What is a Journalists?

To me a journalist is somebody who likes to know what is going on in the world.  This could be locally, nationally, internationally, or all of the above.  Not only do they like to be aware of what is happening they want to find out more and in turn want to share that information with others.

A journalist is an observer and a writer.  They take interest in what is happening and want to make that knowledge known.  They need to be self motivated and need to have a strong desire to get the story.  This semester I've learned that journalism is a lot of work, however when done the right way it can be very rewarding.

A journalist is someone who cares enough to want to make a difference.  There are plenty of people who want change to happen but aren't willing to put for the effort necessary for the change to happen.  A journalist is someone who takes the initiative and puts forth effort to see the change become a reality.  This specifically refers to investigative journalism.  When we did the Pulitzer assignment I chose the investigative category.  The work that Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker did on toxic ingredients in medicine and everyday products imported from China led to crackdowns by American and Chinese officials.  There efforts made big changes and made the world a safer and better place on a global level.

http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2008-Investigative-Reporting-Group1

The way that we receive and process media has significantly changed in the past decade with technological advances such as smart phones and the use of social media.  However, the need for good, accurate journalism is still absolutely necessary in the world today.  

The importance of Objectivity

Philip Meyer is a Knight Professor at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina.  He defines Objectivity as standing so far from the community that you see all events and all viewpoints as equally distant and important or unimportant.  It is implemented by giving equal weight to all viewpoints and assertions.  The result is a laying out of facts in a sterile, noncommittal manner, and then standing back to let the reader decide which view is true.  

Objectivity helps journalists stay detached from the people and events that they are covering.  As discussed previously the purpose of journalism is to provide the citizens with enough information to make their own opinions and decisions.   If a journalist gets too involved in a story and begins to take a side then that is not supplying the citizens with the proper information to make the decision for themselves.  

Objectivity is a very important part of journalism.  It can be hard to achieve but is worth it in the end to achieve the purpose of journalism.  It provides a framework for journalists to function ethically because it gives citizens fair, accurate information without being too one-sided.    


http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/ire95pj.htm

motivation to be a journalist

I've always enjoyed knowing what is happening around me.  Whether it be in the paper or on the news, I have always liked to be aware of what's going on locally and in the world.  I've also always enjoyed reading and writing, being a journalists you are able to do both of those a lot.  I think good journalism is really important.  It's important to be honest and inform the public with enough information so that they able to make their own judgments and decisions based on the information.

At first I was interested in writing for a magazine or for a paper.  However, this last semester I've become more interested in broadcast journalism.  I've always enjoyed watching the news growing up and I've always been curious as to how the newsroom works.  I'd like to be involved in the news room and to be able to report on issues and events.  I didn't realize how much writing is involved with broadcast journalism.  I thought that reporters just simply reported but they also write as well as report.  I think I would enjoy the balance of writing and being on camera reporting.

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/27244/tips-for-getting-started-in-broadcast-journalism/

The flip-flop...Really?

The podiatric dangers of flip-flops

By Rachel Saslow, Published: May 2, 2011 in the Washington Post

In this article Saslow points out the dangers of wearing flip-flops.  When I think about the dangers of flip-flops, I immediately think to my self what dangers could be associated with flip-flops?  I mean you could say that there are dangers of walking around with or without shoes on.  The fact that flip-flops are posed to be dangerous to people is completely ridiculous and blown out of proportion.

"A few years ago, he broke his right big toe after slamming his foot into a rock while hiking in New Hampshire in his favorite summertime footwear."

Seriously?  Anyone who makes the decision to go hiking in flip-flops is already putting themselves at risk.  This individual refers to flip-flops as his favorite summertime footwear.  Flip flops leave your whole foot exposed except for the sole.  Obviously going hiking in flip-flops is going to have risks for your feet, ankles, etc...  If you hurt yourself while hiking in flip-flops I feel like it's your fault, not the flip-flops.  This individual put himself in danger, the flip-flops didn't contribute to him being in any sort of danger.  

"Flip-flops also leave the feet unprotected and exposed to the elements, which can mean cold toes, sunburns, cuts and bruises."

I feel like these facts are so blatant and obvious there is no point of even using them.  I mean if you wear flip-flops it's common sense that your feet are going to be unprotected and exposed to the elements.  It's not like some new information about the product has been released that no one has known about.  

In my opinion the fact that this story was actually published in the Washington Post is ridiculous. However being that it was published, I would recommend the author to not categorize the flip-flop as dangerous.  The author could rather write an article about what activities are appropriate while wearing the flip-flop.  The author could also write about how much time your feet should be spent wearing flip-flops on a day or week basis.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health/the-podiatric-dangers-of-flip-flops/2011/03/22/AFCNVobF_story.html

   

Sensationalism

Sensationalism is an editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in the news over exaggerated.  Sensationalism can be controversial, shocking, attention grabbing, and can be published to attract readers regardless of whether the information is accurate or informative. 

Sensationalism is nothing new.  Mitchell Stephens is a Professor at New York University.  In his book “A History of News” he writes that sensationalism has been around ever since early humans began telling stories, ones that invariably focused on sex and conflict.

Journalists, however don't need to fall victim to using sensationalism in their work.  A well written title and lead can get enough attention if the event or issue is in fact significant or interesting.  I feel journalists need to build their reputations around the quality of their writing.  If they develop a good reputation based on their work then they don't have to worry about using sensationalism to grab reader's attention.

Even though Journalists don't need to use sensationalism to get readers, sensationalism is still a tool that works in getting people's attention.  We experience sensationalism everyday whether we notice it or not.  Whether it is your friend telling you about their date last night, or you find yourself telling your parents about how swamped you are with school, we all fall victim to sensationalism.  When we are telling people information it's natural to want to make it sound as exciting and interesting as possible to get the attention of our audience.  

Public Forums

A public forum is also known as a marketplace of ideas.  With modern technology and the internet it's become easier than ever to express one's opinion.  These public forums present a great opportunity for people to present their ideas and have discussions.  However people can say what ever they want, and that can mean less thinking and just simply looking to make an argument.  

Christine Chinlund of the Boston Globe states, "True, technology gives us the potential for a more open debate than ever before, and that should excite the little “d” democrat in all of us. But the new communication format, the authors warn us, already has demonstrated that the “urge to comment replaces the urge to verify.” It is often more about delivering news (and concurrent comment) than gathering it. As a result, it devalues expertise—thus, the rise of inexperienced young pseudo-expert commentators (sometimes misconstrued by viewers as being journalists) who are the rage today."

I think people get too excited about their comments before they actually think them through.  Before people comment on forums they should check their facts and use the system of verification.  If more people did this, it would provide a better environment for debate and would add more quality to the discussions.  

Chinlund says, "As if all of this were not enough to discourage public participation in the forum, one final thing might: Call it the “food fight” factor. Too many of today’s talk shows proceed on the theory that everyone likes a good fight. Polarization, not conversation, become the defining principle. We forget that the job of journalism is not just to foster an exchange of ideas, but to make that exchange a civil one in which truth is a requirement."

I think Journalists should provide a public forum, however it is out of the journalists cannot control who says what.  If I was the journalists providing the forum I would encourage people to review their comments and check their facts before posting.  

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101687/Is-Journalism-Losing-Its-Place-in-the-Boisterous-Public-Forum.aspx

The importance of verification

According to Kovach and Resentiel being neutral isn't a core principle of Journalism.  When trying to accomplish the truth and informing citizens, independence is the key, not neutrality.    

"The second implication is that this neutral voice, without a discipline of verification  is a veneer atop something hollow.  Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in deception.  This damages the credibility of the whole profession by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest  and biased.  This is an important caution in an age when the standards of the press are in doubt (Kovach, 83)."


One of the most important parts of journalism is verification.  Especially in this present time where the standards of the news are in doubt.  From what I've learned about the importance of verification, it is essential in today's world or journalism.  If one wants to be respected and to maintain a good reputation, verification is crucial.  Journalists not being neutral doesn't really effect my perspective of the news.  I feel that good journalists do their best to get all the facts of both sides of the story.  They verify their facts and then try to inform the public of event or issue the best that they can.  They are dedicated to bringing the citizens accurate information.  

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102544/Journalists-Must-Maintain-an-Independence-From-Those-They-Cover.aspx