Kim Romanello
Discussion leader: Emily Abbate
Notes on Emily Abbate’s discussion
In the first portion of the discussion, Emily noted that she wanted to create a natural flow of communication, rather than a strict question and answer format. The first question, what were the most interesting aspects of Kyle Reyes presentation, raised a lot of interesting responses. Pat mentioned that age made his perspective “fresh,” and that he has a unique approach to bringing news to people. It was also noted that his feature topics were interesting and not necessarily something that would be seen elsewhere.
Christine found it interesting that Kyle was trying to move away from the idea that “if it bleeds, it leads,” and how he had seemingly done so successfully. Emily then posed the question, do you think features are as effective as a story about a shooting, or something that “bleeds?”
Daniella responded that although many of his stories are interesting and entertaining, are they really informative? She also asked if this is what journalism is all about. Amy responding to Daniella by saying that Reyes didn’t have a journalism program at Westfield State College and experienced something different, which could be a reason why he is more focused on “softer” stories. Eli commented that although Reyes has a fresh perspective and does do interesting work that maybe he could tackle other projects with a focus on news, rather than strictly entertainment.
Erin, who had mentioned that she had the opportunity to work with Reyes on the theater piece, said that there was a news aspect to this piece in particular, but it also had a sensational aspect and that she thought there was an attempt to find a middle ground.
Emily then asked if anyone though that Reyes previous work experience with Bacardi was a conflict of interest. Many students responded that it was not a conflict of interest and that he did what he could at that point in his life to make money.
No one really had an issue with this as long as he was being professional, even though alcohol can have an irresponsible or negative connotation at times. Emily then posed the question relating to the lack of an ethics guide in the broadcast field. Brendan said that he thinks “ad hoc” ethics is a generational thing, with younger people taking a very relative stance on everything.
He added that although this may be the case, that there needs to be a set standard. He added that he had a big problem with commercialism in the news and that Reyes was too focused on what the community wanted.
Emily’s final question was whether or not broadcast ethics should look to the Society of Professional Journalists’ standards or look to other networks to form an ethics code. It was concluded that in the broadcast business you have to keep up with the competition.
The eight “Take-Away” cards that I was given all had a common thread regarding Reyes’ ethical stance, or lack thereof. Some thought that his speech was not completely relevant to journalism because he seems so immersed in the advertising business of news. Many agreed that he did offer a new perspective to news, but were unsure about how they felt about what they saw as blatant commercialism. Many agreed that he was a good speaker and was well organized. Few students did not agree with his sharp distinction between “ambulance-chasing” journalism and human interest stories, and believed that there is definitely a middle ground.
Chase Carnot: I agreed with his dislike for ambulance-chasing “journalism,” but there is middle ground between that and shallow human-interest stories. It’s called news.
Kate Monohan: The news is changing-=people are tired of the same hard news stories and are looking for more special interest/personal news that is more positive.
Brendan Cox: How does you ethically manage public advocacy (i.e. alerting people to interesting new restaurants, bars, etc.) and just giving them free PR as opposed to their competitors?
I think this was a strong concern among most students, which was raised during our initial discussion.
Aaron Roy: The guy was incredibly young. I did not thing his speech was relevant to journalism in that it was all bubblegum, cushy journalism. There was no intrinsic value to the type of news he was delivering. Although people might have interest in it, it doesn’t promote anything relevant to journalisms rule as a watchdog of society. Good speaker and well organized though.
It’s interesting to bring up journalism as “the watchdog of society,” something that we originally defined journalism as.
Amy Lockmiller: I was surprised by his reactions to ethical problems, which were much different than the reactions I believe most of us who have gone through journalism ethics classes would have had.
Alyssa Carroll: It was interesting for me how little Kyle seemed to care about the blatant advertisement qualities in his news packages. Perhaps this is due to my lack of full understanding of the finances behind the news business, but it struck me as odd that he didn’t see more wrong with this.
Shane Goodrich: His concept of community based segments advertising local restaurants and bars was very interesting because I feel it contradicts a lot of things I have learned in introductory courses concerning its newsworthiness and possibly ethical questions. I do think it is a progressive idea, which seems promising and shows potential as media is evolving.
Christine Gratton: The idea of moving away from, “If it bleeds it leads,” to be hearing more from “omitted” voices in the community.
ground.
I don't think people are tired of hard news. I think they are tired of shallow coverage of it. Don't just tell us THAT there was a shooting. Tell us WHO and WHY. Is it part of a larger pattern? Show us how the families and communities are affected. There are real people involved, not just chalk outlines and mugshots. But I guess if broadcast thinks 3 minutes is in-depth coverage, then it is even more doomed than the newspaper.