What it all means now

Journalism is not just one thing. There is no one definition that describes specifically what journalism is. Some may argue this point by saying that journalism is the act of reporting and writing stories. Which, don’t get me wrong, is true but there is so much more to it. There are so many aspects of journalism that you have to take into consideration. When thinking about journalism you have to think about ethics, truth, verification, independence, power, relevance, the citizens and so much more. The tricky thing about journalism is making sure you are giving the people what they want to hear while at the same time giving them the hard facts and truth. Journalism is something that not just anyone can master. I personally believe journalism is a career. Yes journalists can be bloggers and their posts can be journalism but that is not always the case. This brings me to the next question, what is a journalist? A journalist is someone who writes articles and reports. A journalist is not just someone who posts on their blog a few times a week describing their life, with their cute families and fun experiences. Journalists, in my opinion, are people who do it for a living. These are the people who take into thought the different aspects talked about previously. True journalists are the people who know how to write, and know how to write while being ethical and honest. Journalists are those who know their limits and know what and what not to say. While coming to class and listening to all of the discussions in Principles of Journalism, I have learned all of this. I have learned that some “journalists” are not really journalists. The major point that I have learned and the one I believe to be most important is that, in order to be a true journalist and right real journalism you must me honest and true. Not only to yourself, but to the citizens and to the people or things that your article may be about.

Engagement and Relevance in Journalism

So the big question that was presented in class with this topic was, should journalists give people what they need or what they want? This is a difficult question that journalists are given everyday. Which one should it be? In a really good blog post that I found, they touched on this topic. Now I understand that it is just someone's opinion but I found it to be quite interesting and helpful. It gives both the pros and cons. In my personal opinion I think you have to give your audience a little bit of both. I think it's important they you give them what they need- hard facts and the truth. But at the same time you should add in a little bit of what they want. You should give them some excitement and something that will catch their attention. In a movie that came out not too long ago, Morning Glory, they really portray how excitement will capture viewers attention. A journalist has to make sure that they always have some sort of balance in these two. What they want and need.

Comprehensive and Proportional

In class this week we discussed comprehensive and proportional principles of journalism. A main point that we talked about that really got my attention was how journalism is very subjective because of targeted demographics. One example of this would be how the news is directly targeted towards the older generation. You never hear of kids just wanting to watch the news because its exciting to them. It is always the older people who are turning to the news. However while researching this more in depth I came across this article . It was quite interesting to read. Some other examples about how this subjectivity is used in journalism are sports, nature, traveling, and all different topics. The people who are writing these articles are going to direct them towards the people who enjoy these activities. Susan Kime is a journalist for traveling. In this article, she writes about traveling and what to do and all of that. So people who do not like traveling would have no interest in this article. I don't think that is something you can fix in journalism. People have to write about everything and some people may not like that, but they just have to deal with it and move on.

Faith & Journalism

This is quite the touchy subject to most people that live in America. or anywhere for that matter. Many people believe that God or religion should not be mentioned in public- in school, meetings, or anywhere that isn't in your home or church. So just imagining religion coming up in an article, i assume people get pretty upset. I think that if you are writing an article on religion, one should stay fairly quiet about what their personal views are. One should just state the facts and write an article because in the end thats what they are supposed to be doing anyways. I don't think it is necessary to bring religion up in every article an journalist writes just so everyone knows their stand. Also I don't think religion should be bashed like it was in this article written by Rick Reilly. Like really? does he have to say any of the stuff he did regarding mormons? Articles like that with faith involved are so stupid, and should not be aloud to be published. I think that when writing, faith and religion should only be involved if its about those topics. It should not just be brought up just to be brought up. Another example where religion has been bashed in journalism was during the whole 9/11 tragic events. The muslim faith got rejected, turned on, and talked about pretty badly. In this article you can see how they have been effected. Faith and Journalism are two topics that are hard to put together. With these two many feelings can be hurt, so you have to be very careful.

Journalism as a Public Forum

Some people can be crazy!! There are such extremes when it comes to this kind of stuff. For example to the extreme left we have Michael Moore, and to the extreme right we have Glenn Beck. These two men get people riled up. People listen and learn and normally end up very heated. Beck's personal website allows people to go and see his point of views. You are able to listen or read what he has to say. Here is a clip from Michael Moore's newer video. You can see how even though they are both journalist they are completely different. Journalism is a public forum I think is a good thing. It gets information out there, it allows people to hear things. It is a great example of freedom of speech and it is an excellent way to get people to be involved in good debates.

Ethics in Journalism

A few questions that are often asked is, What makes someone en ethical journalist? What kind of ethics rule journalism? Here is a website that has tried to rekindle old values used in the media. I think the best way to answer this question is by the four points that were presented in class: 1. Seek the truth and report it. 2. Minimize harm. 3. Act independently. 4. Be accountable. If a journalist follows theses guidelines they can almost always be ethical in their writings. For journalists I'm sure it's hard to report only the truth especially if they don't agree with it, therefore point 1 would be hard to follow, but it is doable. Just like all of the other points. To sum up everything and about how to be ethical in journalism I found the perfect video. Ethics in journalism is so important. It can either make or break a journalist. No one wants to listen or read to a journalist who is not truthful and honest.

We are Watchdogs

As journalists, our duty is to be a watchdog for the citizens. We are here to give the people the facts about what is going on in the world. We are the ones who monitor and really investigate what is going on with the government. There are many interpretations of what watchdog journalism is. The one I liked the most was found here. After researching this more and listening in class I have learned what it really means. To me it means means that watchdog journalism is basically taking information and giving it to the public. Just really watching out for the citizens.

Last week in class we discussed how the Constitution of the United States gives journalists, in the First Amendment, the freedom of the press. Therefore they can ultimately be the watchdog of the government and keep them in check by exposing what the government is doing. If journalists weren't here to make public things that go on inside the White House such as Watergate, these scandals would never get released to the public. It's possible that bad and sneaky activities would happen more often. In our book, The Elements of Journalism on page 143, Kovach and Rosenstiel stated that, "nearly nine out of ten journalists believe the press 'keeps political leaders from doing things they shouldn't do'." We, as journalists, are here to let the government know that we know what they are doing, and what we know, the public will know.

Journalists are here to investigate what goes on in the government and hold them accountable for their promises to the people. We are to watch what officials do so we can reveal lies, spin and point out bluntly when a promise is broken. We have the right to make sure everyone knows exactly what is going on.