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