Keep things interesting..... and relevant!

      Chapter eight of The Elements of Journalism was really interesting because of its practicality. The eighth principle outlined is that “journalists must make the significant interesting and relevant.” But how we do that is extremely important. There are essentially two routes which we as writers can take. The first being the informer where we essentially lay out the facts and that is all. The second is the person who gives gripping detail that unfolds just as though you were reading a book. However, one of the questions posed in the book was what style of writing is better? On the one side you are providing the public with the exact happenings of events and on the other you provide entertainment which is appealing to most everyone. However, there is the belief that neither of these two types of writing is better than the other but that a blend of the two is the best.

      One blend of writing of the two aforementioned styles is known as “infotainment.” The example associated with this was the interview of Monica Lewinsky. During the interview the details of what Pres. Clinton likes sexually was the first priority and then the details of how it all happened unfolded. This is the basic style which infotainment takes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpCv-UT2yCU However, this style of writing has undergone a lot of criticism and has several flaws associated with it. One of the problems is that it has turned into soft news that is more for entertainment than it is for informing the general public. An example of this is the Onion News Network who are only interested in entertainment but provide no news stories that are really relevant. An example was this one about a ninja parade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtR2m20C2YM&feature=relmfu The book explained that “the second long-term problem with the strategy of infotainment is that it destroys the news organization's authority to deliver more serious news and drives away those audiences who want it.” This is exactly opposite of what any news agency wants. Another problem is that infotainment tends to lean toward the explicit stories of pop culture. Despite the cons this style of journalism is one of the most widely used among television news stations. However, we should ensure that we use this style with care.

      I then wondered if, in the long run, infotainment is not a good style, then what is? The book explained that for individual journalists to succeed in making news relevant and interesting they must generally be self-taught through trial and error as to what works and what doesn't. However, we can make news both interesting and relevant because those who have gone before have succeeded.

An example is Diana Sugg who specialized in medical writing. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.pulitzer08apr08,0,1177356.story One strategy suggested for new journalists to get going is the classic who, what, where and how. The book explains that “if we think of who as character, what as plot, where as setting, and how as narrative, we can blend information and storytelling.”

      There is a reason that storytelling is so popular in that it invokes images in peoples' minds in which they feel a part of the events described in the book. As we strive to create those same images while giving relevant facts, I feel that we can accomplish this principle and make news stories both relevant and interesting.

Lets keep in comprehensive people

     The emphasis for the reading of these two chapters was the importance of journalists keeping the news comprehensive and in proportion. This seems like a giant task on one hand because to keep journalism comprehensive and in proportion we have to understand the things which throw them out of whack. Secondly, the trend which media has taken in large part has been completely the opposite.

The book talked about several places where journalism has missed the mark on this principle. One of the big ones that I found interesting was the pressure of hype. Many journalists fall victim to sensationalism because it instantly draws attention to the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism However, that type of media can just as easily and quickly leave. I really like the metaphor of the naked man and the guitarist. The one example is a man who begins to strip on the street, which will instantly draw a large crowd and lots of attention. However, once you're naked there is only so much you can do to keep the attention of the audience. The second example is a man playing a guitar on the street who slowly increases the number of listeners day by day depending on how good a musician he or she may be.

      I also thought that this particular example of a guitarist is what journalists should strive for for several reasons. One being that as you gain a devoted readership over time you will have the revenue and readership (or viewership) which you need. Secondly, drawing from the guitarist again, the listeners who continually come back to hear you play may eventually buy your album and then listen to you on their own and buy future albums. This makes a much larger impact on the people who enjoy your music, or in our case, news stories.

      It is extremely important that we strive to avoid this sensationalism because of the damage it can cause to us and our employers. In the book it talked about the importance of setting the human feelings that are common in all of us aside. This is because it is so easy for everyone to fall into that mode when we see huge problem. http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2010/10/14/ethics-center-co-authors-report-on-nonprofit-journalism-10/ Then when we have fallen in to human emotion there will undoubtedly be parts of the various stories which we will overlook. This is a huge problem because then we are not telling the complete truth. Thus, we miss our first and most important obligation of finding the truth and presenting it to readers.

      But is emotion always bad? Is there ever a time when it would be appropriate to include your personal feelings and thus sway a story in a particular direction? The book explains that “the first sensible rule of thumb would seem to be that [emotionalism] should come at those moments when any other reaction would seem forced – when emotion is the only organic response.” However, there is a strict warning that comes associated with this allowance of emotion. “Emotionalism should disappear between the moment of discovery of a problem and the subsequent search for information meant to put the event into a broader and deeper context.” http://alturl.com/a85mj In this way we will be able to report on the facts associated with the story as well as depict the emotion behind it without missing the beat.

      While this lightly touches on a couple of ways in which we as journalists can keep the news comprehensive and in proportion there are several others. It is extremely evident how important this really is. If we want to make an impact and have a voice that perpetuates on and holds sway we must strive to deliver news on which the public can rely and trust in.

It's my conscience and I will exercise it

     Chapter ten outlines that we as journalists “have an obligation to exercise (our) personal conscience.” This is probably one of the issues in the book which shocked me the most. The reason simply being that I felt this simple principle should be common sense.

However, I was surprised to read how difficult exercising conscience may sometimes be. The book explained that there are times when your boss may ask you to tweak a story or take a particular angle which you personally don't feel good about. Thus the question rises: What should I do if and when placed in such a circumstance?

      I feel that in great part this question is no different from being asked to do drugs and deciding when you were a child that you would never touch the stuff. We should have the same commitment to an ethical code that we do to never drink, smoke or partake of other harmful substances. Bill Kurtis said in the book that “each individual reporter has to set his own rules, his own standards, and model his career for himself.” http://alturl.com/9vyxn

      I loved the story about Carol Marin who anchored for WMAQ who decided to resign from her post after the news organization decided to bring on Jerry Springer as a commentator for the end of the news. Marin felt that having Springer on their news would decrease credibility and that “WMAQ was degenerating into sleaze.” Marin decided that the direction of WMAQ differed from what she as a journalist felt was important. Like Marin, there may come a time when we may have to make a similar decision because a particular issue or decision does not coincide with our personal ethics. Marin said in the book that “there are no laws of news . . . it ends up being sort of your own guiding compass that will determine what you do and don't do.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Marin

As journalists begin to exercise their personal conscience it is inevitable that the industry will change for the better. The book indicated that the end goal of exercising conscience is really to create intellectual diversity. In other words “the goal of diversity should be to assemble not only a newsroom that might resemble the community but also one that is as open and honest so that this diversity can function.” I firmly believe that as this happens news will become a force which will truly make a difference in the world. As we as journalists live by our own ethical code we will create change for the better which will help us to make an impact on the world that will not easily be forgotten. http://ethicnet.uta.fi/romania/the_journalists_code_of_ethics