Alex Sanders
Discussion leader: Joseph Callahan
Despite the fact that Kyle Reyes avoids hard news stories, his unconventional approaches to journalism have made him successful. In class, we got to experience a different kind of journalism. The stories were those of human interest rather than the typical shooting story.
Most news producers value the mantra, “If it bleeds, it leads,” but NBC has taken a different angle, which may lead to attracting more viewers and peaking interest in a new way.
Joe focused mostly on ethical issues in social networking and the changing venues of journalism. He also posed questions about the intrinsic value of news content. Although many of the students seemed to enjoy the features, some commented on the fact that the stories may not have inherent value.
One student made the point that everyone has his or her own opinion, so just because people enjoy Reyes’ features does not mean the stories have any intrinsic value or are important to viewer consumption.
The idea was brought up that journalism story production should be based on merits, not consumer value necessarily. Some students mentioned in their take-away cards that news stations may be changing and are now aiming to attract a different, possibly younger demographic due to the changing venues of journalism.
Specifically, the generation that watches the news is now technology savvy and doesn’t necessarily want to read meticulous print. Rather, the current news generation wants to be visually stimulated while obtaining their news.
A news station shouldn’t necessarily produce something that the audience likes, but perhaps something that the audience should hear, see or read. As Reyes said, not too many people enjoy watching shootings or fires on the news, but that news needs to reach the public. A few of the students brought that issue up in their take-away cards. They mentioned that light features may steer viewers away from hard news and allow them to ignore the real issues that affect society.
Journalists need to do their jobs and inform society about the real, impacting issues. As a result, less time may be devoted to fires and car crashes and more time to new, chic restaurants and hot spots around town that you may not know about.
Joe brought up the fact that some of the light features weren’t even shown on television; they were simply included in an online segment. He suggested that journalism is changing and the viewers may need to adjust and change with it. Other students followed up by saying there are advantages to the changing media. Viewers can choose what they want to see, hear or read and omit other stories that aren’t of interest.
Also, networks benefit from viewer choice because they can see what viewers are actually interested in, what forms of news they like to receive and what viewers or readers have to say about the content. That way, the network can cater to the audience, which some students said is a good thing, while others, as stated above, disagreed.
However, another student brought up the point that the stories, whether the viewers or readers enjoy them or not, may not be fit for online. If the stories aren’t fit for television, they may not be fit for online either. But another student countered this point by saying that online allows for more in depth coverage because many sites have ample space for stories, while most newspapers have a certain number of inches that reporters are allowed to use for a story or a short amount of time for a television segment.
The internet can lead to expansion of more in-depth stories and potentially more complete coverage, which viewers or readers may appreciate. So, the “puff-pieces,” as one student dubbed them, may have a place in journalism after all.
Joe then changed gears in the discussion and brought up Reyes’ faith story and discussed discrimination by omission. The faith story included an assortment of voices and allowed different angles to be expressed. This not only gives people who may be silent, a voice, but also allows for less bias. If there are numerous opinions and outlooks in a story, it is less likely to be skewed.
One student mentioned that there isn’t always enough time for sound bites or necessary clips on air, so the internet can be a perfect venue for that. News may expand in that direction and networks and newspapers should have the courage to take it in that direction, he added. Professor Dufresne then said that it is a good thing that the internet is allowing for long form, but there are concerns as to what will fill the space. It will be a pointless expansion of news if the space is filled with useless information.
Joe then brought up the issue of Facebook and Myspace and the problems that journalists are faced with in a social world. He said that journalists filter things because of their profession, and asked the class if they should have to do so simply because of their job. Everyone is human and has his or her own opinions.
Another student mentioned that politicians have to face the same obstacles because they are supposed to be neutral in their beliefs or at least in their jobs, as well. The only exception, the student added, would be an opinion columnist expressing his or her opinion on a social networking Web site because that same opinion is likely expressed throughout columns. Joe made a good point when he said that even if a journalist doesn’t specify political views via a Facebook status, the views may be subtly expressed throughout other things on Facebook. Stereotypically, people can be categorized as Republicans or Democrats without necessarily stating their affiliation. Granted, the labels aren’t always correct, but a lot of the time they are on the money.
Another student mentioned that stating political opinions isn’t really against ethical code, but journalists can easily lose credibility when they reveal their opinion. If a news writer admits to liking Obama but then writes an article on what a terrible job he is doing as president, viewers or readers may not trust him as much, causing him to lose credibility and the ability to be unbiased.
In comparison, a student added that the reader may view the article with a similar slant as the reporter, which could be beneficial.
Transparency is important and the job of most journalists is to not be transparent and to block the reader from their true thoughts, feelings and opinions. A serious reader would want to know what is in the reporter’s heart of hearts, the student added.
A reporter shouldn’t limit his or her freedom of speech – he should cherish it – but he should make sure that sharing political views doesn’t impact journalistic work.
Many students expressed concern about ethical decisions in their take-away cards both in light of social networking boundaries and advertisement placement boundaries. Journalists walk a fine line and one important part of the job is knowing how to balance on that line. Some were concerned about his work as a Bacardi boy and a journalist concurrently, while others mentioned the issue of blurring ethical boundaries in a general sense.
Joe concluded the discussion by saying that Poynter advises that reporters should accept limitations on free speech as long as they are somewhat transparent.
Take Away Cards
Steve Ortiz – More community courage.
Emily Abbate – He was so interwoven in different areas of journalism and work (primarily with Bacardi and news writing) and he didn’t see this as a conflict of interest.
Katie Bushey – The blurring of ethical boundaries was the biggest concern I had with the presentation.
Alex Sanders – You should stand by ethical guidelines as an organization, but the lines of ethics seem to be blurry.
Amanda Wisniowski – The talk for me emphasized how the media was gaining new viewers and younger audiences.
Kim Romano – The idea that the news television business is changing and how the industry is adapting to it.
Mike Northup – A greater amount of time is being redirected from car crashes, fires and other day-of news to more in-depth local features.
Daniella Henry – The idea of doing these stories as an alternative or replacement for shootings or murders just pushes viewers into ignoring the real issues affecting our society. Especially in a state like Connecticut where it is very easy to fall into the comfort of suburbia, it is a journalist’s job to inform the public that there is more out there.
Journalists have to decide whether they will use facebook for business or personal matters. As soon as you "friend" a contact/source, expressing your opinion via your status (or whatever) becomes tantamount to going into an interview and saying: I want you to know how much I disagree with you but I'll try oh-so-very hard not to burn you. You wouldn't/shouldn't do that because it damages your credibilty. We can argue about whether or not objectivity should be a journalistic standard, but it is the standard for now. I believe almost all newspapers have a rule that as soon as a reporter expresses her/his opinion publicly on an issue (whether in an op-ed or book), they are kept off that beat.