Intro to Journalism

2011-12-11T20:19:00.002+01:00

An open newsroom might be desirable in a perfect society, where only people with some kind of journalistic judgment or skill would comment and give feedback on articles, but this is not the case. However, a moderated one would definitely be worth a look to see how it can go, but, to be honest, I have my doubts about this kind of "teamwork", where everyone can have a say in how things go. These tend to turn out terribad.

Open Newsrooom: Pros and Cons

2011-12-11T17:49:00.001+01:00

I suppose an open newsroom can function well in the US. Transparency helps to remain objective and it also provides immediate feedback. Sharing ideas and stories can be considered a form of brainstorming which can also aid journalists. It is a kind of teamwork where members (journalists) also compete with each other. One can always see the required standards and, therefore, can more easily live up to it.

On the other hand, an open newsroom might not work elsewhere, for instance, in Hungary. Our culture does not encourage teamwork or the sharing of ideas. I think a Hungarian journalist would rather keep his ideas to himself, even to the risk of failure.

If I think about a future workplace, I would rather have tiny office to myself as I fare far better in a peaceful and silent environment.

Re: Question of the week

2011-12-11T17:27:00.001+01:00

Open newsroom became a hit in modern journalism. People believe that transparency has become new objectivity. An access to the upcoming issue materials enables constant feedback and comments,which is very important. It is a great opportunity for journalists to improve the quality of their works. To have comments about their topics and research materials before the article is complete definitely helps along the writing process and involve audience on the very early stage. Nowadays a lot of leading newspapers and magazines adopt the technique of the open newsroom.

Our Future

2011-12-11T17:21:00.001+01:00

An open newsroom, where the audience can shape the content before it goes to press, is quite possibly the future of journalism. And the future is bleak.

The quest for profitability through mass appeal has already changed journalism in a way that places more emphasis on the audience's interests and opinions; the market is saturated with talk shows that pander to a lowest common denominator, tabloids entirely dedicated to Brad Pitt's asshairs and Justin Bieber's menstrual cycle, and even historically serious publications that put a sensational spin on practically anything that gets past the editors. And these are the papers the people buy, these are the shows the people watch.

Open newsrooms let those people who willingly consume the crap that passes for mainstream journalism into the decision making process, and there is no conceivable way that the sanctimonious, bigoted Average Joe who passes judgment like he does gas can add anything to an investigative piece that professional writers put together through weeks of research, writing, editing, rewriting, fact-checking, rewriting.

Yet open newsrooms are the future. Marketability and profitability come before quality, relevance and integrity in a capitalist business venture; and the best way to ensure that a paper is successful is to write for the stupidest of the bunch and hope that the smartest don't take offense--but even so, consuming and taking offense is still better from a business perspective than not consuming at all.

Question for the Week

2011-12-11T12:08:00.001+01:00

How do you think an open newsroom works? What are the main attributes of it? Why is it useful and in what aspect?

Market Research

2011-12-04T22:22:00.003+01:00

I believe that most of the facts concerning the manufactring of media is reactionary. People do not know how they would respond to a phenomena till it actually happens.Therefore, asking people about their preferences prior to presenting them new ideas is just futile and pointless.

Re: Question of the week

2011-12-04T17:48:00.003+01:00

I think hype can be used for emphasizing issues. It is useful and stupid at the same time, though.

There are people like me who hate hyped stories. It can be a war, a disaster or a person it doesn't matter. I can't read about the same issue in this "hype" way (when there is no actual follow-up, just generating articles about the same topic for weeks, month or years even). I like to read real follow-up stories. But at the same time I see, if there is a story being on the headlines for weeks, people will read it at least once and will think about it. This happened with some friends of mine when there was a tsunami in Japan or with the Betancourt issue. Anyway, to an average reader, hype is a good tool to raise attention.

I find it stupid sometimes, because other important issues won't surface while there is a big hype over some stupid celebrity.

Hype, indeed

2011-12-04T17:47:00.002+01:00

I think it's most probably a means to make an issue popular. It's mainly a marketing thing, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used for journalistic purposes. Important events can be easily hyped as well.

Let's take the example of visits of presidents. They are politically important and these events are highly hyped.

The last one I can remember is the epidemy of swine flu.

Some Ends Justify Some Means

2011-12-04T17:32:00.001+01:00

People are lazy and stupid. Marketing hype exploits that to maximize profit regardless of customer satisfaction, but hype itself as a tool is not all bad. Getting the attention of the crowd is not in and of itself a despicable thing, even if it's done through an appeal to a lowest common denominator, or a thirst for melodrama, or a careful conservation and distortion of information. Any act of manipulation can be justified by the right intentions, such as raising awareness for important social crises, or turning attention away from events of which widespread knowledge poses a threat to society. Hell, even entertainment can be construed as a noble pursuit.

Hype Machine

2011-12-04T17:28:00.001+01:00

Hype is the most powerful tool in the hand of advertisers and journalists. The majority of people alwasy like what the crowd likes best. And it is the same with believing. When a topic or product is hyped it is becomes the most talked about for a certain time. Journalists can use this well as people talking and being interested about their writings is one of the most important things they can desire. I don't think hype is always around the useless things. For example the biggest and most recent hype I can think of is last year's red sludge disaster. For weeks the media was full of it, and journalists who could provide some new aspect to the story had great opportunities getting published, thanks to the hype. This shows that with the help of hype many things are possible if one uses it well.

RE: Question of the week

2011-12-04T16:50:00.001+01:00

I think that mainly hypes are used for the very banal reasons, to bring profit, one way or another. Even if on the surface the massage seems to bring the awareness to the important event or subject in general, if you look deeper, it is just a smart way to promote a book, some electronic devices, pills or somewhat Hollywood starlets. On the other hand, there are those hype that are simple falsification and manipulation. American news channel Fox is a master of hype. It is enough to to take a look at their reports on possible missile threats from North Korea. It is sad that people do watch news, read newspapers and listen to the radio and are being misled.

The Types of Hypes

2011-12-03T19:53:00.003+01:00

Journalists often use the technique of “hyping” for various reasons. Contrary to popular belief, hypes do not appear only in tabloids and advertisements, but in the news as well. Considering what I observed, I believe that there are three types of hypes.

The first is, as Daniel and Tamara pointed out, for marketing purposes. It does not matter what the object of the advertisement is; to steer the audience’s attention to it, everything is shown to the public as the most wonderful and useful thing ever. Just the best for you, “because you are worth it.”

The second type is for emphasis; if something is hyped, it would certainly catch the desired attention. People usually do not take notice of the mildly important things. However, when something is given the necessary significance, everybody is on alert.

The third type of hype is plain old manipulation. We could easily see it in the video about the swine flu. And it was just the start; the government, the media, and the doctors made a huge thing out of it. Therefore, people panicked and bought the vaccine. In the end, the deadly epidemic, which was predicted to be utterly devastating, killed approximately 16,500 people worldwide. Now compare this number to that of starvation related deaths, which is around 25,000 each day. Considering the aforementioned statistics, swine flu was just another huge hype.

Hype is a tool. Sometimes it is the necessary evil to catch the attention, sometimes it is the best employee of marketing. In the end, it is up to the audience to decide whether what they see is a mountain or a molehill.

Question of the Week

2011-12-03T15:32:00.003+01:00

Here are the questions that we came up with Tamara:

Do you think that hype is mainly a marketing/advertisement tool or it can be used for journalistic purposes to emphasize important events? What was the latest thing that was hyped by the media that you can remember? Which category does it fall into? (think about the first question)

2011-11-27T23:34:00.002+01:00

It depends on the professionality of the writer. If the journalist is good enough, then he can distance himself from the story if that's what's needed. However, if his job is to "just" tell a story, without any limitations, then of course experiencing the events first hand can help and improve the entertainment value of the article.

Re: Question of the week

2011-11-27T18:10:00.001+01:00

I think, it is quite obvious that the journalist's point of view will be reflected in story telling, one way or another. Reader or viewer can easily figure out the journalist's attitude whether by the tone of his or her voice, by the tricky questions that are beings asked during the interview, by the wording he uses, or may be by absolutely indifferent attitude, that shows no interest in developing of the given topic. In the video that Faisal showed us during the class, Barbara Walters most likely was not supposed to evaluate Monica's actions, rather just follow the protocol and ask the list of questions. Nevertheless, we could hear in the tone of her voice, in the comments she was making, that Barbara was quite judgmental and that was reflected in her presentation of the material. At the end of the day, most of the journalists are paid not only to present raw information but to give some sort of criticism and evaluation and descriptions to the issues, and that definitely will affect the presentation of story telling.

Reply to the Question of the Week

2011-11-27T17:36:00.001+01:00

I think that it is inevitable that a presentation of the story will be affected by the journalists point of view. After all journalists are people too and people can rarely distance themselves enough from a topic to be able to igonre their own perspective. We could argue wether a good journalist is one who can completely substract his or her perspective from a story or the one who has an ability to use it to the story's advantage. Moreover, once again, we are back at the argument on the biases on news. This inability to write whith the glasses of complete objectivity on, creates ground for biases. We hardly think about the writers point of view while reading, as we read from our own perspective that puts the story into another light.

A blind nut in the nutshell's dark traverses

2011-11-27T17:22:00.003+01:00

Reading this question brought me back to my high school literature class. For a moment, I fancied myself sitting next to my sleeping friend, listening to the gentle voice of our teacher as she recited a poem. The lines were my key in answering Faisal’s question, yet the years spent away from the alma mater cast a greyish fog on my brain and my memory. It took me some minutes to figure out who the poet was in the first place. After a successful google search, I am proud to present Mihály Babits’ words for you from The Lyric Poet’s Epilogue:

I am the only hero of my verses,
the first and last in every line to dwell:
my poems hope to sing of Universes,
but never reach beyond my lonely cell. (first verse)

A prison for myself I must remain,
the subject and the object. Heavy fate:
the alpha and the omega am I. (fourth verse)

We cannot be independent of our perceptions. Something might strike someone as fascinating, while someone else would not even notice it. Our way of describing the world is directly connected to the way we perceive it. We are forever affected by it; therefore, there cannot be true objectivity other than in its relative sense.

Question of the week

2011-11-27T16:31:00.001+01:00

To what degree do you think that story telling is affected by the perspective of the journalist, if at all ?

Innovation in Storytelling.

2011-11-26T19:10:00.003+01:00

The play ground of storytelling is always prepared for new games. There are myriads of ways a story can be told as every single individual has his/her own technique that no one else shares. Keeping accuracy along with entertaining candor in mind can result in successful story telling. Being honest with yourself and knowing the heavy price of taking this honesty to the public will watermark your discourse and create lovers and haters of your style. Originality is the easiest trait to acquire in order to be a talented story teller. Abiding by the rules of your perspective will protect your story telling from turning into a mechanical verbal vomit. Engagement is the thing the word can do best, and by keeping this function in mind, any story you tell can be a thriller.

Re: Question of the week

2011-11-21T22:34:00.001+01:00

The place where entertainment is 100% more important than journalistic integrity is the group of tabloids. These publications are hardly reliable but provide entertainment value that people need. Most of the readers know that they cannot rely on the things found in a tabloid but still they find it amusing to read made up things. I think tabloid media is the place for entertainment value over integrity and it should stay this way, as other publications have their value in the informations validity they carry. In other fields of journalism, integrity is the number one thing that should not fall out of focus, as it is the most important value of journalism.

White lies

2011-11-20T17:57:00.002+01:00

I think it depends on the paper and the audience whether it is permissible to write about an issue in a different manner. After the point, when the piece becomes a white lie, the journalist should stop. I don't believe in a gloomy world, I don't like funny and light newspapers because reporting for me isn't about entertainment. Reporting about facts and serious issues requiers responsibility. Journalists should go for objectivity, truth and fair reporting.

This doesn't mean that we don't need to report on good and cheerful events. The balance of positive and negative news is also important, but for me this is not the question here. White lies are also lies in my eyes. Masking the truth or the pain is not the journalists' task.

Entertainment vs Integrity

2011-11-20T17:08:00.000+01:00

The value of entertainment has taken over the value of integrity in today’s journalism. There is no question about it: go into a kiosk and look around. What do you see? Brad Pitt in the doghouse! Is Madonna heartbroken? Rumors of sudden deaths of celebrities on Twitter! Is Mary-Kate on a diet again? These are the headlines, boldly shouting the “news” at you. If you are observant enough, you might be able to find some subtly hiding lines around about the war in Iraq or the economic crisis. But, for those, you have to really look.

If asked, everyone would say that of course entertainment value should not take precedence over journalistic integrity. But then again, what are the tabloids for? Would anyone buy those magazines if the only news presented there would be just as ordinary as the life we live? Naturally, the answer is no. No one would care. People want scandals, drunken escapades, and bar brawls within the glittery circle of the rich and famous. The truth that most of them use the restroom, the shower, and the cutlery in the same way as we do is ridiculously uninteresting.

That, I can understand. While I do not keep up with the celebrity gossip, I am able to sympathize with the tired housewives who, between feeding their toddler and doing the washing up would like to relax reading something completely detached from their reality. And if those rumors are just rumors without any truth in it? Then let it be that way. The so called celebrities know what they had signed up for and of course, there is no bad press. It is about money and fame. No harm done.

In any other case? No, Mister, I want reality. We need reality. In the ongoing match between Entertainment and Value, entertainment should only win in the tabloids. Any other way would cause a huge loss of prestige in the so called journalistic integrity.

Re: Question of the week

2011-11-20T16:10:00.001+01:00

I believe it is the target audience who dictates the rules. For instance, Blikk magazine had already made its statement clear, for them entertainment values are much more important than anyhthing else. Meanwhile, some other newspapers or magaizes can have a perfect balance. I think entertainment can coexhist with journalistic integrity. As we have mentioned before, entrertainment is a huge, profitable part of journalism, and we can not ignore it.

2011-11-20T15:14:00.003+01:00

It depends on the target audience of the given media outlet, but generally, I think that entertainment should be a part of every article up to a certain limit. Of course, if the entertainment part conflicts with the information part, than it should be toned down. In general, entertainment value has a place in every article until it doesn't interfere with the credibility of it.

The audience decides that

2011-11-20T15:06:00.003+01:00

I'm inclined to believe that it's the audience that decides the content of journalistic material. If the writer or editor is aware of the fact that entertainment is of much more significance than journalistic integrity, this is acceptable. It's benefical fincancially as well.

Question of the Week

2011-11-20T14:47:00.001+01:00

My question: in what scenario do you think it's permissible for entertainment value to take precedence over journalistic integrity?

Re: Question of the week

2011-11-13T22:41:00.001+01:00

In my opinion in the rarest cases we talk about independent journalists. Mediums that matter to the public are all biased to the point that they cannot monitor anything independently, not to say controlling state powers. Those who try independently are usually ignored, and cannot earn enough or any publicity. Though mainstream journalists stand as a king of mirror for authorities, and nowadays we can see the trend that more and more journalists try to swim against the tide and try a kind of guerilla journalism that uncovers controversial things (one of the original roles of journalism) but those who are afraid for their work won't even try such a thing.

Re: Question of the week

2011-11-13T18:53:00.002+01:00

What I think is that journalists can indeed serve as independent monitors as we live in a free world where freedom of speech is protected by law. Strange cases still occur, but the Internet enables these pieces of information to reach everyone. Moreover, there are also independent bloggers who contribute to the free flow of information. Therefore, those who claim that the Internet is a curse rather than a blessing are quite wrong, because it helps news spread faster and easier.

Consequently, journalists still have the chance to act as independent monitors of power.

Limitations

2011-11-13T18:33:00.004+01:00

Independent journalists are reliable when it comes to opinions or reflections on events that took place, because no major company or political force will influence their writings, only their own views, however, their sources of information most of the times are unreliable. Either they have a lot of time and money, so they can do their own research (and even in this case, only about one or two topics at a time), or they get their information from other news sources, which can mislead them. Furthermore, in mainstream media outlets, there is a certain line that journalists can't cross (it can either be good or bad), but independent journalism allows the writer to completely write what he wants to, it can be even more biased or misleading than articles from major outlets. In theory, if an independent journalist can support himself and can be objective, then he would be the "purest" source of information, but in reality, we have to be a lot more careful to believe them (or anyone).

The Danger in Indipendence

2011-11-13T17:34:00.002+01:00

Today’s individual monitors of power are the investigative reporters working freelance. While it seems to be a highly admired job because of its adventurous nature and supposed fame, these are only false images created by scriptwriters and directors. Yes, this kind of portrayal was born in the movie theatres.

What most people really know about freelance investigative reporters is scarce. We rarely know their names – little to no recognition; we rarely read their work – an investigation in any subject takes up much time, even years! When an investigating reporter gets famous, it is usually because they get threatened, beaten up, or murdered. This is not an exciting lifestyle with shiny spy gadgets and underground escapades. This is a very serious job which requires great determination, courage, and resilience.

To answer Emil’s question, of course there are people out there tracking the trail of huge stories and international scandals. But definitely not in the way most people would imagine. Lois Lane and Peter Parker are mere imitations of the real life heroes who constantly live in the danger of their self-created independence.

Re:question of the week

2011-11-13T17:31:00.001+01:00

I do not think it would be possible, because journalists are not getting pure facts, information that they get is already coming with some interests from politicians. If we are talking about reflecting on political stories, as I have mentioned in one of the previous classes, journalists mainly rely on governmental press centers, on information they provide during the press conferences. Information than politician are giving contains facts that they want journalists to write about, and obviously missing some facts that they would like to hid from publicity. I would also say, that in the modern world independence has its price. As sad as it might sound, completely independent journalists, are unemployed journalists.

The question of the week

2011-11-13T17:20:00.002+01:00

Do you think that in today's world, journalists can serve as an independent monitor of power?

Like glass

2011-10-30T19:05:00.002+01:00

I really loved the title as much as the movie itself. We could go on and on talking about the title, but first, we need to thank that Glass was really named Glass :)The most obvious one is that Stephen's career as a journalist was shattered, it was destroyed by his "creative" stories, it also affected his mind, it must have been really difficult to actually deal with this situation. The second one is related to a person's credibility, which is perfect at the beginning, then it can get damaged, if he is not careful. Then, if you go over a certain limit (and you get caught), the seemingly flawless "glass" can shatter suddenly.

Shattered Glass

2011-10-30T17:46:00.001+01:00

I think that title of the movie was a wise and interesting choice. It leaves some space for imagination and reinterpretation. Stephen rose to incredible heights as a writer and when trying to achieve even more was caught with a fraud. Falling from that height caused revelation of Stephen's "shattered personality", as i believe there must be something wrong with a person who invents stories and believes they have actually happened or just simply tries to take down the magazine or newspaper he wants to break into. Another thing that crossed my mind were shattered dreams and illusions of Stephen. He was so sure that no one would figure out the truth hidden behind his articles and he could continue living his dream.

RE: Question of the week

2011-10-30T17:42:00.003+01:00

The title obviously refers to the main character, Stephen Glass who is trying to be a successful journalist but instead ends up a mentally ill person most probably having OCD. The movie starts with him speaking to young students in his former school. He gives them advice and shares his experience with them throughout the film. After a while we realise that there is something entirely wrong with him, and soon it turns out he has been lying to the editor all along. He created fake stories to entertain the audience. When the movie ends we can see the class again, and Glass standing there proud, smiling. The picture slowly fades and in reality, the classroom is empty. This was just another story he made up, this time, entertaining only himself.

The title therefore refers to him as a person and his whole world getting shattered after his secrets are found out. He ruins his career, as well as his personal life.

Shattered Glass

2011-10-30T17:42:00.000+01:00

When I hear the expression “shuttered glass”, I associate it with a broken illusion. Which, in this case, is the essence of the movie. Stephen Glass built his career on lies and it worked for years. He fooled his superiors, his peers, the readers; in the end, he even managed to fool himself as well. He seemed to be the epitome of a fledging journalist, until his camouflage was broken into millions of tiny pieces.

The title may also refer to him, as his name was Glass, and I had the feeling that his mind was not completely intact. Of course, this theory can only be true if the character was portrayed without much exaggeration. He lived in his self-created delusion, but I am not sure whether it was a choice or the way his mind was wired. If the letter is true, then he had some mental problems to which the adjective “shattered” may refer to.

On "Shattered Glass"

2011-10-30T15:36:00.002+01:00

I was surprised to realize how well the title fits the film. Thekey element of the story is that we get to observe how Stephen and hisperfectly created career fall apart. In the beginning everything seems justfine, and for me the first few minutes seemed that we're going to see anotherinspirational American "hard-working average guy becomes the bigboss" type of cliché. However this turn of events is very effectively donein the film.

For me the onlyproblem with the title is that it assumes a big turning point from whereeverything just turns into pieces. I think the storyline is a more gradual oneso I'd give it a title like "Melting Ice-cream" or something withouta climax, as in my observation there wasn't any major one in the film. Anotherthing that comes into my mind is "Slippery Slope" as it representsvery well how Stephen got carried away with his fraud.

RE: Question for October 25

2011-10-30T13:47:00.001+01:00

I think the title is fitting, although itcan be interpreted in various ways. My first thought was that Glass is acompulsive liar. I believe the clinical term is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.That is, he is not aware that he is lying, hence unable to control it. Also hehas split or “shattered” personalities. This is made clear during thecommentary he gives in the classroom. He shows himself as a man with a strongpersonality. As it turns out this is only in his mind. In reality, he is afragile and shy child.

Shattered personality

2011-10-30T00:21:00.002+02:00

I think this is really hard to grab the connection that is between the title and the story itself. However, it's clearly visible to me that the title "Shattered Glass" means Stephen's life and career. What he did led to a fall in his career and he finally hit the rockbottom.

There's another way I think the title can be interpreted. As Stephen Glass had glasses in front of his eyes, I guess it may symbolise his sight which is distorted in a way. His sight is actually shattered I think, because he made up all or part of at least twenty-seven of the forty-one New Republic articles he wrote.

The Fabulist

2011-10-28T09:43:00.006+02:00

This is one of the films that i tend to forget its title quite easliy. Although the tiltle is ingenious, it is difficult to connect it with the general idea of the plot. I guess what they meant by shattered glass is the shattered career of a guy called Glass after the exposure of his fraud. I still believe that the 'Fabulist' is the best title. The name Glass wasn't a focal point at all, and it was barely noticed throughout the picture.

Question for October 25

2011-10-25T10:02:00.002+02:00

Image via WikipediaAfter viewing the movie Shattered Glass, how appropriate is the title? Give at least 2 reasons for your answer as analogies or metaphors. This is based on a true story and from what I have read, has not been Hollywoodized as much as some true story movies. This is extremely close to the way it really happened.

Ethical thinking

2011-10-23T22:42:00.001+02:00

What I consider ethical in journalism is simple: do not causeanyone unnecessary harm. I don't mean that one should not write about thingsthat may hurt others, but there is a difference in stating facts and usingmanipulation to intentionally offend anyone. If our writing is biased byanything then we will cause harm that the affected does not deserve.

Uncovering monkey business is perfectly ethical as the subject ofthe writing is unethical to start with. It is a very difficult thing to stayethical all the time, but with good intentions it is not impossible. Thedifficulty comes from the nature of the concept of ethics itself. It is hard todefine, to be universally good.

A Healthy Dose of Censorship

2011-10-23T18:35:00.003+02:00

I think ethics should be applied very selectively to journalism. It's clear that intellectual honesty is the baseline for all valuable discussion, and I'd rather take the whole truth than a set of carefully manufactured lies, but some people can't handle the truth, no matter how adamantly they ask for it. I think there is certainly a time and a place for the manipulation of news. One reported incident of drug overdose can condition the public against drug use in general; one suggestion of corruption and the public immediately demands the downfall of a whole regime. People oversimplify matters, and it's the journalist's job to weed out the potentially dangerous pieces of information.

Ethics

2011-10-23T18:01:00.003+02:00

Ethics in journalism is such a huge topic that it is impossible to answer it in a simple blog post, there are numerous books written about it. There of course ethical codes of journalism in every country, but in my opinion it is much more important that you follow your own rules. If you can justify your decisions according to your beliefs, you should do it, otherwise you are lying to and betraying yourself. The single most important rule that every journalist should follow is not to do anything just for the sake of attention, every writing should have some kind of a meaning that you want to share with your readers.

The Question of Ethics

2011-10-23T18:00:00.001+02:00

The main task of journalists is to inform the public about everything it needs to know to be able to make the right decisions. Therefore, it should not be hard to say that the most important moral in journalism is truthfulness. Unedited facts, without taking any power play into consideration.

But ethics? Much more difficult to define. It is unethical to deceive the public. And it is unethical to betray the interest of your sponsors. The hardship comes when the two interests are in opposition. What should a journalist do then? Should one lie to keep one’s job? Should one go home proud to have remained true but unemployed?

The question of ethics has been debated since the Greeks and Romans. Most people know what is wrong and what is right. The decision is the one, which comes with a price.

Ethics

2011-10-23T17:59:00.002+02:00

It is such a broad topic, ethics in journalism. Would be very difficult to answer such a question in few lines on blog. I think that journalist as any other profession has its own set of rules, rituals and axioms. In ideal, perfect situation, media would have a very strict set of principles covering such important aspects as accuracy, standards, methods of investigation and story telling, truthfulness and fact checking. Unfortunately,nowadays we can see loads of cases of journalistic work, that violate all the possible principles of ethics.

Ethical behaviour

2011-10-23T17:48:00.002+02:00

I think there are numerous fragments that constitute the absolute ethical behavious in journalism. Initially, journalist should report and interpret in an honest manner, while trying to fight for accuracy, fairness Moreover, journalists should not plagiarise either, since it is most decidedly not ethical. It is also important that journalist do not let any personal interest, payment, or gift undermine accuracy and fairness to those who digest what is produced.

These must be most important rules journalists should follow to behave ethically.

Question of the week

2011-10-23T17:46:00.000+02:00

What do you consider ethical behavior in journalism?

Ethics of Journalism

2011-10-22T17:34:00.003+02:00

There is a fine line of nuance between ideological journalism and malicious propaganda. Transparency and good intentions between opinion makers and recipients paves the way for a better education of the masses. Propaganda tends to misinform audiences, readers, and viewers by selectivity, and distorting contextual news.

Education is an essential antecedent to ideological journalism. Journalism should turn into a pedagogic mission rather than being a podium for elitist opinions. The reciprocity of the educational process can break the barrier of dictation between writers and readers. If the reader perceive the writer as a unattainable, doubting his/her motives will be an action of impossibility.

RE: Question of the Week

2011-10-16T21:34:00.002+02:00

As we discussedin class we should do a background check on the story we read, also on whowrote it. I rarely bother with this unless it's for a paper. When reading anarticle I mainly rely on my guts. It is important to me how the story iswritten, what kind of rhetoric is being used. If I find something that I don'tlike I keep it in mind but also try to find other sources in order to get abetter picture.

TV as a Credible Source

2011-10-16T19:26:00.000+02:00

The credibility of any one source of information can only be judged in comparison to other sources. But many people don't have the time, the patience, the option to spend their day reading ideologically opposite newspapers. What if we have to choose just one source?

Since it's very rare that we are eyewitness to events that end up in the news, every article's truth value is rightly questioned. This is particularly true for reporting in written form. Video is much harder to manipulate than words: you cannot unsee what is plainly recorded on your television, but you can rephrase practically anything to sound like the greatest thing to have happened to mankind since sliced bread was invented.

So in a way, it's not such a bad thing that people are gravitating away from newspapers in favor of informing themselves through the evening news broadcast: the only convenient form of manipulation available to news broadcasts is omission, and while omission is a great sin as well, watching the TV may still be a step closer to the truth than reading the paper.

Of course, I don't watch television, but that's only because it's too mainstream.

Taking sides

2011-10-16T17:03:00.003+02:00

I read a tremendous amount of newspaper every day. For me it is easy to see when an article is politically biased. First, I check the author's name and then the source. If it is Hungarian and the source is MTI, I already have doubts about the credibility of the article... But I don't mind reading from various sides.

Sometimes it is the paper itself that is preferred by a definite political force. Washington Post is never going to appreciate the work of the Democratic Party, neither will New York Times write about the Republican Party's successful ideas. This is much more sophisticated of course, but this is usually the case.

The funniest thing is reading the Opinion pages. This is the place where the readers can meet the real thoughts of the intellectual elite. Personally, I can seek a lot out of their articles. The news need to be objective but I would give more space for the columnists in the newspapers. This is what generates a conversation among the members of the society. Of course, this would make the papers more biased since they would choose only the politically convenient persons to write but I'd love to see a paper with a wide range of columnists writing about real issues.

Back to the subjects, I check the paper itself, the editor in chief, the company that's publishing the paper, the author of the article and the news agency. If there is a poll I also check the company who conducted the research.

Multiple Sources

2011-10-16T13:32:00.003+02:00

Personally, I do not think that readers can get to know the credibility of an article about a mainstream event after the first reading. Neither after the second. I do reckon that one article about a mainstream event cannot stand alone.
It is not rocket science, especially in Hungary, to see which newspaper or other medium is supported by which party or company. Therefore, this fact throws new light upon what readers read and digest.
For instance, if TV viewers or newspaper reades read about an event sponsored by a left-wing party, then it will certainly be advantageous for the left-wing parties, and vica-cersa.
I seldom like reading from multiple sources in order to see the differences, and somehow to figure out the thruth, if there is such thing as thruth.

Incredulity of Credibility

2011-10-16T12:37:00.001+02:00

Different media, different portrayal – not one will portray the same event in the exact same way. Each reporter/journalist has to take the political and sponsor affiliation into consideration during the depiction of facts.

Therefore, only the facts can speak clearly, anything else is a subjective addition. For example, I can write that:

16 October, 2011. 12:10 Orsolya Horváth sat down to write a post for the Introduction to Journalism blog.

This is a pure fact without any addition of thought.

But if I write it like this:

In the sunny day of 16 October, 2011, around lunch time, a hungry Orsolya sat down to fulfill the tedious task of writing a post to her Introduction to Journalism blog.

This sentence has the same facts, but with the additional words the meaning becomes leaden with subjectivity: poor Orsolya was hungry and would much rather have had her lunch than write the assignment.

In the mainstream media, due to the rarity of pure facts, we need to acquaint ourselves with all sources available, to be able to create the whole picture from the glimpses we are fed. The key to avoid being manipulated lies in extensive research and constant doubt. Incredulity of credibility is the readers’ best leverage against ignorance.

Awareness is the Key

2011-10-16T11:56:00.001+02:00

First of all, I’d like to believe that in Western cultures we don’t have to check if the reported event actually happened or not, credibility should only be measured according to the interpretation of the occurrence (we can argue whether Hungary is part of the Western culture or not, but that’s another topic). For most media outlets we can almost be sure where the money comes from and where do their loyalties lie.

Every news agency tries to change your views on certain events, so you should be aware of the “side dish” that accompanies the news. You should consider whether it’s in the interest of the specific media company to change or manipulate the circumstances of the given topic, then you can read or watch the news accordingly. If you have the time, looking at different reports of the same event can also help to give you a better picture of what is actually happening.

Re: Question for this week

2011-10-15T15:55:00.001+02:00

My news consumption practice may be a littlenaive. When seeing the news about a mainstream event for the first time, Iusually believe everything, or we should say I acknowledge everything they sayand I seldom think about credibility consciously. When analytical articlesabout the event start pouring in, that's when they put my mind to work. As Isaid in class, the most important thing I'm aware of at the time of reading thearticle is whose side is the media outlet on. This way I can strip thearticle of manipulation to the point where it is much less biased. Then I readmany articles so I can rip them all apart and from the little puzzle piecesthat remain, I put together the big picture, which is in my opinion theclearest I can get. I cannot think about one strategy to get closer to"truth". Most of the time we know which TV channel and whichnewspaper supports which party or company, and we can filter the article based on that. Onthe other hand, most of the time these articles can be easily recognized asbiased, out of context too. In Hungary, media is especially open about theirpartialness, so it is not a tough thing to see how they try to polish some, andbespatter others.

Question for this week.

2011-10-14T13:25:00.000+02:00

My question for you ,guys is: when reading an article about mainstream events what makes you think its credibile or what is it that makes you doubt about its credibility? What are the things you are paying attention to when forming your opinion?

RE: Question of the week

2011-10-09T17:29:00.001+02:00

No.

I personally don’t really get the whole fuss about advertising. I just flip through the ads without even looking at them. I know what I’m interested in and about the rest I just don’t care. I know how hard it is to keep a magazine alive, it is a constant struggle. They need the money to pay their editors, journalists, stylists, photographers. They need a lot more than they have so it is inevitable that they put advertisements on every third page. This doesn’t make a magazine disbelieving, it only makes it thicker.

That is all I have to say about this.

Think about that, but not always

2011-10-09T16:47:00.002+02:00

In my opinion, it is not always necessary to care about who the sponsor is. If we read an article and see that the journalist is extolling what he/she wrote about, then it is obvious that there is a connection between what is written and the sponsors.
Anyway, I do not think that people always think about the sponsors. Come on, it is not normal. When settle down in your favourite armchair and start to read your newspaper, it is a bit odd to stop and ask yourself the question: "Who are the sponsors?"
People should enjoy articles as one of the main goals of journalism is to entertain people.

2011-10-09T16:10:00.001+02:00

I am pretty much aware of my favorite newspaper's policy, i am following some certain journalists and i do not really care if there are any advertising on the same page or page after the article that I am reading. If we are talking about newspapers that are mostly covering the political issues, obviously they have the parties that sponsor them and that does influence the content of the material,which is no surprise to any reader. However, if we are talking about advertising, it means nothing to me. Since the newspaper or magazine is just selling its "space" for any company to promote their goods. Pure commerce. Which does not bother me either, because editorials can not make living from just selling rates, they need additional income. So as Gergő said, do not spoil your cup of coffee, just enjoy reading your newspaper.

Preferences

2011-10-09T15:45:00.001+02:00

I don't actively concern myself with the issues that sponsorship in journalism raises, but one hears things, and those tiny bits of information stick around in the back of one's memory vaults until a time when they might be relevant. Ever since finding out after the firing of Péter Uj about the owners of Index having government ties, for instance, I can't shake the impression that the traditionally liberal site is slowly being pushed in the direction of the right end of the political spectrum.

We all have preferences in the papers we read, the channels we watch, the people we listen to. The big deal is that these preferences aren't informed by in-depth research of the news outlet's financial, political, ideological background. People are just too lazy to make such effort. It's hard enough scrutinizing the information we're given, we're not inclined to look behind the curtain looking for more. I know I don't.

That's not to mean we don't care at all. We all have preferences. It's just that our preferences are informed by hearsay and stereotypes, or even if there's some actual conscious scrutiny of what's going on behind the scenes, we tend to rush our judgment. And that's not necessarily bad; stereotyping and trusting rumors is a useful shortcut to decision making. Following the money trail to the government is a waste of time when corporate influence is already apparent by reading the cover page, and time is money.

Advertisements or Politics?

2011-10-09T13:34:00.001+02:00

I’d like to split this question into two. First, I’m going to deal with the easier one, when the paper is sponsored by a business. These sponsorships can be really subtle, most of the times you probably won’t even recognize it, unless it is clearly said that, for example, this paper is sponsored by Samsung. Most of these papers are either outright advertisements or some product reviews. You have to be careful to examine the information given, whether it is true or not, but I think if you concentrate on features and/or facts that are more or less true, and ignore the marketing parts, you will be fine.

Second, when talking about big, major newspapers, chances are that they are sponsored or at least supported by some political power/party/organization. But in these cases, it’s obvious what side they are on, so even before reading an article, you’ll know what to expect. When reading papers like this, you have to make sure to know how to look at things they tell you, if you have the time, the best thing to do is to check the sources and other papers’ stories.

It depends on..

2011-10-09T07:46:00.003+02:00

I always think about the journalist's background if I'm reading an opinion page, but I don't always think about the sponsors of the paper.

First of all, it is very hard to figure out who is behind a magazine or tabloid, just look at the perfect Hungarian exemple: PestiEst and the Est Media group. I just figured out that the guy who I've been playing music with founded PestiEst in the 90's but since then... Even the Sziget Szervezőiroda is just one little piece of it. So my answer is rather no, I'm not thinking about the sponsors.

But I'm thinking about the writers, however. It comes through the opinion pages which political force the author prefers the most. If the article is not aiming to be as objective as possible then the journalist's preferences will be clear for the reader. This is my experience after regularly reading journalis.

I wasn't there this week, so I just hope I got on the right track with my answer.

Don't ruin your coffee with thinking about this. Leave it for later.

2011-10-08T22:47:00.000+02:00

When reading at my leisure, for the sake of myblood pressure, fortunately it does not really come to my mind who sponsors thepaper. Certainly the things stated in an article, I always doubt to a point. Iconsider myself a conscious consumer, and not just in the sense of goods, butnews also. I am aware of the manipulation presented to us minute by minute, soI'm not surprised when a big conspiracy gets clear in my mind. (Unfortunatelythis critical mentality turns my conspiracy-making into overdrive, so sometimesI get carried away.)

I believe that it is all the matter of control.Naturally, papers need sponsors. But it's the responsibility of the authorityto control the content of the ads presented. Also, journalistic morals shouldcontrol (and also authorities) that false claims won't make it to a writingbecause somebody paid for it. This ideal world won't ever happen, that is whywe have to learn to be critical. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able tosee the tip of the iceberg in front or our eyes. I consider it my mission toshow this to others as well. But people's stubbornness is sometimes boundless...

Do you?

2011-10-04T22:34:00.001+02:00

Finally, you have some precious free time to read at your leisure. Sitting down with a cup of coffee, you open a newspaper and start browsing through the articles. You settle down on one and start reading. Do you ever stop and think about who owns/sponsors the paper in your hand? Do you take them into account while you decide whether the article you read is credible?

Fairness and balance

2011-10-02T17:46:00.003+02:00

Fairness and balance are concepts that may be the best to substitute truth. Why do we substitute truth by the way? Personally, I do not think that these concepts will ever be able to replace truth completely. People have always had the lust for facts, the lust for truthfulness.

Putting facts mildly will never get us anywhere. Thruth cannot be found easily, neither they can be transferred to the mass. Wouldn't it be a means to manipulate people to say facts differently?

However, facts can easily make texts dry and boring. People need entertainment to enjoy reading. Finding the balance between truthfulness and entertainment would be the only way journalists could preserve their validity.

2011-10-02T17:42:00.000+02:00

I do not see the point why should the truth be substituted by any other equally good things. Existence of truth does not contradict fairness or balance.

Alright, we have already learned that every person has his own truth, and sees things differently - someone's Titanic is another's love boat; I would like to think that remaining truthful to yourself and trying to remain objective in judgements is still the cornerstone for some journalists. We may never achieve that perfect balance in our work, but strive to present of the best we can do is more important that thinking of what can possibly be the best substitute for truth.

No Substitutes

2011-10-02T17:18:00.002+02:00

As a member of the public, I feel outraged. If I do not wish to know the truth then I do not read about it. If I want sugar in my coffee, I won’t replace it with sweetener. Similarly, I do not wish, in under any circumstances, for the truth to be replaced with anything else. I need to make decisions based on the facts, and not some substitute someone thought would be good enough for me.

As a potential writer, I am disgusted. I do not want to give substitutes and I do not want to call colleagues the others who would do it. There are several things I do not appreciate in American culture. But the First Amendment is one I fully support. Free speech means the opportunity for stating the truth. It is another question, that as a reader, I have to find it for myself.

2011-10-02T17:09:00.000+02:00

I feel like a broken record while saying that truth is a subjective thing. For God’s sake, we’re not talking about mathematics. It is so hard to decide what is true and what is not, in fact, I think it is impossible. As Gergő said, it is just the same with fairness. He perfectly described how something that is fair to one person can be unfair to the other. In journalism, I think what we mean by truth is telling a certain event or scenario as accurately as we can, typing down how it happened word by word. Not our personal opinions, not different views, just the pure facts. But this is hardly entertaining. For me, this is where balance comes into the picture. As a member of public, I love reading entertaining stories and get to know other people’s opinions. But on the other hand, I am sometimes shocked how naive people can be and how easy it is to manipulate them. Not every one of us are that rational, and hardly any of us are critical thinkers. Therefore, as a potential writer, I think it is important to keep the balance between truthfulness and entertainment.

2011-10-02T16:59:00.002+02:00

Nothing but the truth

2011-10-02T16:32:00.000+02:00

Fairness and balance are all subjective things. What is fairfor one, is unfair for the other. Balance is one of the hardest things to find. Notone of them can be as crucial element of journalism as truth. This idea ofsubstitution fits perfectly into our world: we don’t care what it is until itlooks good, sounds inviting and made-up to a point where it has a life of itsown. What’s the point without truth? It is all a fairy tale without it, withjournalists as storytellers. As we have learned, truth is very hard to find anddefine. That is why it is okay and advised to be fair and balanced when theonly things you have are evidences. Butwhen you have the truth and purposefully substitute it with something, it isnot what journalism supposed to be. As amember of public, I’d feel deceived, lead on. As a potential writer I want tostay as close to truth as possible. The more we are away from it the worse. Asa journalist I would feel obligated to keep myself from any substituting thiswith that as this is just the beginning, and eventually it leads tomanipulation.

Substitution? Rather Retrogression

2011-10-02T13:22:00.001+02:00

Nothing can substitute truth, and nothing should make us even consider substituting truth with anything. Fairness and balance are good ideas or concepts, but nothing is fair, nothing is balanced. Something might seem to be so, but then you should check again, because you are clearly wrong. Use creative thinking.

Nowadays everybody tries to speak fairly, everybody tries to speak politically correctly, which is really nice, thank you, but it doesn’t get us anywhere. I’m not talking about acting or behaving PC, because everyone is (or should be) equal, regardless of their ethnicity, political beliefs, etc. But when we discuss important issues, we tend to get lost because of trying to be fair and/or balanced. It just covers up these matters. It drags back progress. We need to be truthful, we need to say what we think. Sometimes we need to “hurt” people’s feelings to take a step in the right direction, to start a discussion about issues that need to be talked about.

2011-10-02T01:29:00.004+02:00

I regard fairness and balance in journalism as a nice concept. But that's all fairness and balance are: the products of a naive worldview that fails to take into account some subtle but crucial points about journalism. It works in theory, but practice suggests that we might have to look for better goals if we want to have an optimal structure of journalism.

Ideally, news would be devoid of purposeful manipulation: whatever bias articles have should ideally just be subconscious influences by the journalist doing the writing. Sadly, however, that is not quite how it works in reality. See, bias is carefully monitored and consciously added or subtracted depending on what the editor/owner/powers-that-be want(s). And one thing that's taken into account when setting bias is the notion of fair and balanced journalism.

See, while liberals ultimately tend to be idealists, conservative thinkers are very perceptive realists: they see the idealism in liberal media, they see the struggle for fairness, and they see what fairness stands for. Fairness is the connecting bridge between the two extremes: it is through fair and balanced discussion of both radical left and radical right arguments that a mutually beneficial compromise can be reached.

Fairness is the middle ground, and conservatives appear to have found a great way to make their ideology the middle ground: by pushing right-wing media to be as radical as political correctness allows (and even sometimes past that). Meanwhile, liberal news outlets won't touch the radical left, with good cause.

tl;dr: Bill Maher said it much better than me.

Basically, as long as Fox News exists, "Fair and Balanced" ironically cannot be the ultimate journalistic goal.

Question for September 27, 2011

2011-09-27T13:32:00.001+02:00

The text authors state that some journalists want to replace truthfulness with substitutions. Two suggestions are fairness and balance. How do you feel about these changes as a member of the public and as a potential writer?

Ideals and Truths

2011-09-25T17:31:00.002+02:00

“In an ideal world…” Márton said. In an ideal world, there would be no money problems, no economic crises, no corruption, no mass accidents, and, therefore, no news to write about. There would be no requisite for journalism, which was born from the need to educate and manipulate, and which now exploits the ignorance of people. There is no ideal world and there is no ideal journalism, of course, aside from the simple, philosophical thought itself.

We all start from the same standpoint: “I want to tell the truth, because people NEED THE TRUTH.” But how long does this dream, however honorable it is, can last? Maybe when one realizes that it is impossible to shout out every heartfelt opinion and get paid for it at the same time. Maybe it happens, when one goes to work and the boss says, “You have to go to this press conference and praise the executives of the company afterwards.” Or maybe the end of Neverland is when one makes an interview and even with knowing that what was said was an outright lie, it must be written that way, because the consequence of writing the truth would be unemployment and maybe even a nasty law suit.

We live in a world where people would need the truth but cannot have it, because the truth hurts… Other people. Important people. Powerful people. Fortunately, it is in the nature of truth to come out and a good journalist’s job is to nurture, accelerate and help the process. Then only one task remains: it has to be written.

2011-09-25T17:29:00.004+02:00

In my opinion, journalism cannot serve only one particulargoal. We all do have different tastes and preferences. One can find banal andboring something that others find fascinating and exciting.

In the fast changing world of today, with the technologicalprogress that humanity has achieved, there is no lack of information. Sometimeswould be even more appropriate to say, there is an overflow of information.However, the choice is always ours, what is it that feeds our particularinterests.

There are local newspapers, magazines and televisionchannels that focus on bringing light to the important domestic issues.Journalists who work there do not need to go far to find examples of injustice,violence and inequality. Not onlyglobal problems that matter but regional ones as well. Local situations are thecrucial; they deserve attention, because they are most likely to affect thelife of citizens of a particular country. However, it does not mean that journalists should be blind toglobal issues.

Life is not only about problems and finding solutions; therewill always be room for entertainment. There are journalists that tell theworld about royal wedding and who is going to be the first billionaire on thelist of the Forbes magazine. As far as a reader has head on the shoulders and candifferentiate for himself what deserves attention and what was just fabricatedby certain elements of media (forthe sake of commerce), every type of journalism has a right to exist. As longas each and every journalist tries to work to the best of his ability, audiencewill expend its informational horizon.

Ekaterina Egorova

Journalism, a blessing to be free

2011-09-25T15:56:00.005+02:00

Are we free and do we self-govern at all? This is a question that has been debateful since the existence of journalism.
Firstly, we all should bear in mind that journalism in today's world is an extremely significant fraction of a well working society. Journalism enables us to know what is going on around us and it is a means for people to express themselves so as to be free; but is it really the case?
Not always, some journalists tend to forget what their professional calling is. They sometimes write to earn money to get along with their lives. The question may arise, "Where do they get the inspiration from when their own thougts are replaced with $$$?" This is the point when mass manipulation steps in. In this case, it is easy to "force" journalists to write what other people want them to jot down since they are not aware of the fact that what they are doing is totally against conventional morals.
Readers have the task to filter the information they get and read not from only one single source but from many others. Nevertheless, readers may experience that every source is slightly different, that is because there is no such thing as absolute objectivism.

What I think is that journalists should give us the key to be free, to self-govern; and all we have to do is use the information given in such a way that we can differentiate between what manipulates us and what does not.

Ignorance is Bliss

2011-09-25T15:46:00.002+02:00

Most people are ignorant and don’t want to think. That’s fine. Supposedly we have free will, so it’s their choice; if they are happy with it, then I’m happy for them. But on the other hand, there are people who want to know about what goes on in the world, they need information, and that’s what the media gives them. Either biased or unbiased, true or untrue, it gives these people something to think about.

Everyone decides whose words he believes or considers valid, whose lines he deems hooey. That can change from topic to topic (that’s probably the healthier choice) or he can stick with one side every time. On a sidenote, that’s what most politically active, but politically inept people do, but they are the majority. Journalism has to give people the freedom of choice, to get the information they want to know from a source they can trust. Since there are no unbiased opinions (facts can be, or should be unbiased though), it is important to take everything with a grain of salt, if you really want to form your own thoughts. Be aware of these things, because it is impossible to write without forming and unconsciously expressing an opinion, no one should even try not to do that, but everyone has to make sure to write what he thinks is right.

Lastly, we shouldn’t forget the entertainment value of an article or a column. It is important for people to take a little time off now and then to recuperate, we can’t live a full life without having fun. In my opinion, telling people interesting stories or anecdotes should definitely be a part of journalism, we shouldn’t take everything extremely seriously.

So, what is the purpose of journalism? Giving information, expressing thoughts and opinions, and entertainment. A healthy mixture of all the aforementioned elements is what needed for a sound society and a sound world of journalism.

Let's keep it real

2011-09-25T14:42:00.002+02:00

I may not have much experience in journalism yet, but my point of view is quite different from what’s been said before. I think there are two main types of journalists; ones that have a true passion for writing and the ones who struggle every week to meet the deadlines and get paid for their work, probably at some newspaper they would never even look at. Today’s world is all about financial struggle for the middle-class and sadly, journalists are no exception. Unfortunately, writing in gossip magazines is just another way to get by for somebody. I suppose it never occurs to such a writer that what they do might not be right for the community. But nowadays one’s lucky enough to get a decent job and be able to support their family.

However, there are still members of this profession who can be related to poets indeed (Gergő), for they have a natural desire to write; not because they are paid for it but because this is a form of self-expression for them. Because writing is good. I don’t mean to sound cheesy but I truly wish we had some more of these people who keep real journalism alive, who have a true passion for what they do, and who write because they want to, not because in some way non-TV watchers have to be mislead as well.

Tell us what to think please!

2011-09-25T11:26:00.000+02:00

Journalists have a crucial role in our information drivensociety. They are modern day poets. Just like we say, that Petőfi and hispeople were the flame that drove the revolution of 1848. There are manyjournalists today who are Petőfis, and many who are simply guiding lights tolead people on the road of their freedom. At least this is what it should belike. Like religious leaders gone mad, with the great power of information intheir hands, many journalists forget their mission. Or worse, they are pushedto go against the morals. This is why nowadays even the best journalismrequires an essential critical thinking and filtering from the reader. To reallyself-govern, consumers of journalistic products have to be able to read betweenthe lines. Differentiate between objective facts and pure manipulation. Nothaving a clue about the big picture (global economy and politics) is in factsome kind of a manipulation, but we can’t blame that on news sources. No newschannel or newspaper can present all the things that are needed for areasonable judgment. This is why it is the responsibility of citizen (even acivic duty maybe) to have an idea of the surrounding happenings and not justlocal news.

Until people realize how important it is to lookbehind the scenes, they are not more than puppets that are easily manipulatedthrough dozens of news sources.

Re: What is Journalism For?

2011-09-21T20:25:00.004+02:00

I disagree with István to an extent that journalism can be adequately described as a means for mass manipulation. Certainly that's something it's good for, and in a sense manipulating the reader is inevitable even with the best intentions.

However, this is just a side-effect easily exploited by those with fewer than average scruples, and I don't think the question should be what use unscrupulous people have for journalism. We should set the purpose of journalism as in an ideal world, and all news pieces, editorials, and whatever else that don't adhere to that purpose should be treated as unacceptable deviance from the norm.

What this ideal purpose of journalism is to be defined as is up for debate, but I for one think that manipulation has no place in it. As it stands, our political freedom is largely illusory, and self-governance only goes as far as our immediate, individual lives, but what little of it we do have, we owe it to the free presses. Imagine where we'd be if we had an ideal news community.

What is journalism for?

2011-09-21T15:31:00.001+02:00

Journalism is a powerful means to manipulate mass opinion. It should be rather a pile of raw data, or at least in a form digestible for the average citizen. Of course this would only work on the premise of a well-educated society. The problem is people are systematically made ignorant or indifferent. Television is one major contributor to this process. One way to demonstrate this is with Ekaterina's example.
A mother of three gets home after 10 hours of work, exhausted, feeling that she no longer can live in a treadmill. She wants a better life. After taking care of dinner, helping her children with their homework she finally has some time to relax. She turns on the television to find the program, which was decided for her, she needs, the Jerry Springer show.
What does she see? Undemanding, uneducated people. They are cursing, fighting in front of a live audience for childish reasons (and for a few dollars).
What does she think? "Hey! My life isn't so bad after all!"

Its like a drug. People are watching shows like this, reading gossip magazines and it actually makes them feel better about their own life. They do not want to face the truth anymore, because it would make them depressed.
My point is, journalism does not give people something to think about, rather it tells them what to think. "Enjoy yourself! Don't worry about anything! We got that covered for you!"

What is journalism for?

2011-09-20T19:13:00.003+02:00

The first question for the first week:

Are we free and do we self-govern at all?

Nowadays we receive tons of information. However, most of us are not aware of their (political, economical) surroundings. Local news are ignoring global politics and economics. Can these people vote responsibly on the elections? Should they participate in the political or economical debates? These people are also citizens, members of the society.

Keep in mind that "The press was to serve the governed, not the governors".

Here We Go

2011-09-09T14:11:00.000+02:00

We are almost at that magic moment when you will be posting your first blog post for this class. There is thing that will make this more meaningful for you. Do not read anyone others' postings until after you write your own. After you write your post and publish it, then go back and read others. However, do not change your own. It is important for you to have a clear idea of your thinking without being influenced by others.

TIP: Most of the time, I write my post in Notepad first. If you type it in the New Post box and something happened to your Internet connect, you may lose part of the writing. Blogger will do an automatic save every so often, but it may not be enough if you are a fast typist. I have found that typing in Microsoft Word and then copy and pasting it here sometimes causes problems. The scroll bar will disappear for anyone reading the blog. Please do not use Word, only Notepad.

One last thing if you are concerned about your grade. When you create a post, you will notice that you can add a label to the white box below the posting box. Please use your name only, but always use your name and make sure you use it the same way each time. Don't use Sally Silly one time and then Silly Sally or S. Sally or S. Silly at other times. This will be you, me, and the world a running visual of all of your postings. When I click on your name at the end of the semester, I will see a list of all of your postings to calculate that portion of the grade. Be aware that every post in these blogs are sent to me via e-mail, so I am reading them there.

In-Text links - use as many as you wish. I don't care.

Welcome

2011-09-09T12:37:00.000+02:00

Welcome to the Journalism blog. As you know, if you are in the Journalism specialization, you will have blogging responsibilities for three different classes. Make certain you put the correct post in the correct blog. They do not overlap, so what is posted here will only be able to be read here.

IF you have joined by your e-mail moniker and not your real name, you must include your full name in each post in order for me to be able to identify you. If you do not do this, you will lose out on blogging credit. A good way to do this is to create a label with your real name. Use that label for each of your posts and they will all show under your name. Please do not add other information to the label sections.

You will be responsible to find a news article from a U.S. newspaper (online is okay). You will enter the web site of the article in your post here and then you will write a short commentary on the article. You should be able to do this in no more than a dozen sentences.

What is the journalist's point of view?

How do you know this?

Did the journalist use facts or assumptions? Give examples.

Where the facts appropriate for the story?

What did you discover from reading this article.

These are just starter questions. As we read the assigned book and the readings, you will be able to expand your thinking and providing us with more questions and answers. I may also focus your weekly blog post by posting a specific question, eliminating the above assignment.

For consistency, please change the font to Georgia and the size to large. Here is a tip: type your whole post in NotePad first and save it. Then sign into the blog and click on New Post. Go to NotePad, hit Control and A at the same time. The whole post will highlight. Copy and Paste it into the post box in Blogger. If it is not already highlighted, hit Control and A again, then use the drop down box to change the font and the box to the right of it to change the size. Finally, click on PUBLISH POST. Do not save it as a draft or it will not show up and you will not receive credit for it.

Intro to Journalism

Open Newsrooom: Pros and Cons

Re: Question of the week

Our Future

Question for the Week

Market Research

Re: Question of the week

Hype, indeed

Some Ends Justify Some Means

Hype Machine

RE: Question of the week

The Types of Hypes

Question of the Week

Re: Question of the week

Reply to the Question of the Week

A blind nut in the nutshell's dark traverses

Question of the week

Innovation in Storytelling.

Re: Question of the week

White lies

Entertainment vs Integrity

Re: Question of the week

The audience decides that

Question of the Week

Re: Question of the week

Re: Question of the week

Limitations

The Danger in Indipendence

Re:question of the week

The question of the week

Like glass

Shattered Glass

RE: Question of the week

Shattered Glass

On "Shattered Glass"

RE: Question for October 25

Shattered personality

The Fabulist

Question for October 25

Ethical thinking

A Healthy Dose of Censorship

Ethics

The Question of Ethics

Ethics

Ethical behaviour

Question of the week

Ethics of Journalism

RE: Question of the Week

TV as a Credible Source

Taking sides

Multiple Sources

Incredulity of Credibility

Awareness is the Key

Re: Question for this week

Question for this week.

RE: Question of the week

Think about that, but not always

Preferences

Advertisements or Politics?

It depends on..

Don't ruin your coffee with thinking about this. Leave it for later.

Do you?

Fairness and balance

No Substitutes

Nothing but the truth

Substitution? Rather Retrogression

Question for September 27, 2011

Related articles

Ideals and Truths

Journalism, a blessing to be free

Ignorance is Bliss

Let's keep it real

Tell us what to think please!

Re: What is Journalism For?

What is journalism for?

What is journalism for?

Here We Go

Welcome