Should Journalism Abandon Neutrality?

DO YOU TRUST WHAT you see on television news?

Apparently most people do not. Fox News scored the highest in a recent poll, with 49 percent of the people questioned answering that they trust the right leaning network. Republicans trust Fox News at 74 percent, while only trusting the the other four major networks at 23 percent. Democrats only trust Fox News at 30 percent. Independents hated all five network news outlets in the study.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling which performed the study. “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

Studies like this could have an impact on how news is covered and presented. If audiences are drawn to news outlets that serve their particular belief systems, should news outlets tailor their product to those audiences?

This would be a great question for Kevin Magee (right), a Temple alum and Fox News executive, who will visit class this semester.

What do you think? Should journalism abandon objectivity and the notion of neutrality? Or is there a purpose to journalists trying to remain objective?

STAY AWAKE! Citizen Journos Are Everywhere!

A PUBLIC TRANSIT passenger in Toronto snapped a photo of a transit worker snoozing in a ticket booth, and then posted the image to TwitPic.

The image soon became news fodder - it symbolized rider frustration over fare increases and questionable service.

A transit worker union official was upset that the photographer didn't stop to see if the transit worker was fine - or even alive.

Is it responsible for journalists to use this image in newspapers or on television? Without knowing the situation that the image was taken - for instance, whether the transit worker was just in a moment of rest or in a full-fledged nap - what should journalists do with the image?

Would you have run the picture?

Journalism High Road or Missing the Boat?

TIGER WOODS HAS reportedly checked into some sort of clinic in Hattiesburg, Mississippi for sex addicts, and the media have pounced on the story.

The local newspaper in Hattiesburg, however, refuses to stalk the golf superstar.

"Unless there is some confirmation from the clinic or Woods himself, we don't intend to assign a reporter/photographer team to this story," reads an editorial in the paper.

Are they missing the boat on a giant story? Or are they acting in a respectable manner?

Could you take the high road while everyone else is climbing trees and flying overhead in helicopters trying to see Tiger? What would you do?

(The image comes from the National Enquirer).

What is The Role of The Journalist?

CNN'S ANDERSON COOPER has been on the streets of Haiti, which suffered a devastating earthquake last week. While shooting video and reporting on looters in Port au Prince, Cooper helped a boy who had been bashed in the head with a brick.

Traditionally, journalists have documented action and remained impartial, objective and distant from that action. The idea is that journalists should not interfere and become part of the news story that is unfolding.

So, was it wrong for Cooper to help the child? What would you have done?

Is It Wrong To Pay For Information?

CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION pay for that information - whether you receive it from a newspaper you bought, a magazine you subscribe to or the broadcast news for which you pay a cable bill. Even if you get your news online, you pay for your Internet service. Information is not free.

If it is understood that we pay for information, is it wrong for the content generators to pay for information as well?

Recently deceased sports broadcaster George Michael paid players and coaches on the Washington Redskins for information, according to the Washington City Paper.

“The fact is, a player deserves to be compensated if you use his name to sell it," Michael told the Washington Post in 1992.

"Checkbook journalism" has long been considered unethical. If you are paying people to tell you stuff, they are moved to say what you want them to say. They make more money that way.

The National Enquirer pays for information unabashedly.

"Paying for information is no different than what the police or other law enforcement do," editor Barry Levine, a 1981 TU journalism grad, told Politics Daily. "If the tip pans out and can be substantiated, then paying for information doesn't taint the process."

The National Enquirer doggedly pursued former presidential candidate John Edwards who fathered a child out of wedlock, while his own wife was suffering with cancer. They broke a huge story that could impact the nation and the world. The Politics Daily writer says that the National Enquirer deserves to win a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage.

What do you think? Is it wrong to pay for information?

And think about this for a second: if you are paying for information, aren't the news media going to provide you primarily with information you want to hear? Are you getting the full marketplace of ideas or are you being told what news media think will sell?

See You In The Funny Pages. Or Maybe Not.

NEWSPAPERS ARE changing, that's for sure.

As readers get diverted to other outlets like cable television and online sites, newspapers are adapting. No longer do they strive to be the comprehensive tomes they once were. With thinner staffs and smaller budgets, they can only run so much stuff. For instance, many newspapers eliminated stock listings years ago.

The Washington Times recently eliminated their entire sports section. Then they chopped off their comics page, a move other media outlets have done as well.

Should newspapers have a funny pages section, usually complemented by the daily horoscope, crossword puzzle and sodoku? Or is that just old logic? Are you fine getting your humor (and horoscopes) online rather than in print?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)