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?

Should Journalists Report What Bloggers Write?

AN OBSCURE BLOG recently ran a story about one of the Flyers sleeping with the wife of a teammate, thus explaining the tensions in the locker room and the poor start to the season the team suffered.

The rumor was picked up by other websites and message boards despite none of the websites ever speaking to the players or the team.

After ten days of floating in cyberspace, the Philadelphia Inquirer followed up on the story. The Inquirer spoke to the players and team representatives, all of whom denied the rumor. The reporter also tracked down the blogger, a Temple University student.

Should the Inquirer have even bothered with the rumor? By publishing a follow-up to the blog post, aren't they only perpetuating a tale that everyone involved has denied? Isn't the Inquirer only legitimizing the blog and it's rumor?

Life Outside the Box Is Still Grand.

SURE, THE JOURNALISM JOB MARKET isn't looking all that hot these days. Newspapers are cutting staffs, television stations are combining services, magazines are folding and basically, the world is coming to an end.

Or is is it? Personally, I don't think so. And neither does David Carr, media critic at the New York Times and the author of the memoir pictured on the left.

Carr points out that local and niche websites are popping up around the country, breaking news that mainstream media miss. People are spending more time on their smartphones, using them to surf for information (as well as create content and communicate differently). And David Eggers' one-off newspaper sold out a few weeks ago, despite the $16 sales tag.

Basically, he's saying that legacy media may be in trouble but the desire for information is probably growing. And that is good news for students of journalism.

Then he wrote about judging entrepreneurial journalism projects at a university in New York:

"There were some clunkers, as there always are, but there were also some scary good, real-world proposals from students who don’t have to think out of the box because they were never in one to begin with."

Journalism is changing. You can forge your own path.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)