Bias in the News

Creative Commons photo by DonkeyHotey

Even if your work is free of bias, you need to be a critical observer of the news media and have a greater understanding of bias in reporting. Because it happens. All the time.  Bias can occur in many ways, particularly through:  

•  Selection and omission of specific details

•  Placement of a story

•  Choice of sources

•  Word choice and tone

•  Headlines

•  Photos and camera angles

•  Captions

•  Names and titles

•  Statistics

Click here to examine how two articles cover the same news event in much different way.Then click on some of the other menu items and explore this excellent University of Michigan website on news bias. Are you surprised by some of the hidden bias?

On a related note, some words over time are dropped by journalists when they become offensive to people. For example, a number of news organizations are refusing to print or broadcast the term "Washington Redskins".   Here is a brief article that explains the controversy. Do you think journalists need to avoid terms that may be offensive? Or do you think they shouldn't spend so much time worrying about being "politically correct"?

Interviewing Tips & Less is More

Although everyone in the class still needs more practice with writing hard news leads and writing stories that follow the basic inverted pyramid structure, it's time to move towards other forms of journalistic writing, beginning with basic feature writing. Features rely more heavily on quotes and interviews, so we need to spend some time in and out of class considering and practicing what makes a good interview.

It's true that the best interviews are like good conversations. That is, in most cases the interview should be a comfortable give-and-take session where you and the person you interview talk with each other, not ateach other. Of course, if the interviewee is hostile or defensive, this may not be the case. But the three best things you can do to have a good interview are:

1) Prepare thoroughly by researching the topic and/or the person and list questions.
2) Take good notes and record the interview if possible.
3) Listen very attentively.

Being a good listener is the most important thing you can do. One of the biggest mistakes many inexperienced reporters make is worrying so much about what question to ask next, that they don't realize something important or unexpected that the interviewee has just said. 

Here are a couple of short videos I would like you to watch. The first is some good advice about interviewing from former network anchor Katie Couric. The second is from National Public Radio's Scott Simon.

There's an old saying in journalism: "Less is more."

Forget about the times you wrote as much as you could about something in order to impress the teacher or give your reader the impression that you really know what you're talking about. In journalism brevity is key. Hard news stories must be concise or you'll confuse and lose the reader. While feature stories allow writers to be more descriptive and more creative, that doesn't mean you should necessarily start writing a lot more. Right now we're focusing on short profiles so that means first do thorough reporting and interviewing, then pick the very best information to write your story. Don't give the reader all of the information. While your words may be sacred to you, you have to be able to cut what's not necessary and edit wordy phrases.

Think of it as fat-free writing.

Click on the links below to see three more examples of 300-word stories by Brady Dennnis, then comment on which you like the best and why.

Looking for a laugh

One minute and $123 dollars

As time goes by

Attribution and Anonymous Sources

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 itright 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. Your thoughts?

On a separate note,  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. 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?
  

Tough Questions?

Flickr photo by Keith Allison

As the controversy surrounding the Ray Rice scandal continues to unfold, numerous members of the National Football League are coming under fire.  The main questions are what did they know and when did they know it? Now members of the sports media are also coming under fire for not uncovering the facts of the story that a gossip news organization like TMZ was able to.  Journalists are supposed to ask tough questions. It's becoming clear that many of them didn't. Or those that did ask tough questions accepted non-answers too easily.

Click on these three links to familiarize yourself with the story and share some of your thoughts. First watch this video clip that provides an overview of the Ray Rice story itself. 

The second is a link to a sports blog critical of the media's handling of the story. 

And the third is a video of a press conference held by Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh earlier this week.

Listen carefully to the news conference. The focus was on the new video that emerged showing Ray Rice beating his then-fiancé inside an elevator. Harbaugh dismissed important questions about the new view of the assault with “I don’t want to get into that” replies. What do you think of the reporters' handling of the coach's non-responses? Should they have been tougher or more persistent in their questioning? Did they play "softball" with this football coach? 

The First Amendment and First Impressions

                                         Creative Commons photo by Denise Krebs

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.    

Click here to watch a brief news report about a case that reached the Supreme Court a few years ago.       

The First Amendment is therefore a blessing and a curse.  Either way, it should be easy to see 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.  

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?"  

Also click on this link to see an interesting story that evolved on Twitter following the recent shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. It raises interesting questions about bias in the media.

Please share your thoughts about any of the the items mentioned in a brief response.