The Most Important Journalistic Equation

It's a simple formula:  Lack of attribution = lack of credibility = lack of readers.

There is nothing difficult about attribution. It's simply saying who or what your source is, whether it's a fact, an opinion or a quote. As we've discussed in class, attribution is the soul of journalism because without it, your article or broadcast is not believable. Reporters need to protect themselves. In the event that the information proves to be false, at least the reporter can truthfully say that her source was wrong, not her. And attribution establishes credibility by showing  readers or listeners where they can go if they challenge anything in the article or if they want to obtain more information from your sources.

Getting the story first is nice. Getting it fast is nice too. But getting it right supercedes everything else. Without journalistic integrity, reporters or publications have nothing to offer readers or listeners. Recently an Irish college student conducted a media experiment that, unfortunately, major news organizations failed. The results were alarming and should make everyone -- especially aspiring journalists -- remember to not only attribute their own facts, but to check and re-check any unattributed information they obtain online. Click here to read an article about the hoax.

Deep Throat: Patriot or Traitor?

All the President's Men is a classic illustration of the watchdog role of journalism and how no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. More than 30 years have passed since Watergate. Given the technology we have today, as well as the greater emphasis on homeland security, do you think Woodward and Bernstein's job would be easier or more difficult if they were investigating the same series of events today?

One thing's for sure. Deep Throat, their anonymous source for many of the stories, was instrumental in helping them uncover the Watergate scandal. For years Deep Throat's identity remained a mystery until Mark Felt, former associate director of the FBI, admitted in 2005 that he was, in fact, the parking garage informant. Click here to view a brief newscast about Mark Felt's death a few years ago. While some praise Felt for his  courage, others consider him a traitor for leaking classified information to reporters. Click here to see this point of view.

Do you think Deep Throat was a hero? Or was he maybe someone who disliked President Nixon and used Woodward and Bernstein for his own agenda? How do you feel about the value and trustworthiness of anonymous sources?
 
Photo courtesy of The Guardian.

Note: This photo appears under the legal concept of Fair Use in copyright law. Fair use allows the reproduction of copyrighted material for certain purposes without obtaining permission and without paying a fee or royalty. Purposes permitting the application of fair use generally include review, news reporting, teaching, or scholarly research.

The First Amendment: A Blessing and a Curse

The First Amendment is the foundation of an open society. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. Yet the right to free expression often comes into conflict with other rights, especially when it infringes on the safety or morality of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is child pornography or material that is considered obscene in nature. This is why the First Amendment is not just a static document that was written by our forefathers over 200 years ago. Because society and technology change and evolve, the First Amendment is continually challenged by cases that need to be interpreted by the courts.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state of California, saying that the state's law banning the sale of violent video games to children was a violation of the First Amendment. Click here to watch a news report about the case.

Another interesting case came about this year that is reminiscent of the Tinker case. Read this wire report to see what it was all about. Does the student's t-shirt meet the Tinker standard of "substantial disruption"? Or should he have a right to wear it under the First Amendment?  The First Amendment is often problematic because it leaves questions of exactly what is protected speech open to debate. Yet the many freedoms it guarantees far outweigh its flaws. I welcome your thoughts about one or both of these cases.   .

A Digital Decade

Welcome to a new school year! And welcome, young journalists, to Waldsmith's Dispatch, our journalism class blog. I began this blog in the fall of 2009 and it goes on hiatus when our semester-long class is over. I'm excited to get the blog up and running again because it works as a great tool to accompany and emphasize issues covered in class, as well a place to share your thoughts and comments. Some of the posts will be "greatest hits" of earlier posts; others will be brand new. So here are some questions to ponder.

Are newspapers a dying breed? It would seem so. As we've discussed in class and as chapter 4 in your textbook points out, traditional newspapers are fighting to survive and implementing new technologies to meet the needs of a new generation of readers who are more likely to get their news from an iPod or cell phone. On the other hand, journalism itself isn't dying. Only its mode of delivery is changing and adapting. Click here to read a bit more about the trend.

Meanwhile the trend of citizen journalism is also here to stay. As we saw in the For Neda documentary, ordinary citizens, as well as journalists, were able to use cell phones and social networking sites like Twitter to report news that would have otherwise been suppressed by the Iranian government.

While the digital revolution has enabled us to have incredible opportunities and resources at our fingertips, it has also spawned problematic trends. How, for example, do we sift through it all? How will people know the difference between legitimate news sources and biased or unsupported propaganda? How will people be able to make informed decisions?

NBC anchorman Brian Williams summed it up well:  "It is now possible--even common--to go about your day in America and consume only what you wish to see and hear. There are television networks that already agree with your views, iPods that play only music you already know you like, Internet programs ready to filter out all but the news you want to hear . . . The whole notion of  'media' is now much more democratic, but what will the effect be on democracy?"

One final note: as the media commemorate the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, it's interesting to reflect on how much technology has changed in the past decade and how social media has impacted journalism. Click here to read an interesting article about how coverage of the catastrophic events of that day would likely be different today.

Creative Commons photo: Newspaper stands by Miriam Mollerus