I've had the privilege in the past three days to talk extensively with two of the best, working American writers: Kurt Eichenwald and Edward Hirsch. Hirsch is one of the most famous American poets living today, has written six books of poetry, and is currently the president of the Guggenheim foundation. Eichenwald has been an investigative reporter at the NYTimes for over 15 years, and is one of the leading business reporters in the nation. He regularly covers topics outside of business, and has written several books about journalism and business.
Eichenwald visited campus to accept a Payne award for his ethical decision making during the reporting of a story about the increase in teenage porn entrepreneurs. He also visited the news room and hung around, graciously sharing two hours of his time with us joker student journalists at the ODE. At one point, I was sitting in a room with just Eichenwald and one other staff member and Eichenwald recounted many war stories of over two decades in journalism. At one pause in the conversation, I mentioned how it's always helpful to listen to seasoned journalists relate their stories because journalism is all about experential learning. Eichenwald disagreed.
"If you notice, I've told you several stories from when I was in college," Eichenwald said.
Having more experience doesn't necessarily confer talent or ability, it just means you've been around longer, he said. It's about how you use your experience and what you learn from it. One of his main lessons he's learned over the years is to never stop asking, "how can I see this differently? what are the different angles?" In effect, he never stops asking questions. And he never stops looking for answers to those questions. Eichenwald said he follows his gut instinct and judgment, which in effect is what it means to be a journalist in society. Our job is to use our judgment to follow up on stories and pursue information with a dogged tenacity so that society will constantly be better-informed. It was inspiring how much Eichenwald actually believed in the importance of journalism in a time when so many people rag on the institution.
Of particular inspiration was his answer to my co-worker's question about how to infilitrate the giant fortress known as the UO administration: you're not thinking hard enough. There are people who have those answers, they just don't know it. It's your job to find them. You don't have to call the press secretary to talk to them. Find their office and go chat with them.
"Recognize people's humanity and treat them as such. They are not tools for you to use. Too many journalists view sources as a means. They will never get the story," he said.
Hirsch visited campus the same week to judge the undergraduate creative writing contest. I was selected as one of ten finalists for the poetry competition, but didn't win. All of the creative writing tutorial participants had the opportunity to meet with Hirsch and ask him questions about writing, the future of creative writing given the anti-intellectual culture rampent in the States, and what it means to be a creative writer. He was one of the most engaging, accessible visiting poets I've met this year, and he had a similar take on his vocation to Eichenwald: commit to your passion and never stop following up on the leads, talents and projects you begin. Years of experience will serve as a gardner, pruning away the branches that aren't as strong, and in doing so, will strengthen your abilities.
What I particularly liked about Hirsch's talk was his advice to dedicate time every day to writing, it's about making a commitment, a habit of writing every day. While I haven't been able to make that commitment, I've definitely been writing more than my entire life and actually like some of what's coming out.
Talking to these two men who've dedicated their lives to writing, albeit two different types, inspired me to keep with it. I think writing found me, but now I need to keep writing alive and healthy in my life. When I think of my future, writing, in some form, is always there. It was inspiring and refreshing to meet two people who have made the same choice and to see how that choice is playing out in their lives.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
What is a Journalist?
A professional journalist working for a professional media source such as a newspaper, TV station, magazine or radio goes through an editing process in which several other pairs of eyes review the material, checking accuracy, fairness, coherence, and balance, something that bloggers do not have to go through. Bloggers can insert themselves and their opinion freely throughout their presentation of facts. In some ways, this is a positive development in journalism because its finally admitting that journalists are humans with opinions too, but its dangerous too because bloggers are good at presenting their opinions as facts, which is why scandals get blown out of proportion and people believe them even after they're proven false. But reading the correction isn't as juicy as reading the first-day's story or the most recent blog.
I was chatting with a photographer at the Emerald about the question of what is a journalist and to whom should the Shield Laws apply. He brought up a good point: just because something is in print doesn't necessarily make the publication journalism. Example: journals of news/opinion like our campus publications, The Commentator and The Insurgent. The Insurgent link is a bit old, but the most recent on the Web.
Technically, these two publications provide news, from a certain perspective, and call themselves journalist's and are part of the campus media. If they were to publish an investigative piece that blew open a huge controversy, surely they would be called on to reveal their sources. I wonder, would the shield laws protect them? I think that media that should be protected under the shield laws are ones where the journalists undergo a thorough editing process in which both the journalist and editors are all working under the same ethics, as defined by the various journalism societies like Society of Professional Journalists, etc. As much as the public may not believe that journalists are actually trying to help society, there are many who are, who work according to a set of ethics and standards that hold objectivity, truth, fairness, balance and accuracy as the tenets of journalism. To live up to these tenets, they go through processes while reporting, writing and editing to ensure that the story presented is one that most accurately reflects what happened or is happening. I don't think bloggers abide by those same standards.
I think bloggers and journalists are different, fundamentally. Bloggers are an opportunity to tell a news story from the perspective of someone involved. I don't think they should try to be journalists in the same way that professional journalists are. I think bloggers should play up their strengths: immediacy, opinion, reflection, subjectivity. By blurring the line too much between these two worlds, we're only going to decrease both's validity.
I was chatting with a photographer at the Emerald about the question of what is a journalist and to whom should the Shield Laws apply. He brought up a good point: just because something is in print doesn't necessarily make the publication journalism. Example: journals of news/opinion like our campus publications, The Commentator and The Insurgent. The Insurgent link is a bit old, but the most recent on the Web.
Technically, these two publications provide news, from a certain perspective, and call themselves journalist's and are part of the campus media. If they were to publish an investigative piece that blew open a huge controversy, surely they would be called on to reveal their sources. I wonder, would the shield laws protect them? I think that media that should be protected under the shield laws are ones where the journalists undergo a thorough editing process in which both the journalist and editors are all working under the same ethics, as defined by the various journalism societies like Society of Professional Journalists, etc. As much as the public may not believe that journalists are actually trying to help society, there are many who are, who work according to a set of ethics and standards that hold objectivity, truth, fairness, balance and accuracy as the tenets of journalism. To live up to these tenets, they go through processes while reporting, writing and editing to ensure that the story presented is one that most accurately reflects what happened or is happening. I don't think bloggers abide by those same standards.
I think bloggers and journalists are different, fundamentally. Bloggers are an opportunity to tell a news story from the perspective of someone involved. I don't think they should try to be journalists in the same way that professional journalists are. I think bloggers should play up their strengths: immediacy, opinion, reflection, subjectivity. By blurring the line too much between these two worlds, we're only going to decrease both's validity.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
What is blogging?
"A Weblog is focused on finding and linking to the work of others as opposed to original reporting. Romenesko is aimed at the journalism community, a group that’s pretty sophisticated about appraising sources of information. Poynter has made a conscious decision to alert those journalists/readers to journalism news without characterizing the quality of the information. We leave it to the readers to judge the reliability of the original material," according to Romenesko Blog
"As hard as the media tries to be inclusive, we cannot be all things to all people. So why not invite people to be all things to each other? By asking community members to create weblogs, you could include a wide range of views on your website -- broader and deeper than you could possibly include in print or on the air for every story -- and measure success not just by pageviews or revenue, but by the increased diversity of your coverage," according to Julie Moos's Blog
So blogging, at least the type that isn't just someone's personal online diary, seems to be an opportunity to actually democratize the media. Why aren't the communities frequently excluded from news coverage jumping on board with the blogging trend? Why aren't newspaper taking this potentially revolutionary trend more seriously? Does it threaten the printed word?
I think many print journalists are afraid for the future of newspapers and magazines because of the growing popularity of online, grassroots journalism. They believe online journalism will make their printed word obsolete. But fearing the trend won't make it go away. Their fear will ensure their obsoleteness, in fact, because they will refuse to embrace the trend, to strengthen their professional "objective" work with a more personal, "subjective" reflection on their work.
I think too, that the point about giving sub-communities their own Web log under the bigger community's web space is a great idea. It would empower people to cover themselves in their own words and would strengthen both the newspaper's coverage and also trust as an accurate reflection of the community. I would love to work for a newspaper that hosted blogs from its readers.
"As hard as the media tries to be inclusive, we cannot be all things to all people. So why not invite people to be all things to each other? By asking community members to create weblogs, you could include a wide range of views on your website -- broader and deeper than you could possibly include in print or on the air for every story -- and measure success not just by pageviews or revenue, but by the increased diversity of your coverage," according to Julie Moos's Blog
So blogging, at least the type that isn't just someone's personal online diary, seems to be an opportunity to actually democratize the media. Why aren't the communities frequently excluded from news coverage jumping on board with the blogging trend? Why aren't newspaper taking this potentially revolutionary trend more seriously? Does it threaten the printed word?
I think many print journalists are afraid for the future of newspapers and magazines because of the growing popularity of online, grassroots journalism. They believe online journalism will make their printed word obsolete. But fearing the trend won't make it go away. Their fear will ensure their obsoleteness, in fact, because they will refuse to embrace the trend, to strengthen their professional "objective" work with a more personal, "subjective" reflection on their work.
I think too, that the point about giving sub-communities their own Web log under the bigger community's web space is a great idea. It would empower people to cover themselves in their own words and would strengthen both the newspaper's coverage and also trust as an accurate reflection of the community. I would love to work for a newspaper that hosted blogs from its readers.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Journalism or farming?
I've been reading this pop-culture science book called "The Long Emergency" about many of the struggles and challenges we face as a species in the 21st century with the coming climate changes, oil shortages and general failing of our current economic and political systems. The author is a journalist who has written for the NYTimes magazine, The Atlantic and also has written several books. He's an engaging writer, definitely draws from a plethora of sources and creates a convincing argument/portrayal of the future that is scary and frightening.
He talks about how America will have to undergo a painful downsizing, localizing of how we produce goods (mainly food) and how we won't be able to continue our pursuit of bigger, better, more, etc. Globalization, he argues, is a passing trend that is unsustainable. In the future, all of the things we take for granted (driving 75 miles to work, eating mangos in December, and travelling whereever we want) won't be cheap commodities. He discusses how value and monetary systems will become obsolete concepts leftover from the hey-day of industrial capitalism. In the future, after Peak Oil and drastic climatic changes, skills like non-industrial agriculture and carpentry will be what decides who survives and who doesn't. (The thought strikes me that no one gets out alive in the end, but whatever.)
This book renewed the on-going debate in my head: should I be learning skills like organic farming and other basic wildnerness survival skills or should I continue on this journalism trip? I'm not too sure. I'm not a big fan of the paranoia sown by pop-culture scientists/journalists, but he does raise important points, like how am I preparing for the future after our country's oil addiction goes through the inevitable and painful withdrawl? The conflicts over scare resources aren't going to be solved diplomatically, if the Iraq War redux has shown us anything, and I'm not going to depend of the idiots on the East Coast to help me out.
My dream would be to strike a nice balance between practicing journalism and growing my own food. Eventually I think our country is going to go through some very painful bubble-popping when energy stops being cheap and our industrial functions cease operating as usual. I just wonder how to prepare for this?
He talks about how America will have to undergo a painful downsizing, localizing of how we produce goods (mainly food) and how we won't be able to continue our pursuit of bigger, better, more, etc. Globalization, he argues, is a passing trend that is unsustainable. In the future, all of the things we take for granted (driving 75 miles to work, eating mangos in December, and travelling whereever we want) won't be cheap commodities. He discusses how value and monetary systems will become obsolete concepts leftover from the hey-day of industrial capitalism. In the future, after Peak Oil and drastic climatic changes, skills like non-industrial agriculture and carpentry will be what decides who survives and who doesn't. (The thought strikes me that no one gets out alive in the end, but whatever.)
This book renewed the on-going debate in my head: should I be learning skills like organic farming and other basic wildnerness survival skills or should I continue on this journalism trip? I'm not too sure. I'm not a big fan of the paranoia sown by pop-culture scientists/journalists, but he does raise important points, like how am I preparing for the future after our country's oil addiction goes through the inevitable and painful withdrawl? The conflicts over scare resources aren't going to be solved diplomatically, if the Iraq War redux has shown us anything, and I'm not going to depend of the idiots on the East Coast to help me out.
My dream would be to strike a nice balance between practicing journalism and growing my own food. Eventually I think our country is going to go through some very painful bubble-popping when energy stops being cheap and our industrial functions cease operating as usual. I just wonder how to prepare for this?
Friday, May 12, 2006
Going beyong the couches getting blown out the meth house's windows
"Be skeptical of everything. Ask skeptical quetions." Those two sentences reverberated in my head yesterday during Steve Suo's guest lecture in one of my journalism classes. Suo was the lead investigative reporter on The Oregonian's story about "The Unnecessary Epidemic," a multi-day series that covered the meth crisis affecting our nation.
Suo gave a presentation about the computer-assisted-reporting techniques he used to uncover a lot of the startling statistics and assertions made in the series. One of the most important: meth production is a highly organized endeavor and more than 80% of meth in this country comes from Mexican drug cartels who have super labs in the fields of Calif. Suo showed us, using simplified line graphs, how he kept finding the same type of line graph for disparate statistics. In other words, the graph for meth purity, meth rehab patients, arrests, fraud, forgery and other property crimes followed the exact same flow on their charts, mirroring the same highs and lows, which also coordinated with several acts on the federal government's part.
Suo gave a striking explanation for why meth suddenly became such a huge problem in the US and even more so, a solution to fix it.
But that's where class ended. We didn't get an opportunity as much to ask questions about the suggestions Suo made throughout the story about what the government could be doing to fix the meth epidemic. I was curious what he thought about making assertions about what could be done. I can't think of other examples in the media, at least none in a mainstream "objective" newspaper, where the journalist went beyond making a point/exposing the more complicated backstory, to actually saying what could/should be done about it.
He mentioned that in the years since he began covering this enormous story, some legislation has been enacted and government officials are starting to do something about it as a direct result of The Oregonian's coverage. Every reporter's dream. But I have to wonder if the government started doing something about it because of the direct "the government could be doing something about it"/"the drug companies have stopped the government's efforts in the past" statements that Suo made throughout the story, or if the statistics and other information convinced the politicians.
I'm not saying I'm against making assertions about could and should, but what I'm saying is, at what point to we become activists as journalists in our writing? Obviously a story about the enormous meth problem is fairly black and white about what type of assertions/suggestions you're going to make about what could be done: cut off the supply, make it harder to get the ingredients, etc. But in a story more grey, say about acquaintance rape, trying to make assertions based on statistics could be extremely misleading given the growing phenomenon of falsely accusing someone after waking up and regretting a drunken night of sex.
I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to get at, other than I was a bit surprised to see so many could (which often means should) statements throughout the first-day coverage. It made the story far more biting and interesting, but it also sounded like the story had a voice, a narrator, whose beliefs were motivating the writing.
Suo gave a presentation about the computer-assisted-reporting techniques he used to uncover a lot of the startling statistics and assertions made in the series. One of the most important: meth production is a highly organized endeavor and more than 80% of meth in this country comes from Mexican drug cartels who have super labs in the fields of Calif. Suo showed us, using simplified line graphs, how he kept finding the same type of line graph for disparate statistics. In other words, the graph for meth purity, meth rehab patients, arrests, fraud, forgery and other property crimes followed the exact same flow on their charts, mirroring the same highs and lows, which also coordinated with several acts on the federal government's part.
Suo gave a striking explanation for why meth suddenly became such a huge problem in the US and even more so, a solution to fix it.
But that's where class ended. We didn't get an opportunity as much to ask questions about the suggestions Suo made throughout the story about what the government could be doing to fix the meth epidemic. I was curious what he thought about making assertions about what could be done. I can't think of other examples in the media, at least none in a mainstream "objective" newspaper, where the journalist went beyond making a point/exposing the more complicated backstory, to actually saying what could/should be done about it.
He mentioned that in the years since he began covering this enormous story, some legislation has been enacted and government officials are starting to do something about it as a direct result of The Oregonian's coverage. Every reporter's dream. But I have to wonder if the government started doing something about it because of the direct "the government could be doing something about it"/"the drug companies have stopped the government's efforts in the past" statements that Suo made throughout the story, or if the statistics and other information convinced the politicians.
I'm not saying I'm against making assertions about could and should, but what I'm saying is, at what point to we become activists as journalists in our writing? Obviously a story about the enormous meth problem is fairly black and white about what type of assertions/suggestions you're going to make about what could be done: cut off the supply, make it harder to get the ingredients, etc. But in a story more grey, say about acquaintance rape, trying to make assertions based on statistics could be extremely misleading given the growing phenomenon of falsely accusing someone after waking up and regretting a drunken night of sex.
I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to get at, other than I was a bit surprised to see so many could (which often means should) statements throughout the first-day coverage. It made the story far more biting and interesting, but it also sounded like the story had a voice, a narrator, whose beliefs were motivating the writing.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Covering gay teenagers in the media
A journalist came to the UO to speak about sex and sex in the media. I went thinking, "Great. Yet another lecture about how the media screws up sex and sensationalizes it. I know this," and left thinking "Benoit actually had some good tips on how to go beyond the typical media coverage."
Covering sex in a non-sensationalist way begins with being thoughtful about it. Then it takes months of immersing yourself in the people's lives to actually understand their perspective and experience before you can begin writing about sex and sexuality from a non-mainstream angle.
I wonder though, does it also take having a similar sexual orientation?
Benoit didn't come out and say he was gay until at least 2/3 of the way through his lecture, and it was in a passing reference to his surprise at 11 and 12-year olds coming out when he didn't even know he was gay until college. Benoit has won numerous awards for his coverage of different gay communities, from gay teens to married black men who have gay affairs to Midwestern towns that change street names because of their gay connotations. Throughout his lecture I wondered, does his own sexual orientation make him uniquely able to cover gay America? In some ways, I think of his reporting and coverage as more accurate because I have to believe he would take something so personal seriously enough to get it right. But at the same time, I wonder if his personal attachment to the story might bias the way he goes about reporting, seeking sources and even how he interviews people.
I wondered the implications for myself and journalism as a whole. Surely journalists aren't Objective in the sense that they talk to everyone equally, seek out everyone with the same sort of intensity. Even in my limited experience, I know that sometimes, okay more than I would like to admit, I don't try as hard to talk to a source as I do to others in the story. I have never not tried to talk to someone, but I have called others repeatedly, damn near stalked them, because I wanted their voice in the story. Also, I will spend more time with some sources because I want to cultivate a relationship with them, and I don't necessarily spend that same amount of extra qualitative time with others.
So again, I wonder the implications of journalists covering stories that have relevancy to their personal lives. I certainly don't have an answer. But I know that the stories I cover where I have had some previous, personal experience with the concept, are the ones that I'm better able to report on because I know where to go, who to talk to, and most importantly, have authority/legitimacy in the sources' view because of my own personal connection.
An example: in the recent ODE coverage about The Insurgent and the Newman Center (a Catholic campus ministry), I told members of the center that I was raised Catholic, but no longer practiced. I made it clear that I wasn't there to debate the issue in the story, or even to give my opinion, but was drawn into a conversation about Catholicism anyway because of my experience with it.
I suspect that as this story unfolds, the person I chatted with will be more willing to pro-actively call me and tell me what's up from his perspective because of this first conversation about the Church. Perhaps that will translate to breaking a story ahead of other media outlets. But, I still wonder if that was the right thing to do.
Back to Benoit. His stories have provided a much more in-depth and thoughtful look at gay communities around the country, has shown that gay people are not weird freaks that live in closests on another planet. His stories humanize our neighbors, children and community members, and in doing so, enrich our understanding of our society.
But what about journalists covering stories that echo in their personal lives?
Covering sex in a non-sensationalist way begins with being thoughtful about it. Then it takes months of immersing yourself in the people's lives to actually understand their perspective and experience before you can begin writing about sex and sexuality from a non-mainstream angle.
I wonder though, does it also take having a similar sexual orientation?
Benoit didn't come out and say he was gay until at least 2/3 of the way through his lecture, and it was in a passing reference to his surprise at 11 and 12-year olds coming out when he didn't even know he was gay until college. Benoit has won numerous awards for his coverage of different gay communities, from gay teens to married black men who have gay affairs to Midwestern towns that change street names because of their gay connotations. Throughout his lecture I wondered, does his own sexual orientation make him uniquely able to cover gay America? In some ways, I think of his reporting and coverage as more accurate because I have to believe he would take something so personal seriously enough to get it right. But at the same time, I wonder if his personal attachment to the story might bias the way he goes about reporting, seeking sources and even how he interviews people.
I wondered the implications for myself and journalism as a whole. Surely journalists aren't Objective in the sense that they talk to everyone equally, seek out everyone with the same sort of intensity. Even in my limited experience, I know that sometimes, okay more than I would like to admit, I don't try as hard to talk to a source as I do to others in the story. I have never not tried to talk to someone, but I have called others repeatedly, damn near stalked them, because I wanted their voice in the story. Also, I will spend more time with some sources because I want to cultivate a relationship with them, and I don't necessarily spend that same amount of extra qualitative time with others.
So again, I wonder the implications of journalists covering stories that have relevancy to their personal lives. I certainly don't have an answer. But I know that the stories I cover where I have had some previous, personal experience with the concept, are the ones that I'm better able to report on because I know where to go, who to talk to, and most importantly, have authority/legitimacy in the sources' view because of my own personal connection.
An example: in the recent ODE coverage about The Insurgent and the Newman Center (a Catholic campus ministry), I told members of the center that I was raised Catholic, but no longer practiced. I made it clear that I wasn't there to debate the issue in the story, or even to give my opinion, but was drawn into a conversation about Catholicism anyway because of my experience with it.
I suspect that as this story unfolds, the person I chatted with will be more willing to pro-actively call me and tell me what's up from his perspective because of this first conversation about the Church. Perhaps that will translate to breaking a story ahead of other media outlets. But, I still wonder if that was the right thing to do.
Back to Benoit. His stories have provided a much more in-depth and thoughtful look at gay communities around the country, has shown that gay people are not weird freaks that live in closests on another planet. His stories humanize our neighbors, children and community members, and in doing so, enrich our understanding of our society.
But what about journalists covering stories that echo in their personal lives?
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Becoming a blogger
Is a bit of a misleading title for this entry because I already blog on a different site, but about completely different topics, namely nothing journalistic.
Being a blogger is a strange phenomenon: you write your thoughts in an isolated vacumn, interacting only with a computer, but then random people from the world over can read your thoughts and respond. No wonder people are addicted to blogging, it's an adrenaline rush. Someone should do a brain-scanning study on bloggers before they blog, while they're blogging, and after they post an entry to see how their brain waves change.
The flip side of blogging is its enormous tendency to produce absolutely meaningless crap like entries about someone's breakfast or their most recent romantic foible. Too often, people blog about themselves only, forgetting that no one else is as invested in them as they are, nor does anyone else care about the little tidbits that make up a person's personality. Am I too cynical? Perhaps.
I'm excited to have a focused blog that requires me to respond to one topic, set of related topics. It'll be better than the other blog I write, which is mostly creative writing and bad poetry.
Here are links to good advice on blogging:
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=75383
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=75665
Being a blogger is a strange phenomenon: you write your thoughts in an isolated vacumn, interacting only with a computer, but then random people from the world over can read your thoughts and respond. No wonder people are addicted to blogging, it's an adrenaline rush. Someone should do a brain-scanning study on bloggers before they blog, while they're blogging, and after they post an entry to see how their brain waves change.
The flip side of blogging is its enormous tendency to produce absolutely meaningless crap like entries about someone's breakfast or their most recent romantic foible. Too often, people blog about themselves only, forgetting that no one else is as invested in them as they are, nor does anyone else care about the little tidbits that make up a person's personality. Am I too cynical? Perhaps.
I'm excited to have a focused blog that requires me to respond to one topic, set of related topics. It'll be better than the other blog I write, which is mostly creative writing and bad poetry.
Here are links to good advice on blogging:
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=75383
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=75665
Blogging in the post post-modern world where journalism happens with cell phones and internet diary posts
I'm a journalism student constantly questioning whether my formal journalism studies are going to help me in a world where journalism increasingly happens on the street, is recorded by non-professionals, and defies many of the rules regulating fact gathering. Does the fact that I know AP style even matter? Does it give me more authority in story-telling/news reporting than the person who was there and actually witnessed an event? Do I earn extra credit points for knowing a writing style for news reporting exists when many news consumers wish there was more emotion, personal experience inserted in the story?
I don't know those answers, but I do know that writing about news in the first person is novel, violates a few of the fundamental tenents of journalism and is, strangely, wonderful. Blogging feels more honest than straight-forward, 3rd person journalism. It's inserting complexity and my subjectivity throughout the story rather than masking it with through my presentation of the facts. Too often, we forget that the way a story is portrayed significantly impacts the understanding/interpretation of the story. By insisting that journalists are objective and not a part of the story is a lie, one perpetuated far too long by journalism schools.
I'm young, have been a reporter for less months than fingers on one hand, yet I can think of at least 5 stories where my presence directly influenced how the people acted. Just knowing the press is around changes how you act, talk, and recall. People lie to me on a fairly frequent basis as a result of this sentence, "Hi, I'm Susan Goodwin from the Oregon Daily Emerald." Bam. Introduction. Commence lying, leaving out information.
Blogging can be a great way to talk about those aspects of a news story that an editor would normally remove, i.e. how you found out a piece of information, the background to your reporting, what you couldn't verify with the 3-4 sources, your opinion, etc.
At the same time, there's the danger of biasing yourself. If people read your news stories and also your blog, it would raise serious questions about your integrity as an unbiased observer/writer. I'm not sure if there's an answer to that issue, but it's one that seems to be getting larger as blogging establishes itself as a legitimate form of journalism.
I find it even more ironic that I'm blogging for a formal journalism class. Ha.
I don't know those answers, but I do know that writing about news in the first person is novel, violates a few of the fundamental tenents of journalism and is, strangely, wonderful. Blogging feels more honest than straight-forward, 3rd person journalism. It's inserting complexity and my subjectivity throughout the story rather than masking it with through my presentation of the facts. Too often, we forget that the way a story is portrayed significantly impacts the understanding/interpretation of the story. By insisting that journalists are objective and not a part of the story is a lie, one perpetuated far too long by journalism schools.
I'm young, have been a reporter for less months than fingers on one hand, yet I can think of at least 5 stories where my presence directly influenced how the people acted. Just knowing the press is around changes how you act, talk, and recall. People lie to me on a fairly frequent basis as a result of this sentence, "Hi, I'm Susan Goodwin from the Oregon Daily Emerald." Bam. Introduction. Commence lying, leaving out information.
Blogging can be a great way to talk about those aspects of a news story that an editor would normally remove, i.e. how you found out a piece of information, the background to your reporting, what you couldn't verify with the 3-4 sources, your opinion, etc.
At the same time, there's the danger of biasing yourself. If people read your news stories and also your blog, it would raise serious questions about your integrity as an unbiased observer/writer. I'm not sure if there's an answer to that issue, but it's one that seems to be getting larger as blogging establishes itself as a legitimate form of journalism.
I find it even more ironic that I'm blogging for a formal journalism class. Ha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)