What makes journalism?

Trista Thurston
tt531411@ohio.edu

Anyone can be a journalist, that much is clear. What I have always loved about journalism is how inclusive it is for every kind of voice. Journalism is best when there are varied stories. The best stories are those that share experiences with unique perspectives, yet still provide relevant facts and necessary information. Therefore, I have always thought that the argument of who is allowed to be a journalist is a little isolating and not in the spirit of the profession.

The better question is what makes journalism beneficial to society? Our founding fathers intended for us to say something meaningful with our First Amendment rights, but what makes those ideas good?

Journalistic credibility comes from subscribing to common ethics and goals, and not the title alone. Simply subscribing to these ethics is not enough to make readers trust a reporter, though. Most journalists would not call themselves unethical, just as most doctors would not call themselves quacks.

What people think of journalists, as illustrated by Google's auto-complete feature 

Ethical Call and Response

Readers should know what ethics guide the media they’re consuming, just as journalists should know what their readers expect of them. There should be a dialogue between readers and reporters about ethics and news media. One of the best places to do this now is Twitter. With Twitter, citizens can reach out directly to those telling the stories they care about and vice versa.

Changing Landscape, Rising Cost

Integrating technology and journalism is no easy task, though, even if it is as simple as using social media. When I hear my classmates, who are not journalism majors, talk about the state of the media industry, I cringe. Their suggestions to turn the journalism industry around include developing robust mobile apps, local community coverage and expanding reporting topics, as well as expanding social media presence. All of these ideas sound wonderful. And expensive.

Developing internet properties for radio, television and newspapers requires servers, designers, dedicated editors and so much more. News outlets cannot just radically overhaul their distribution methods without a lot of time, energy and monetary resources. These are things that most newsrooms just do not have in excess.

As presented in The State of the News Media 2013 from the Pew Research Center, Google is eating away at what little profit digital news advertisers make. Digital news has not quite figured out how to be profitable yet without piggy-backing on legacy media or other established companies and services.

The Expense of Quality

Quality reporting is expensive. Sending a reporter on scene and equipping him or her with the tools needed to tell a comprehensive story, like a laptop, camera and relevant software, is something only the national outlets are able to afford. However, even those reporters are discovering that they are outnumbered at press conferences nowadays.

“‘You would go into these hearings and there would be more PR people representing these big players than there were reporters, sometimes by a factor of two or three,’” said David Barstow from the New York Times of the 2010 Gulf oil spill. “‘“The muscles of journalism are weakening and the muscles of public relations are bulking up.’”

This means that not only are there more public relations workers out there at major news events, but they outnumber reporters and are better financed.

So now what?

It took 10 years for 90% of Americans to own a mobile phone. That same technological penetration took 50 years for landline telephones. Technology has wrecked what we thought we knew about journalism, journalists and their ethics. Or has it? Do the core principles change just because the distribution methods do? I argue that the core ethics of journalism to seek truth, minimize harm, act independent and be accountable and transparent can last far beyond any possible technological fad or innovation.

Now we just have to figure out how to monetize it and how to make our readers trust us. Easy, right?

What is the price of unified ethics? Identity.

Tess Stevens

TS075411@ohio.edu

12/2/14

PBS.org's article entitled, "Why New Journalism Ethics Have to be Public, Not Personal" attaches the idea of unified ethics to the back of journalism. In the social media age it is evident that all of our business is, or can be public at all times. Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and more have enabled us to stay engaged with each other, the world and the news cycle more often than ever before. The double edged sword that is social media is showing its sharp side as ethicists all over are playing the guessing game regarding what is public and private. Journalism's impact on the world is bigger than ever, due to the sheer amount of space the internet has opened up for all walks of the journalism community. 

The argument championed by author Stephen J.A. Ward is that journalism ethics do not belong to the journalist. They belong to the public. And this argument is more apt than ever as social media has catapulted the average journalist to greater heights than ever imagined. Brian Stelter of the New York Times has 251K followers on Twitter. The LA Times twitter account has 1.14 Million followers and an international following is made possible as well. Social media brings journalism closer to the people, and therefore; the ethics come closer too. 

Ward puts together a few key points to take away from the article, they are as follows as the "Media Needs" of the consumer/citizen:

 Informational Needs: Citizens cannot be vigilant and informed without access to a rich     information soup of facts and reports about their world. 

Explanatory Needs: Citizens need more than facts. They need context and casual explanations for properly understanding news and events. 

Perspectival Enrichment Needs: Citizens need informed commentary, criticism, and multiple points of view on the information they obtain, and on the state of their society. 

Advocational and Reform Needs: Citizens should be free to go beyond commentary to use media to advocate for causes, push for reforms or hear the positions of advocates. 

Dialogic Needs: Citizens should have the opportunity to be part of reasonable and informed dialogue on common concerns and not be subject to disrespectful attacks.

These "demands" or "points of need" seem a hair idealistic in nature, but provide a reasonable blueprint for public ethics in regards to the digital age. Understanding the scope of access to information coupled with the need for good storytelling in conjunction with truth and advocacy is an essential thing to becoming a good journalist. 

Ward goes on to explain that journalists have no special authority to "announce" what values they honor, but they must show their values as they are grounded in the needs listed above, based on a code of ethics tailored to cater to the public. 

His most bold statement in the article is without question, "Subjectivism can damage free journalism. If citizens are told by journalists that they make up their own ethics, then citizens can conclude that tougher press laws are needed. Self regulation does not mean that each journalist regulates their own conduct." 

An evident example of deviating from expected ethics is the controversial Stephen Glass, who fabricated stories, times, dates, people and pretty much anything he could come up with in order to shortcut the process. People like that are exceptions to my statements below. 

Where I deviate from Ward, I believe that each journalist should have their own code of ethics under the guise of widely accepted ethics in a greater sense. If everyone keeps in mind the needs listed above, and crafts their own set of beliefs out of them then we get a wider range of ideas, and approaches to writing, story telling, and ultimately reporting. This creates a diversified community of journalists as opposed to a group of singular minded drones who adhere exclusively to codes that may be outdated in the next 10 years due to the flow of technology. Ward is trying to keep up with the times, but ultimately dates himself by putting such strict parameters on the needs of the people, and the journalists. If as journalists we don't have our own identity, our own code, personalized and tailored to each job and situation than what are we? 

Unoriginal copies. Carbon copies. Ethics are something that appears to be concrete, but everything has gray matter. Lines get blurred, and without those stories that lean one way or the other we wouldn't have any examples to learn from. We wouldn't have mistakes and we wouldn't have greatness. We'd just have...copies. Endless amounts of copies addressing Ward's "needs of the people." Which may be morally and ethically on the up and up, but don't address the stories that require any sort of decision making whatsoever. The times when journalists have to show their stripes and truly act as their own ethical agent are the times when Pulitzers and Emmys are won, when impact is made, and without our own unique compass guiding us mediocrity would reign and what we now understand as style and skill, great story tellers and not so great ones would all blur into one gray copy, and that's not what makes journalism great. Diversity of ideas, different backgrounds and skills learned, or inherited make journalism great, not an overarching one-size fits all ethical wet blanket. 

The article written by Stephen J. A. Ward can be accessed here.

What does the Future of News Look Like?

Bez Saciri
bs143110@ohio.edu

Journalism has continued to change and develop in the years leading up to today.

Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter have become a major part of a journalist's work day.

Those websites allow for journalists to post their work, reveal crucial information such as breaking news and ask questions to better connect with the audience.

Even though social media is becoming an important tool for journalists, journalists need to make sure that they are still telling stories in a way that is understood by the audience.

Also, journalists will need to continue to make ethical decisions in terms of what information to use and who to interview. The one negative side to social media is that if a journalist makes a mistake, the journalist will see their mistake go viral on the Internet, which could leave the journalist without a job and a damaged reputation.

Journalism-as-process 

For one of my classes, I'm working on a project where we have to make a wiki page on a subject that involves online journalism. One of the articles I'm using for the project deals with the term journalism-as-process.

What the term means is that journalists will constantly revisit a certain topic and add additional information once it becomes available instead of posting all of the information they have at one time.

One example of this is the LeBron James story from last summer. The article will explain it in more detail, but as each piece of information was available, it was released to the public. It did not come to the public as one big story.

How about newspapers? 

 The future of newspapers is a major talking point with social media now becoming a massive player involving journalism. While no one knows exactly what the immediate future of the newspaper is, it's clear that the younger generation is not using the newspaper as much as the older generation is using the newspaper. This article from USA Today explains the situation well.

No one knows the future of the newspaper. Photo from investorinthefamily.com.

Blogs to take over? 

I want to talk about blogs for a moment. Social media has made blogging more popular. People without a journalism degree can start a blog for free on a website such as Wordpress and type away.

Most people believe those type of people who just blog are not journalists, but some people might think that they are in the near future. Craig McBreen dives deeper into the issue.

Final Thoughts

The new world of journalism is exciting, but it can also be scary. Journalists' ethics codes have to be stronger than ever before because anyone who has an interest in writing and reporting can release whatever information they choose.

Personally, I'm eager to see what the future holds for journalism. I want to be a sports writer when I graduate from Ohio, and I know I'll have avid followers just like athletes do.

I want to make sure that I give my followers what they want in terms of coverage. It doesn't matter what changes take place in the journalism industry, I will continue to do the best I can to serve my future audience. Here's a video to close out my final blog:

Journalism: An Ever Changing Profession

Hayley Ross
hr332511@ohio.edu

For as long as journalism has been around, it has been changing and improving. New technology and changing roles of both journalists and audiences are influencing the way journalists create news and the way that audiences receive their news.

New Technology

New technology has completely changed the way that the public can consume news. The internet has made information accessible to anyone at anytime. Technology is also so transportable that news can be consumed on the go and in a faster manner than ever before.

The Guardian's article "Journalism in the digital age: trends, tools and technologies" gives an overview of the various ways that technology has changed the way that journalists do their jobs. According to the article, technology has influenced journalism ethics, accountability of journalists, and the mobility of news.

The article by the American Journalism review titled "Let's Start Talking About a Radically Different Future of News" gives an example of what the future might look like if technology continues to increase. Everyone will have the world at their fingertips.

The New Role of Journalists

Journalists have always had the task of presenting the public with news in an unbiased and truthful way. In the past journalists were the only ones who had the information to provide to the public. Journalists have more of a duty to provide accurate information now that technology has increased and anyone can put information out on the web. Reputable news organizations have an obligation to make sure that the information they put out is accurate so that audiences are getting correct information.

This is changing the definition of what a journalist is and who qualifies as a journalist. This question has been asked many times over the years and will continue to be asked with changing technology that gives anyone the opportunity to create content to be published.

The New Role of the Audience

Audiences have the ability to contribute information and produce their own content. They can also engage with journalists through comments and reaching out to journalists. Social Media has significantly increased the amount of content that audiences produce and the contact that they have with journalists. Audiences can tweet information instantly or comment on an article through Facebook with the click of a button.

The video below created by Newseum discusses the impact of Social Media on Journalism and the ways that it has changed the way that we communicate with each other and engage each other online.



Journalism is an ever changing profession that will continue to change as long as the world continues to advance in technology and people continue to get more involved in creating news. There are debates about whether or not journalism is moving in a good direction with more engagement with the audience. In my opinion, as long as information is accurate and it is clear who the author of the content is, it doesn't matter whether or not the author is a professional journalist.

Futuristic Community News

Diana Wiebe

dw923311@ohio.edu

More. Bigger. Faster. That’s what the public wants and needs out of the news these days, and those wants and needs will only get larger and grow over time. However, there is still a want and a need for ethical, unbiased journalism. Where do ethics fit in with this fast-paced technological movement?

CHANGING TECHNOLOGY

Paul Sparrow gives readers an idea of what technology and media might look like in the very near future in his piece entitled “Let’s Start Talking About a Radically Different Future of News.” He gives an example of a woman named Jan who receives her news in a car display. “Most of that information is also of interest to people who work with her, live near her, or share her interests. But it is the data-driven filtering and timely delivery of the content that will define the next generation of news providers,” Sparrow says. It really is all about the specialized content and timing of the news that will shape how the news is delivered to the public.

However, that begs the question, “How ethical is tailored news?” Sparrow says, “But it is vitally important that the value of the service provided, and the integrity of the information collected, be overwhelmingly beneficial to Jan.” He recognizes that no matter how timely and tailored it may be, it must still be truthful and give the whole picture.

Will this be the future of news? Credit: www.masternewmedia.org

COMMUNITY ORIENTED

Monica Guzman has a piece entitled “Community as an End” that talks about the current and future trends in online and community journalism. Guzman says, “But journalism is not about the tools. It’s about people. Working well with social media is not the same as working well with community.” A lot can be said about community based journalism and the fact that more and more, people want local news that is meaningful to them. It seems clear to both Guzman and Sparrow that the future of news relies on focused community-oriented segments that are timely and accurate.

Guzman also discusses how involved the public is with journalism nowadays as well. “Public voices might never speak as carefully as journalists do. But that’s no reason to avoid publicly shared information, dismiss it, or feel like you’re working against it. It’s a reason to dive in and help steer.” Let your community participate, but be sure it is accurate and reasonable.

CONCLUSIONS

Guzman and Sparrow both recognize that the news is changing dramatically and that people must be willing to take risks. It is extremely important to be able to change with the times and keep up with new technology. However, it is equally important to ensure that the news is still truthful and focused on what the public needs to know. Whether that will be through a new space-age clear magazine screen or perhaps the same old iPhone, it should still be about informing the public with accuracy.

Journalism in the future

Alessa Rosa

ar224811@ohio.edu

Everything in this day and age is rapidly changing, journalism included. Because of this rapid development, it is important to consider what journalism will be like and what will the ethics that come with reporting include.

Picture taken from Google.com

FORM

Journalism in the future may change drastically. Some argue that news will be tailored to the audience as ads are tailored to the consumer. Paul Sparrow from American Journalism Review claims in his article, “Let’s Start Talking About a Radically Different Future of News,” that “ To be successful, the next generation of news/media companies must deliver critical or entertaining information customized for a specific person based on their location, job, relationship status, interests, contacts and eventually, even their mood.” He calls this next stage, micromedia. As journalism takes the form of micromedia, audiences will be able to receive customizable and relevant information to their choice of tool (phone, tablet, smartwatch, etc.). I am in accordance with Sparrow and believe that in order to compete for the public’s attention in today’s time, there needs to be a change in how and what we present to individuals. We can see this shift already happening in social networks. Through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, people are able to click on the news links that interest and affect them personally. There are some concerns with having personalized news, however.  In order for news to be customized, people need to share personal data. Thus, news organizations need to provide secure and trustworthy means in which to do this, or else people will be hesitant to agree.

ETHICS

As the future approaches and from whom and they way people receive information changes, our ethics code must change as well. Recently, there has been a shift toward individualized code of ethics in journalism. Having personal ethics when being a journalist is troublesome, however. First, as journalists we have a duty to the public, and so having personal ethics when it has the greatest effect on the public is not sufficient. In “Why New Journalism Ethics Have to be Public, Not Personal, ” Stephen J. A. Ward explains, “An ethics is public in justification if it is required, ultimately, to justify its norms by reference to some conception of the public good, not individual goods.  Here, he highlights the importance of having a public code of ethics as opposed to a personal one, because news is impacting the public. Not only, should we have a standard set of ethical principles that are not personal, but we should have them be global. As news evolves with time, it has begun to cover and be shared globally. Global media ethics is a set standard of ethics that would provide for responsible and equitable sharing of worldwide information. It is important to note that global ethics is a necessary because our news are reached globally. It only stands to reason that some sort of international standard is set.

Journalism is and will continue to change in its form. While this development occurs it is vital that journalist professionals do not pursue personal and subjective ethical principles, but instead adhere to public and even global standards.

To Be or Not To Be (Transparent)

By Luca Wistendahl
lw124010@ohio.edu

An Argument for The Restrained Use of Transparency

In this article, journalism professor Stephen J.A. Ward argues for the sensible use of transparency, and that transparency is not the new and only value of journalists—or at least, it shouldn’t be.

I agree with Ward on the notion that there is no one cure-all value to journalism, transparency included. In his article, Ward argues that an excess of transparency could eventually breach core values held by democratic societies. For example, he argues, a priest wouldn’t be transparent about the dialogue of a confession, nor would a lawyer be transparent about his interactions with his client. So obviously there is a point at which transparency becomes counterproductive to journalism as it strives to serve democratic society.

An Argument For Both Sides

Recently I’ve been reading No Place to Hide, by journalist Glen Greenwald, who worked with Edward Snowden to publish NSA secrets and expose massive overreach of power. No Place to Hide is Greenwald’s book on this experience. Ward’s assertion that most embedded military journalists wouldn’t disclose the location of troops makes me think about instances in journalism—specifically, American journalism—where the use of transparency relates to the concept of security. Snowden’s NSA leak, Chelsea Manning’s Wikileaks military leak and Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon papers leak are just a few examples, all of which Greenwald mentions in his book. (The hyperlink attached to Snowden’s name in this paragraph is linked to just one of several articles by several news platforms on the NSA documents).

Snowen (left) and Greenwald, from of glenngreenwald.net,
©Laura Poitras

Yet the issue of security in these instances is itself a dichotomy. While I believe that there absolutely is a proper and improper time to reveal national secrets—the latter having the potential to compromise the safety and lives of individuals— Greenwald argues that security, specifically national security, is often a buzzword abused by the government to delay or neuter journalism (according to No Place to Hide, it isn’t uncommon for the United States government to receive advanced notice about the publication of relevant articles so as to give it time to argue for security, among other things. Greenwald argues that the time the government takes to make this argument has jeopardized the timeliness of stories).

I find this interesting, as such abuse demonstrates the strain that journalists can be put under when the safety of others plays into the use of transparency. Now, it would seem, we have people like Ward arguing for an increased use of non-transparent practices, and people like Greenwald arguing for an increased, more aggressive use.

A Time And A Place

To me, this argument suggests that, like everything in life, there is a time and a place for transparency. If a journalist uses it with reckless abandon, she could be jeopardizing security, individual and/or national. Conversely, if she is hesitant to use it, she could be risking the timeliness, impact, and even the very running of a story. Transparency can achieve a lot, from exposing bias to exposing national secrets, but just because it’s powerful doesn’t mean that it is a catch-all value capable of carrying the profession of journalism.