Week 9: Abstracts
Local Newspaper
My hometown is Punta Gorda, Fla., and its newspaper is the Charlotte Sun Herald. When I checked the site, it seems that the Charlotte Sun hasn’t reported in a newsroom diversity report for non-white newsroom staff from 1990 through 2005. In 2004 and 2005, the non-white percentage of circulation rate was 13.2 percent. It seems Charlotte County is 90 percent white and 10 percent non-white. The 10 percent divides into 3.3 percent Hispanic, 4.2 percent black and .9 percent Asian and Pacific Islander.
In my specific zip code (33950) the average median income is around $41,000 and only 6.5 percent of the population is non-white.
Ethical Considerations of the Web Link
Bonnie Bressers presents many sides to the controversy surrounding linking in the ever-changing world of online media. Many people view “deep linking” as a form of theft because it allows viewers to access direct pages, therefore bypassing a site’s homepage and its advertisers. Others believe that banning linking violates the free flow of information that was the cornerstone of the Internet’s creation in the first place. I like the analogy that Bressers uses when she says: “Prohibiting deep-linking, they maintain, is akin to telling newspaper readers that they can’t read the sports section if they haven’t read the front page first.”
I really don’t see deep linking as a problem as long as the site is being used with the same journalistic integrity that would be used in print form. If the site is relevant to telling the story, then it should be included. And, nowadays, almost every site has advertisements on secondary pages. Just because someone doesn’t see the homepage, doesn’t mean that they aren’t getting access to paying advertisers.
Former managing editor of the New York Times on the Web Will Tacy makes a great point on how to view linking if it’s at all controversial. Writing on the Web should take the same considerations as print. Tacy says we should look at the links of controversial sites the same way we would a disturbing photo. “If it’s gratuitous, you don’t use it. If it’s vital to the understanding of the story, you do.”
I agree with Tacy. Some links are essential to telling the story, even though some might view it as controversial. Journalists should present the whole story to readers, and that sometimes means showing them something that makes them uncomfortable. And, the good thing about links is that you can warn readers before they even click.
The Murky World of Conflicts of Interest
The title of this article says it all – murky. Conflicts of interest are tricky little devils that seem to get in the way of good journalistic practices. My advice: When in doubt, you’re probably doing something conflicting. Step back and evaluate the situation. It’s like when you see guests on “The Maury Show” and they want their significant others to take lie detector tests to prove their fidelity. We all know that if you’re already accusing someone of cheating and you keep seeing all these clues and the trust is gone, why do you even need the lie detector? The relationship is over. The guest has suspicions that are more often accurate without even hearing the results.
It’s the same way with conflicts of interest. Who are you trying to kid? Yes, it’s hard to keep yourself out of the picture, especially in a profession that constantly asks you to use all the connections you have in order to get information. But, a reader can see things and lose that trust, and then they won’t even need a lie detector test to know you’re fibbing. It all comes back to that one word – murky.
Readers: Anonymous Sources Affect Media Credibility
I agree with all the ideas that readers and the Associated Press came up with to avoid anonymous sources as much as possible. They say to only use unnamed sources if they provide information and not opinion, if the information is not available except for under the conditions of anonymity and only if the source is reliable. Readers say journalists need to go out of their way to say that the source wants to remain unidentified, connect the source to the story and report how they would know that type of information and discuss all possible motives the source might have for remaining anonymous. I think these are all great rules to abide by when considering an anonymous source.
However, when the article says that readers are willing to wait longer for a more credible story, I can’t help but think that’s a lie. In today’s world of 24-hour news broadcasts and the Internet, where you can find any story you want in less than five seconds, I don’t think many readers are going to wait. We live in an instant gratification society. If you have to wait longer than two minutes for your morning coffee, you get uptight. These readers act like journalists have all the time in the world. Have they ever heard of a deadline? It’s definitely true that they want the most accurate information available, but when they say they’re willing to wait, I have to say I question that.
