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

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.