a flicker of hope. Vin Sculley, the voice of the Dodgers since the team was stationed in Brooklyn, remains one of the greatest broadcasters of all time. He never refers to the Dodgers as "we," "us," or "our," doesn't create pet names for players, never gets too high or too low. He has the calling of critical plays down to an art form; showing appropriate excitement without getting carried away in the moment. (Notice that after calling Kirk Gibson's home run, he remains silent for an entire minute and seven seconds, letting the listener soak in the reaction of the crowd. Not many can do it the way Vin does it). 

Baseball doesn't need TV announcers screaming at fans whenever a home run is hit for "their" team. Any glorified fan with a microphone can do that. The magic of the game deserves a higher plane of analysis and commentating.

Like the magic that emulates as Vin Sculley calls a game. 

          

How JFK's assasination changed the media

Rarely does a news story reach the echelon of "I'll-always-remember-where-I-was-and-what-I- was-doing-when-I saw-that" moment. To date, I can think of only five within my lifetime:

•  O.J. Simpson's Ford Bronco slow-speed car chase down the I-405 freeway
• September 11th
• The finding of Elizabeth Smart
• The news report that Osama Bin Laden was captured and killed
• The Boston Marathon bombings 

It's these types of stories that make "watching the news" transcend to "living the news." People become glued to television screens, constantly check their phones, and patiently await any new information. You could drop into a restaurant in Boise, Idaho and overhear the same discussions that people are having in a Boston pub. 

Although it happened fifty years ago, the drama of the JFK assassination still ranks right up at the top of memorable media coverage. In fact, many of the techniques the media now uses to cover big news stories were developed in the wake of the presidential shooting.      

The image of of the infamous event, with the oblivious spectators, confused passengers, and sudden car acceleration has been burned into the minds of those who witnessed the breaking story. That's in a large part due to the networks' use of instant replay, a first for that time. For an unprecedented four days of continuous coverage, people all over the country watched and waited for answers, which were slow to come by. Television cemented itself as one of the top sources for breaking news, and TV news networks reaped the profits of a steady popularity growth. 

The standard of covering big breaking news stories was set by the coverage of the JFK assassination. We never know when the next transcendent news story will hit us. But we know that when it does, we'll all be watching. 

Times’ Stelter speaks on social media at BYU campu

            New York Times media writer Brian Stelter addressed a group of BYU students Wednesday, speaking on the several impacts social media has upon government. Standing before a full Lee library auditorium, Stelter discussed the advantages of communicating with public officials afforded by new innovations in social media.

            “The notion of more two way communication between the public and the politicians or the regulators is something that is equally profound, I would argue. We’ve always had elections. We’ve always had that way to communicate our feelings. But now we can do it in a much more direct way and a much more personal way.”

            Pointing to the ever-growing use of Facebook and Twitter among politicians, Stelter argued the development of a more socially active government. And with more means of one-on-one interaction with elected officials, Stelter sees increases in governmental accountability and transparency.

“(Social media) does allow two-way interaction that couldn’t have happened before. It’s great to go to a town hall meeting. It’s great to stand in line and ask a senator or a congressman a question. But now we can have many more personal and direct ways of doing so, without having to travel, without having to hope we have a chance at the microphone. We have new ways in other words to hold our leaders accountable.”

Freedom of Press

A lot of things have to go right for a society to function in a free and prosperous state. Looking at the world around us, we find that very few besides citizens of the U.S. ever have an opportunity to enjoy freedom. Syria is in chaos, Egypt's government is in the midst of an overthrow, and Russia's president continues to oppress while doing stuff like this. 

It's at these times that the brilliance of liberty illuminates the brightest against the dark backdrop of tyranny. But America must take steps to assure that the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press-- freedoms that are either warred over or suppressed almost everywhere else in the world--cannot be diluted away. That's why last classes' discussion on freedom of the press is so vital for journalists to understand. Freedom of the press enhances and enables freedom of speech and religion, while checking corruption and tyranny.

The media serves as a watchdog against governmental and institutional abuse. It's role is so important that many refer to as "the fourth estate," making sure that the House, Senate and President are all in line. Which makes the timing of this lecture even more valid in view of the recent government scandals that continue to pop out like weeds. Take a look at the controversies that have occurred within the past year alone:

• The Benghazi debacle: Washington doesn't respond to a terrorist attack that kills four Americans, then heaps the blame upon an anti-Muhammad video created by a California man, despite having knowledge otherwise.

• The IRS scandal: The agency knowingly targets and audits Democratic opponents, including members of the Tea Party.        

• The NSA controversy: The agency is accused of collecting millions of American's phone records and emails.

• The AP tapped records scandal: The Justice Department secretly collects two months worth of Associated Press reporters' phone records.

• The Dennis Rodman Kim Jong Ul scandal: The basketball star-turned-ambassador murders the North Korean dictator at a charity basketball event, leading nation-wide governmental confusion which results with Rodman being appointed as the first king of North Korea. (OK, this one really didn't happen, but I would only be half surprised if it did).

The nation now more than ever needs a media that is fearless in investigating and taking down government corruption. American values cannot allow anyone's freedom of thought and speech to be audited by the IRS, or spied upon by big-brother agencies. Infringement upon personal rights must be investigated, reported, and condemned by the media. After all, if the media doesn't do it, who will?