Journalism: A Deeper Look

How Do You Photograph the Amish? Let Us Count the Ways

Let me start off by saying that this article was very well written. Liz Cox Barrett was smart when she interviewed so many different journalists to get a picture of how you can deal with touchy situations, like the one that occurred in Nickel Mines, Pa., with the Amish school shooting. She talked to local photographers, big AP photographs, and newspaper and magazine editors.

My favorite of her interviewees was AP photographer Carolyn Kaster. She’s got a great outlook on being sensitive to people’s needs and getting the picture. Yes, the event is a news story, but it’s also someone’s personal moment that you may or may not be intruding on. Kaster has a funny quote at the end of the story that is so true. “It’s a small world.” You never know what you’ll come across tomorrow. If you step on someone’s toes and then you meet then again at another event, they aren’t going to be very receptive and you may lose the shot. Journalists have a bad enough reputation as it is. It’s important especially for photojournalists to be extra sensitive. A photo certainly identifies someone and he or she might not want that.

I took a photojournalism class last year and there are a few tricks you can use to help keep the space between a grieving person and the lens. Some of the editors that Barrett interviewed used these tactics. For instance, try shooting from a distance with a long lens. That keeps the photographer from being right in a person’s face. Also, don’t single out an individual or make them completely recognizable. The Amish believe that having their picture taken is a violation of the Bible’s second commandment. The editors were able to get great shots and still keep a comfortable distance from the Amish by utilizing these techniques.

News is news, but you have to remember, at the end of the day, you’re still dealing with real people who have real feelings and real opinions.

What the F—K Are They Driving at?

This article in the CJR is hilarious. We’ve always been told as journalists to never change a quote or to paraphrase if we can’t get it right. I think the same should be said for expletives used in quotes. Gal Beckerman uses the example of Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his use of the F word in referring to former Pentagon official Douglas Feith. The New York Times ran an article, took out the expletive, and avoided any controversy over using a curse word. But, by omitting that word, it literally changes the entire interpretation of Franks’ quote. Beckerman is right when she says that it tones down his anger into mild exasperation.

I think news organizations should stick to the no expletive rule, but they should also be flexible with that rule. I’m not saying that every Jo Schmoe who uses a curse word in his interview should be printed, but high standing officials and people in the public light should be taken into consideration. A general is someone who is very high up in the military ladder and is also looked upon with respect and dignity. The fact that Franks would call Feith the “fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth” is something that people should know. And like Beckerman says, if you’re not going to print the word, then at least let the readers know that you’re not so they can make their own assertions.

You Be the Editor

My abstracts deal with taste and sensitivity, and the article “You Be the Editor” is one that asks readers for their opinions regarding some gruesome photos taken in Fallujah, Iraq. Author Roy Peter Clark lists a bunch of questions one might ask oneself when considering a horrific photo like the one the New York Times ran showing burnt and dismembered American civilians hanging from a bridge while Iraqi citizens cheer. Clark asks whether you’d print it if the bodies were military, whether they were women or children, whether they were naked, or whether or not you could distinguish a face.

While I was reading some of the responses from people, I felt the same. One person said that the media coverage of Iraqi and the war has been pretty mild, yet it’s not giving Americans a chance to see the “truth” of what’s really going on. Another reader is disgusted over the photos and says there’s really no reason to publish them except for the shock value and the desire to sell more papers. It seems that most of the responders were in favor of running the photos because they represented a news event and also helped hit home what is really going on in the Middle East.

It’s so hard to tell what I would have done in this situation if I was an editor of a major newspaper, but I think I would have leaned more toward running the bridge photo. It’s a clear indicator of the kinds of horrible things that are going on because of the chaos in Iraq and beyond. The job of a newspaper is to report the truth and let readers make their own assertions and opinions based on that information. Yes, the photo churns my stomach, but sometimes I need a little reminder of just what people are really capable of.

Regret the Error

Regret the Error is a Web site devoted to publishing corrections, errors, retractions, apologies and trends regarding accuracy in today’s media. It was started by a freelance writer from Montreal named Craig Silverman. He’s interesting in reporting on what’s going on with newspaper accuracy and honesty and how it’s portrayed to the public. Silverman started the site merely as a blog and continued from there, focusing on hilarious retractions from newspapers and other media outlets and exposing the underlying story behind the corrections. In an article published on the Poynter Online site titled “Chip on Your Shoulder,” Silverman describes Regret the Error as a tool “to help journalists see that accuracy is an enabler of great journalism. Aside from being an essential nuts and bolts aspect of how we do our job, accuracy is a key that can unlock innovative, investigative journalism.”

I really like this site because not only does it provide hysterical examples of retractions, but it also gives journalists like me a sense of just how important accuracy can be. Silverman has a “Regret Roundup” category that lists an entire year’s worth of plagiarism examples and errors made in publications.

This is such a great site to bookmark because it’s a fun way to start your day. If every journalist checked this site at the beginning of a long day of work, not only would they be more focused on accuracy, but they would also be getting a kick out of what is actually being printed on some newspapers. Silverman makes it harder for news organizations to be unaccountable for their actions. He even points out major corporations that do not have corrections pages listed online (i.e. CBS News, ABC news, and CNN).

Accountability Journalism: Liberating Reporters and the Truth

I like when Jim Romenesko talks about reporting on what some political candidates say. It may be spin or distortion, but that doesn’t mean we’re obligated to report it. I think the line between fair comment and accountability could be blurry in some situations. It’s good to know that reporters don’t have to report everything that’s being said. It’s better to be fair and honest and accurate.

I also like the idea of putting in a calendar posting for a political story you may have covered. Romenesko says to make sure you follow up and see what actually did happen to the proposed bill, jury verdict, political claim, etc. I think that’s an awesome idea. Journalists are busy people who have a lot to think and write about. A simple thing like adding an entry on an electronic calendar makes it all the more easy to keep track of important information for readers.

Romenesko also goes into detail about how reporters often rely on politicians and officials to tell us what really happened and don’t go any further with the information. He quotes another man, John Dowling, as saying that stories become a “he said/she said” article that lack the truth and evidence that readers need. That’s a great point. It harkens back to the articles I’ve read about being accountable and backing up claims by asking questions and getting more sources. Journalists have got to go the extra mile to make sure the reader is really aware of what’s going on. It’s so easy to take the short route and print a story that looks, essentially, like a fully flushed out piece, but often times there’s something below the surface that hasn’t even been scratched. It’s a reporter’s job to figure out what’s there.

The Political Power of Words: Emerging Writers

Dean Powers wrote an article for The Nation about how the words regarding politics can often be a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He says journalists tend to use words that over generalize the facts. Powers says that writers and editors must be much more vigilant of the kinds of sentences being published in their newspapers, and he also says they should be holding stricter standers for the words that might lead to confusion.

It’s a good point to make that journalists often use shorthand buzzwords to describe something that is so complex and full of misinterpretations because it’s easier. We’re taught to be concise and to the point, and by using those words, we can be short. It’s easier to use words like “conservative” and “liberal” rather than writing out a sentence, or sentences, to truly give the readers a sense of exactly what they mean.

A good piece of advice is the article says journalists shouldn’t let their sources influence the way they write. Journalists have to be accountable and honest about what’s really going on.

I was also impressed with the paragraphs about how two colors, red and blue, can be so totally inaccurate at describing the opinions of the nation, but yet they are highly used. It’s silly to think that a person could fit perfectly into one set of political beliefs. Often people tend to be more “conservative” about some issues and more “liberal” on others.

Basically, journalists should avoid words with political baggage that can skew the real news.

Math for Journalists

If I had a dollar for every time I heard journalism students say they weren’t good at math, I’d be a millionaire. Bob Baker’s “Math for Journalists” is an awesome reference for those are somewhat lacking in the mathematical department. He’s got great examples that come directly from Jack Robinson of the L.A. Times that include a sentence and a formula showing how to calculate the percentage change, median, average and ratio. Every journalist should have this article printed out or bookmarked. Plus, he’s got links to other sites like an automatic percentage calculator or a math quiz you can take.

I think that editors and reporters should be required to take some sort of math quiz every so often to help keep their math skills fresh. It should be part of on-going training like you would have your employees attend a seminar. Yes, it’s hard to remember all that “stuff” you learned eons ago in a high school classroom, but that’s no excuse to be incompetent. Like Baker says, “We pay them [reporters] to be good at making sense of the world – which includes expressing simple mathematical relationships.”

A Billion People Can Be Wrong

Steve Rushin’s “A Billion People Can Be Wrong” is absolutely hilarious. His article just goes to show you can’t believe everything you see and everything you read. It’s like a saying I heard in my journalism ethics class last semester – if your mother says she loves you, check it out. Rushin talks about how many news organizations report that 1 billion people watched the Super Bowl. He goes on to explain that this really can’t be the case because only 86.1 million Americans watched last year’s Super Bowl, according to Nielsen Media Research, and only 3.1 million Canadians watched it. He also points out that football isn’t played in countries outside of North America and is also broadcast at all hours of the day and night in those countries.

Basically, the numbers don’t add up. What started out as a comment from the NFL saying the Super Bowl had the potential to reach a billion people became a sure-fire truth in the media coverage.

News organizations need to be careful with that they see, hear and get from the wire services. Just because another source published or broadcast a story doesn’t mean there’s no need to fact check. Always double check and always do the math! More fact-checking and simple calculations equal more credibility.

Calling for Back-Up

Richard Chacon argues, in his article “Calling for Back-Up,” that op-ed pages must be held to the strict standards for sourcing and attribution put in place for news pages. He cites three op-ed pieces that ran in The Boston Globe written by Jeffrey Halper, Robert Kuttner and Robert Kennedy Jr. that claimed certain truths but then never or hardly cited where the information came from.

I definitely couldn’t agree with Chacon more. Everything printed in a newspaper’s pages should be attributed and sourced. It’s just good, journalist practice. Chacon says that even though op-ed articles are based generally on opinion and often one-sided it doesn’t mean the authors should skimp on their sources.

Chacon writes of a tip from Kuttner about sourcing each piece of information in brackets along the sides of the column to let the editor know exactly where the idea came from. Then, make it the editor’s choice whether or not to run the comment. I think that’s a great idea. It all harks back to the issue of credibility. Lack of trust in the media today is at an all-time high. When newspapers place tighter standards on the products of their writers and editors, it will send a message of credibility and honesty to the public.

Case Study: Violent Crime Increases in Gainesville

When I first read this story, I was completely overwhelmed by the amount of numbers, percentages and dates there were! I had to read some of the sentences over again just to absorb all the information. I think the idea of this article is a great one. Readers in Gainesville should know what’s going on criminally in the city, but the article is all wrong.

First, I would eliminate all of the national statistics just because it makes the article even more confusing. Secondly, I would always double check the math. After calculating the numbers from the story and the numbers in the corresponding graph, they didn’t add up. The lead says Gainesville saw a 19 percent increase in violent crime and a 59 percent increase in robberies. But if you check the graph, the numbers indicate a 16 percent increase in violent crime and a 57 percent increase in robberies. At this point, I would contact the writer of the story to see which set of numbers was correct. Also, the sentence “Murder and arson reports doubled compared to 2005,” is a bit sensationalistic. Murder went from 1 to 2 reports and arson went from 2 to 4 reports. Unless the reader looked at the corresponding graph to get the actual figures, he or she wouldn’t have context of the situation and think the figures were worse.

As we discussed in class, it’s really important to double check the math in any article. Just because we’re journalists doesn’t give any of us an excuse to get figures wrong. Also, when you are writing about percentages, it’s a good idea to provide the original figures to provide context for the reader. It will help avoid confusion and sensationalism like the murder and arson sentence.

After finishing the story, I was left wondering a few things. This story could have gone in some many different directions that would have provided the reader with a more comprehensive sense of the situation. Sgt. Keith Kameg says that the increase from 2005 to 2006 has a lot to do with an increase of people reporting things they see. Why is that? Also, a story that provides an even more localized story that touches on the increase of population in direct correlation to an increase in crime would have been a good avenue to explore. Instead of having a boring article that basically lists all sorts of numbers and percentages, the writer could have gotten a much more interesting article out of all these figures.