Journalism: A Deeper Look

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.

Before You Publish a Rape Victim’s Name

Kelly McBride has great insight on how to deal with whether or not to publish a rape victim’s name. I agree with her idea on contacting lots of people with different opinions to help better understand the ramifications of printing those names. You can really get a sense of just how the simple act of putting someone’s name in print can have on his or her life by asking people who are directly involved in the healing process.

McBride says something interesting about the subculture that is created by those involved in rapes and how they distrust law enforcement, the education system and the media. I wonder if it’s because they become jaded with “the system” because of what happened to them. I think it’s important for journalists to be sensitive to something as horrific as a rape and how much it really does affect a person’s life. Another thing we as journalists sometimes forget is how many other people are affected — the victim’s family, friends, co-workers and industry professionals.

Later on in the article, McBride talks about how most of the rape cases go unreported because there tends to be haziness on the policy about whether or not to print names. The biggest stories about rape are “sagas about kidnappings and brutal violence,” she says. I think news organizations often sensationalize these types of stories and report on them hour after hour, day after day.

By creating a set policy on what to do with rape stories, McBride says a news organization will be more willing to publish information because there will be less confusion about the policy. Most plans are vague at best and that leads people to be wary of even considering publication. McBride says to have a meeting with law enforcement, grief counselors, rape survivors and reporters to help come up with a plan. I think this is the best idea. Each person can bring his or her personal experience to the meeting and help develop a policy that is the most effective — news wise and sensitivity wise.

Also, having regular contact with victim’s advocates, law enforcement and the like will help reporters develop a relationship that will lead to increased trust and cooperation in the future. Better understanding means better sources and better reporting.

Smarter Crime Coverage

Crime can be such a tricky subject. As journalists, we’ve got to know the difference between a robbery, theft and burglary, but we also have to walk that fine line between wrongly connecting someone to a crime and avoiding police jargon. It’s a tough beat. Al Tompkins’ article “Smarter Crime Coverage” is a good reference for things to look out for.

He says to cover crime trends just as much, if not more, than individual cases. That’s an interesting concept because I’ve always believed it was better to make a story more relatable to readers by providing a “face” to the story. But I guess Tompkins has a point. Readers want to know what’s going on because the event may or may not be an isolated incident. By reporting trends, you’ll be giving readers context to the situation.

I also like Tompkins’ point on avoiding production techniques. He says to be careful with how you use slow motion, dramatic lighting, framing and backgrounds because it can give off an unintentional tone or mood. I definitely agree. Journalists are supposed to remain objective and by using sensationalized production techniques, readers might think the news source has all ready made a judgment about the story.

Security on Campus, Inc.

In 1986, Jeanne Cleary was beaten, raped and murdered in her Leigh University dorm room. A fellow classmate, whom Jeanne did not know, walked into the dorm through three open doors which should have been locked. He was attempting to rob her while she slept. In the wake of this tragedy, Connie and Howard Cleary started Security on Campus, Inc. in the hopes that students and their families would have the most accurate data on criminal activity on university and college campuses nationwide. The organization seeks to prevent violence, substance abuse and other crimes and to assist victims.

SOC was recognized in 1998 by the Society of Professional Journalists with its First Amendment Award because of SOC’s work to have greater access to crime records at colleges and universities. SOC helped pass the Jeanne Cleary Act which requires colleges and universities to disclose important information on crimes and campus safety. As journalists, we want the greatest access to important documents so that we can report the most accurate, relevant stories to the public. SOC is one organization that is making the job of news reporting a little easier by helping pass legislature for more disclosure.

SOC has created a special tab on its homepage specifically for reporters. It offers press releases, links to a searchable database, a “how-to” for reporters trying to find out exactly what types of data must be released by colleges and universities, and a link to find out what campus police officers are doing in any given area to prevent criminal activity.

This Web site is an incredible resource for students, parents and journalists. SOC has compiled a searchable database of crime statistics from more than 6,000 institutions starting in 1997. Reporters can use this when they are looking for trends on campuses or trying to supplement an article with statistics from a reliable source. The site also gives instructions on how to file a Jeanne Cleary Act complaint if a college or university is not disclosing the proper information. The SOC also publishes “Campus Watch” newsletter with the latest news regarding campus safety and crimes. This would be a great newsletter to subscribe to because it might lead to some interesting topics for stories.

Case Study: Jimmy’s World

There’s nothing worse than reading a story about an 8-year-old heroin addict. But what if you read the story and then found out it wasn’t even true? Janet Cooke had us all fooled when she wrote a gut-wrenching story about Jimmy and his drug-filled existence. She even won a Pulitzer Price for her work. Come to find out, her Washington Post article was all a lie. She was stripped of her Pulitzer and fired from her job. In class, we discussed what might have tipped off a copy editor and how he or she could have avoided this embarrassment.

The first thing I noticed was that Jimmy was pretty darn insightful for an 8-year-old. He knew a lot about business and the way the world works, which you wouldn’t expect from a boy who is supposedly addicted to heroin and has been shooting up for three years. Cooke also failed to get more sources. Why didn’t she contact his teachers or neighbors? Surely they would have noticed the needle marks in his arm and would have wanted to comment on it for fear of the boy’s safety. Also, Cooke talks about how Jimmy doesn’t go to school much. How is he not behind a grade?

She also makes huge overgeneralizations, especially when it comes to race. The mother is quoted as saying “drugs and black folk been together for a very long time,” and he dialect often switches from proper English to slang. Cooke’s descriptions of the house and surrounding area are inconsistent. His “comfortably furnished home” doesn’t fit with the ghetto description she’s trying to paint of the neighborhood. Another observation I made was the fact that heroin is an expensive habit. Why two heroin addicts would waste their drugs on a small child doesn’t seem to add up to me. Also, why would all these other addicts let a reporter watch them shooting up? Cooke writes, “Every day, junkies casually buy heroin from Ron, his mother’s live-in-lover, in the dining room of Jimmy’s home. They ‘cook’ it in the kitchen and ‘fire up’ in the bedrooms.” I find it hard to believe that people who are doing illegal activities would want a reporter anywhere near them, especially when they are shooting up an 8-year-old boy.

How Janet Cooke would have heard about Jimmy in the first place was a red flag. I doubt many people who go around boasting about an 8-year-old heroin addict they know of. Also, if I was a copy editor on this story, I would want to be able to contact this boy to get him help. Readers would definitely want to make sure he was taken care of and police would probably want to step in. Let this be a lesson to all the copy editors out there. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions.

Skeptical Editing

Reid MaCluggage has some interesting comments in his article titled “Skeptical Editing.” First off, the fact that journalism’s weakness could even be considered as an occasional dishonest reporter boggles my mind. Just to be clear, he isn’t saying this is a weakness, but the fact that many people believe it to be true is ridiculous. I don’t even know why the world of journalism should have a problem with dishonest reporters. Journalism is all about reporting the truth. Having the words dishonest and journalism in the same sentence seems like an oxymoron to me, but alas, they do some times go hand in hand.

I wish our journalism courses taught us to be more skeptical from the beginning. I feel like my writing would have been much better had I known more, but I guess learning just the basics of reporting was enough stress as it is.

MaCluggage says journalism’s greatest weakness is unchallenged information and skepticism should be the biggest part of the editing function. He also says that to uphold skeptical editing, a newsroom should appoint a devil’s advocate to each piece. That way each story has a naysayer who will feel comfortable in saying the things that maybe no one else will. I think this is a great idea. By designating someone to critique the work, he or she will feel more inclined to step out of the comfort zone and accomplish the task of skeptical editing.

I also agree with his point on making journalists understand the “mysterious world of mathematics.” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone jokingly say that the only reason they were pursuing a career in journalism was because they didn’t get that whole science and math thing. And the funny thing is I’ve probably said it before, too. Since I got to college I haven’t taken one single math course. And why would I need to? Well, because of this sentence right here: “He devoted probably two-thirds of his playlist to material from ‘Simplicity,” another third or so to his own past recordings and another third to classic Allmans.”

Joint Operating Agreements:

Essentially, the joint operating agreements we put into effect to help small daily newspapers stay afloat. Nowadays, it seems like the idea is sort of antiquated. With the decline of newspapers in relationship to 24-hour-a-day news broadcasts and instant access to online news sources, I think the joint operating agreements are on their way out. I don’t think, however, they were necessarily a good idea in respect to the lack of view points that could and have been made available to the public. By consolidating small newspapers under the names of huge publications, i.e. The New York Times, smaller papers take on the voices of the parent company. There’s nothing worse than stifling a voice.

Meet the News Face of Hyperlocal Journalism:

This whole concept of hyperlocal journalism is really exciting. What Debbie Galant and Baristanet are doing is the new face of journalism. I love the fact that readers can post comments directly relating to news postings and can also give ideas about future stories. By having more of an open connection with readers, the dialogue and possibilities are endless. Essentially, journalists are in charge of getting information to the public, and what better way to do that then asking them directly what they’d like to read about? Like Galant said, they are trying to provoke thought and conversation and to have an open channel in which the public can criticize the work they are doing.

One great thing about hyperlocal journalism and journalism on the internet (specifically blogs) is that people are all about instant gratification. We want something when we want it, and we’re not going to wait. Take, for example, cell phones and other communication devices. What was once a home phone or work phone has now become a cell phone, a Blackberry or texting. We want to communicate instantly – plain and simple – and if you don’t pick up your phone or answer your e-mail or text back, the other person is upset because he or she can’t reach you. By putting news online, readers can access it at a convenient time for them and not have to sit around for a 6 o’clock news broadcast or the morning edition of a paper. It’s time journalism step up to the plate, and things like hyperlocal journalism are doing just that.

One thing I don’t agree with is OJR’s comment regarding the accuracy, grammatical and factual, of online blogs. Because leading news sources are stepping into the online world and blogging, there should still be industry standards. A news source is a news source and there is no excuse for errors. If people are relying on this information to help them in their day-to-day lives, it should be flawless no matter what the medium may be.

‘Potemkin Village’ Redux:

Grassroots journalism and hyperlocal journalism are in the developmental stages. Of course not all of the chinks have been hammered out, but it’s still up and coming. The idea behind it is to create a community forum, if you will, so that viewers can get their news from a local source and really have an impact on what’s being reported and talked about. And while Tom Grubisich has seen some changes in the way the grassroots sites have progressed, there are still some things that need work and will only be fixed over time. The more they become available to the public, the higher the viewership will be and the more successful they’ll become at news sources. It all takes time.

Common Sense Journalism:

Doug Fisher’s article talks a lot about how to make journalism more about the people. By employing “mobile journalists,” allowing for more personal input with comments on a blog, and really trying to think like one of your viewers/readers, Fisher says you’re really using common sense. I couldn’t agree more. Like I said before, the new focus of journalism has been leaning toward the Internet and I think it’s great. Readers can comment, criticize and suggest ideas that will directly impact the way the news source is being run. It seems like news reporting is taking a turn toward the service industry attitude – give the customer what he or she wants. And while it’s not that cut and dry with news reporting, having some feedback, good or bad, is essential in the process of creating a successful business.

Eagle Snatches Dog – Case Study:

Ah, the infamous eagle (or some other animal) snatching a dog (or some other small animal) story. This is proof enough that journalists should be more skeptical. The fact that no one ever raised any questions as to why the story had only one source or why they never got the name of the couple – or the dog for that matter – boggles my mind.

Sources and anecdotes make a story more credible, and this story clearly is lacking both. While we all want to read something amazing, fascinating and cool, journalists should never overlook the minor details that make up such an incredible story. This is precisely why, like MaCluggage says, we should designate a naysayer to each article before it even gets off the ground.