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.

Journalist as an idealouge

A common question that comes up when talking about journalism is often this: How do we leave our biases behind when we begin a story? Personally, I think the best way to avoid biases is to make sure that the facts you have are true and good. Also it is necessary that you present the material in the story from all sides. But often times, it is not possible to leave biases at the door. There are moments when, as journalists, we can take advantage of biases to create well rounded stories. Stories don't always have to be neutral. In this article about journalism, it talks about how biases are used and common forms of them.

However it is commonly understood that biases are only seen in stories, that is not true. Ethnocentrism, or a belief in one's own values, as we talked about in class, and is also discussed in the book The Mind of a Journalist, often has an effect on what type of stories we choose. Here is an excellent study done that proves that point. Right away in our class discussion, we were able to see that there is not only biases in the stories we write, but even in just the choice of the story itself. How can we solve this problem and remove the bias? Or should it even be solved? These are questions that many of us wonder as journalists and personally, I don't think there is really an answer.

Verification in Journalism

Verification is a HUGE part of being a writer. You can not just put information that you came up with and call it done. NO! They have to be legitimate facts. The definition of verification can be found here, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verification. In previous chapters, we have talked about truth in journalism and who a journalist really is and all of that good stuff. I think this chapter added another aspect to that and in a way brought it all together. Without verification, truth is not evident. If a journalist were to write an article with made up facts that could not be verified it would completely and totally eliminate any truth that could possibly be found. Also I believe most people can be a journalist, but I do not believe that journalists can be liars. I am big on integrity and honest people, so I will not ever think that a journalist can be a liar. In the book I like the quote from page 79 that says, "The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification." A very good example of an article with verification is found here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/fashion/02dior.html?_r=1&hp. This is an article in the New York Times. It has credible sources and hard facts that are true. Christian Dior himself spoke, and that is who the article was about. I do not believe that verification is a grey subject at all. It is very black and white and not hard to get confused. You either have the facts or you make them up.