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

Some final thoughts . . .

Photo courtesy of mnstate.edu 

Plagiarism, fabrication, bias, fallacies. As we have seen, whether it's intentional misconduct or unintentional violations of sound journalistic practices, numerous ethical problems have the potential to exist when writing for print or broadcast news. Yet it's not just words that we have to be careful with, but photographs as well. Thanks to amazing software programs like Photoshop, it's incredibly easy to alter a photograph to make someone or something appear better (or worse). While that's fine for something like a senior picture, it's completely unethical to alter a photograph or video accompanying a news story. You wouldn't change someone's quote. Yet some people don't see anything wrong with changing a photograph. Remember, photojournalism must abide by the same ethical principles of truth and accuracy.

Recently political satirist and TV host Jon Stewart criticized Fox TV's Sean Hannity for playing with the facts, the visual facts that is. Click here to watch the clip from the show. Pay close attention to the video and what Stewart is calling Hannity out for. (By the way, Hannity later apologized for what he called an "inadvertent mistake".)

I hope you've enjoyed our journalism class and this journalism blog this semester. What are some of the most important things you have learned? Waldsmith's Dispatch will be on hiatus until September 2011 when a new crop of aspiring writers joins me for another semester of journalism bootcamp!

Creative Commons photo, "Sunset Road", by Kopfjäger

The Importance of Copyright

While it's true that copyright law can get a bit complicated, the important thing to know in this Internet Age is that you can't simply download photos, song lyrics, cartoon characters, etc. into a student publication without permission.   

Here is a comprehensive student guide to copyright law that's worth reviewing.

But there is an important exception that journalists, in particular, need to know about. This exception to the general copyright rule is known as the Fair Use Doctrine. It allows the use of limited amounts of copyrighted works for important purposes like news reporting, critiques and education -- as long as the fair use does not significantly cut into the commercial value of the original copyrighted work.

So, for example, it's permissible for a student newspaper to reprint a short passage from a new book to accompany a book review, or to include sample lyrics from a new album to accompany an album review. Or it's generally considered acceptable to reprint a small photo of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, but it probably would not be considered acceptable to reproduce that photo to a very large size for greater impact.

There are four key factors that determine fair use:                              

1) The purpose of your use  (Is your purpose for using the item for teaching or news reporting? Or to make money off of it?)
2) The nature of your work  (Is the work itself factual or highly creative like someone's copyrighted fiction. The more creative and original the work is, the more necessary it is to be sure you're only using a tiny amount for the purpose of critiquing, for example.)
3) The amount you're using  (A small quantity of the original work is usually acceptable.)
4) The effect of your use on the market  (Your use of this item will have no major effect on the market.)

Still, what constitutes "fair use" isn't always clear. Click here to read an interesting article about a copyright legal battle revolving around President Obama's image.


Flickr Creative Commons image by MikeBlogs

Libel and Privacy and Cell Phones -- Oh My!

Libel:  Last week, a Detroit News columnist wrote this disparaging piece about University of Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez (otherwise known as "Rich Rod"). Could this be potentially libelous? Be prepared to offer in class at least two reasons why you think it is or isn't.

 Right to Privacy:  Despite what most people think, the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and some amendment in the Bill of Rights protect specific aspects of privacy. The 1st Amendment, for example, protects the privacy of beliefs while the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

In general, the law attempts to balance the public's right to know vs. an individual's right to privacy. If the information is "newsworthy" -- that is, if people have a right or a need to know about something, then that will prevail over a person's claim to privacy. Thus, if your next-door neighbor is having an affair, publishing a story about it in the local paper would be a clear violation of his privacy. However, when a public figure does the same thing, the press can reasonably assert that such an event is newsworthy. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for example, waged a prolonged legal battle claiming that hundreds of text messages detailing his illicit affair with a co-worker were private. He lost and ended up going to jail for perjury and other charges.

But sometimes a private citizen injects himself or herself on to the public stage, and by doing so, loses the defense of "right to privacy". If that neighbor of yours is having an affair with a 16-year-old, that information is no longer considered private. That's news because it's against the law. Other times, however, it's not always so clear who is a "public figure" and so the courts have to interpret some invasion of privacy claims on an individual basis.

What's more, social networking sites and the Internet have created a myriad of new questions about a private citizen's right to privacy. And when, exactly, does a person's right to privacy end? When he or she dies? Not necessarily, according to the plaintiffs in a new lawsuit. Click here to learn about this interesting case.

Cell Phones:   Finally, just in case you were thinking that you have no worries about privacy, check out this report about new cell phone spyware that not only tracks your every move but can also be used a means of harassment. Protect your privacy!

"Private" Flickr Creative Commons photo by James Cridland.
 

WikiLeaks: The Right to Know or Going Too Far?

In recent days, a website known as WikiLeaks has stirred up tremendous controversy regarding the release of thousands of government documents that were never meant for the public to see. As we prepare to discuss the right to privacy vs. the public's right to know in the days ahead, please familiarize yourself with the WikiLeaks debate and be prepared to discuss it in class.


Katie Couric gives a brief explanation of the dilemma here. And a WikiLeaks spokesman presents the organzation's point of view in this interview with CNN.

Fair Use: www.wikileaks.org

There's More to the Story

Besides the fallacies we're reviewing in class, probably the biggest fallacy that journalists can commit it to take something out of context. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of a statement in order to give undue importance or meaning to a part of it.

For example, suppose Senator John Doe says, "I think Frank Jones is not a man to trifle with." Then the anchor of a major TV network either gleefully or perhaps even unintentionally reports it as, "Sen. John Doe says his opponent Frank Jones is not a man." That is taking John Doe's words out of context. By not including the entire statement, the reporter has given the statement a completely different meaning.

John Doe's statement means that he thinks he has a formidable opponent; that is, he obviously respects his opponent as being tough. But when the statement is taken out of context, it makes it sound as though Senator Doe has insulted his opponent by questioning his manhood. Once a statement is reported out of context like this, other  broadcast, print and online organizations begin reporting the same thing and a media firestorm is soon created.

A classic example of this occurred several months ago when a government official's words were taken out of context. Both the media and the White House failed to take the time to carefully review the whole story. Please watch this video clip of the incident and read this report so that you are familiar with the case and able to discuss it here and in class.

Flickr Creative Commons photo of Shirley Sherrod by USDAgov

Bias in the News

We're going to be examining the problem of bias in the news. You're probably thinking, "I'm not prejudiced. So I would never be biased in my reporting or writing." But bias isn't the same thing as prejudice. Prejudice is a deliberate negative feeling or attitude. Bias is a tendency or an inclincation to assume a certain viewpoint, and a bias may be favorable or unfavorable and is not always deliberate. 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

So we'll explore how and why bias occurs. For now, click here to examine how two articles cover the same news event in much different way.