THE RABID WATCHDOG

Today in our comms 239 class we were given a presentation from our peers about how journalists and news organizations must be a monitor on power, AKA "the watchdog principle". During our discussion it was stated that journalists as watchdogs take a subjective approach to there journalism, meaning journalists take sides... with the truth. This led us to the discussion of how scrupulous should journalist be in keeping an eye on prominent and powerful organizations in our society, as well as prominent and powerful figures.  

One of the purposes of this watchdog principle is to hold these organizations and people accountable for the wrong that they do.  One issue is whether or not we should hold them accountable for mistakes or crimes they've committed in the past, say 10, 20, or 30 years ago.  Often times journalists will dig up this information just to get a story. We agreed that sometimes this information is relevant and sometimes it isn't.  Sometimes journalists use this information which discredits this person just for the sake of a story, ultimately having no relevance to the public.  We must be good judges as journalists.  

I would now like to present to you the case of the "Blogger" in all this.  Journalism outlets now take the form of blogs and one might even say "tweets".  As unofficial news sources should these news outlets be subject to such journalistic ethics as traditional news organizations are? The case which arouses this question appeared in a Nov 26th NYTimes article "Network feels the wrath of a blogger misled" http://tinyurl.com/ylrhbda in the business section. 

An editor from www.deadspin.com http://tinyurl.com/yze67pt basically uses his popular sports blog to reinforce (not so flattering) rumors about an ESPN employee.  In a way a blog editor has twisted this idea of watchdog journalism to slander a person and a companies reputation without following a proper journalistic ethical procedure to verify his information.  

This is a problem with so much new media and it acting as independent news outlets.  Not all bad comes from this new media taking on the role of journalism, however; we must be mindful of the abuses that are occurring within them.  

Ethics of Objectivity in Journalism

A journalist from Baltimore once said " the objective viewpoint is the one that agrees with mine."  To some degree objectivity in journalism is a fantasy.  As humans by nature we have biased views and affiliations.  So journalists (as humans, we think anyways) are biased. 

 I suppose because of it's inherent nature we put so much enfasis on the idea of objectivity in the news.  Its the duty of news organizations not to deceive the pubic or their audiences, and we feel the best way for them NOT to do that is by presenting both sides of the stories that are published.  For a journalist to do his job objectively he should represent voices from both sides or even multiple sides of an issue, that way a reader can come to a fair or balanced conclusion. 

 In our Comms 239 class some of us came to agree that journalists are not objective but their methods or form of journalism can be.  

This focus on objectivity some what bothers me.  As I continue to read and view multiple news sources i notice that objectivity leaves me unfulfilled or with a vague view of what the real picture is.   A program that i feel proves my point is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

  I understand that it is a mock news source but in its subjectivity it makes strong affirmative statements about how things really are. An objective approach is hesitant to make affirmative statements in fear that it might be wrong.  Last week Jon Stewart criticized CNN for a lack of fact checking on their part.  Those sort of things are good for the public to know, and it takes a subjective approach to do that.  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there

Another example, and its kind of an extreme one, is Bush and the Iraq War. The media continually published and objective view of the facts or on what the government was telling the public.  Of the few news organizations that investigated and tried to portray a subjective view point and make an affirmative statement that the president was wrong were hardly ever published.  

Regarding objectivity: it's a good general rule that probably should be followed most of the time, however; focusing on the ethics of it journalists loose perspective of the picture they are really portraying to their audiences and of the picture the public really might need to see.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=objectivity%20in%20journalism&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv&start=0#

Thoughts on the future of print journalism

I read two article recently; one dealing with apple's new gizmo titled the apple "tablet"(http://bit.ly/C0y1V), and another discussing the future demise of print newspapers.  Both article's i felt discussed the same issue but from different perspectives.   

The first article (go to http://bit.ly/XBVaB) addresses the wave of new online media that is revolutionizing newspapers as we speak.  The article claims that print is loosing its value because audiences are all going online for their news.  Print subscriptions are dropping for all major newspapers across the country. News organizations are trying to keep up by downsizing their employee numbers and by moving more content onto the internet.  Government bailouts have been spoken of but most agree as does the writer of the article that this is a bad idea.  But does print journalism need to die and is the sooner it dies the better?  

Its obvious with the appearance of gadgets like the apple "tablet" or the "kindle" that the future of print is bleak. However, their is something artifact-esqe about having a tangible paper or magazine in your hand that holds value and will throughout the ages.  

I remember being a kid and going into my parents basement and on the bookshelf their were hundreds of yellow National Geographic magazines lining two or three entire shelves.  It was sacrilegious to throw one of those magazines away.  One of my favorite possessions is the 1983 National Geographic with a cover portrait of the Afghan girl.

Besides the timeless value of physical print, the truth is advertisers are still paying to put their ads in newspapers and not online.  Sure, most larger national newspapers or struggling but local newspapers are doing reasonably better. Frankly that is where newspapers are doing a decent job; covering local stories (not international news).  

Preparations for handling online audiences need to be made by every major and minor newspaper organizations, its true, but as long as people are still confiding in their local print papers and as long as advertisers are still willing to put their ads in the printed papers and not so much online, then print will be around to stay.