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.

Interviewing Tips & When 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, we're going to move for now 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 at each 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 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

Tweeting in Journalism -- The Good and the Bad

Alright, so I admit it. I'm one of those middle-aged adults who is highly skeptical of the intrinsic value of Twitter. But I'm evidently not alone. According to a recent 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, only 15 percent of Americans believe that Twitter is an important new tool for mass communication.Thirty-nine percent said the microblogging site is a fad that will fade away, while 43 percent had either heard of it but didn't know what it is, or had never heard of it.

However, it's clear that Twitter does has its usefulness for certain people -- not only celebrities -- but journalists and bloggers. During breaking news, in particular, both professional and citizen journalists have used Twitter to great advantage. For example, Twitter was a vital tool in reports about the Iranian crackdown on massive demonstrations in 2009, especially after Western journalists were deported from the country.

Click here to read how journalists are using Twitter to help them report the news. Then check out this video clip about the downside of Twitter. You can also read about one of the recent incidents referred to in the video in this article.

To tweet or not to tweet? That is the question.

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.