What is a Journalist? (part 2)

What is a journalist? A journalist is a person. A human being. Unlike the other human beings who inhabit this planet, however, journalists must do more than just live and let live. They must also observe. Journalists are responsible for keeping a record of the human race.

Journalists have an obligation to provide information to the public, as well as a duty to explain why the given information matters. They are modern-day messengers and scribes. To an extent, journalists must put away their own opinions, beliefs, and feelings for the public good. In order to keep people informed and cognizant of the world around them, journalists can't let themselves get overwhelmed by the story, no matter how awful it may be. I personally believe that to become completely objective and unbiased is the worst thing a journalist can do, because if they can't feel, if they have no opinions or beliefs or values, they will be unable to connect with a story or their readers. Journalists have to remain humanized in order to know what stories are important, and to be able to convey the story in a way that will make the readers care.

I think that the most important job of a journalist, the aspect of the job that can really define the person as a journalist, is their duty to spread information, because the free flow of information is what creates a democracy. Without knowledge of the world, people cannot stand up for their rights. Information, words, are the most powerful weapons in the world, and journalists are the soldiers who wield them. Their influence has been felt worldwide: http://cpreview.org/2011/02/why-the-journalists-matter/

But of course, not all journalists are risking their lives in the war-torn Middle East. Plenty of journalists find themselves stuck at a small paper in a town where nothing interesting has ever happened. Ever. Still, these journalists go to work, observe the oddities and intricacies of the world around them, and try to share these fascinating tidbits with their people.

Finally, here's a humorous look at the various roles journalists play in society. This class taught me that journalists to have the chance to make a real difference in the world, but my interview with a journalist taught me that, really, the last picture is probably accurate.

Objectivity in Journalism

"Objective" is defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." In terms of journalism, this means having the ability to present a story by relaying only the facts without spinning them to promote an agenda. While it is important to try to maintain a standard of honesty and to present the truth as clearly as possible, the fact is that it is nearly impossible to completely strip away all of one's biases. We're not robots. I don't believe that people ought to expect journalists to be emotionless, to have no thoughts or opinions. What they can expect is for those opinions to not alter the truth. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2006/03/the_twilight_of_objectivity.html

The above article expresses the idea that objectivity is not a value, because the impossibility of the concept forces journalists to hide the real meaning of a story in an attempt to appear unbiased. Michael Kinsley argues that opinion journalists can actually be more honest because they can look at the big picture and aren't trying to hide anything. I agree. In today's information-rich world, the facts are out there. What we need from our journalists is an interpretation of the facts, and sometimes that requires that journalists express opinions and take a stand. I also don't believe that we should require journalists to be emotionless. I gain respect for reporters and writers when they humanize an issue.

My Motivation

While thinking about the topic of my motivation for pursuing a career in journalism (or a writing career in general. I haven't quite decided on my future occupation, but I know I want to write) I came across this article, which broke down the journalism profession into four categories. Of the four, I think I am either a storyteller or a provocateur. I don't want to be a writer so that I can stop all the corruption of the world. I'm sure it's a worthy goal, and somebody needs to do it, but I don't think that person is me. I like feature stories. I like talking about the world. For me, hard-hitting or investigative stories aren't the only stories worth telling. I wouldn't mind being a narrative writer, or putting a new spin on an old concept. I like to think about things in a creative way, and share my way of seeing things with the world.

My ideal job would be writing novels, but I recognize that this is not a completely practical goal. I am majoring in journalism because I think it will help me break into the writing/editing world. If I do fall in love with journalism over the course of my college career, I would have no problem with trying to write stories for a newspaper or magazine. The only problem with journalism, for me, would be keeping my own opinions in check, which is why I wouldn't enjoy being breaking news reporter.A features writer, one that would allow me to tell a creative story or introduce new ways of thinking, would be better for me, even if I couldn't share my opinions in that format either.

I would rather write features than hard news.

How to make journalism interesting but not sensational

I'm currently taking the class Media Writing 211, and so I've gained a pretty good idea of how to write a short and boring news article. The little pieces we wrote in class, in the inverted pyramid style, were just a learning tool to introduce us to the world of journalistic writing. They were extremely factual, but painfully uninteresting. Unfortunately, I have read newspaper articles, by professional journalists, that are similarly difficult to read.

I think the key to making an article or piece of reporting interesting is to make it a story. Make the reader want to know more. Appeal to their emotions. Journalism tells the story of human existence. Journalists have to make the reader connect with the subject of the story, through the use of literary techniques and skillful writing.

It's also very important for journalists to report things actually care about. Some stories are less newsworthy than others. This article from Monday's New York Times stuck out to me in particular, both for the horrific nature of the story and its treatment by the journalist. The problem of young men dying from being crushed by corn in silos is an issue I never would have dreamed could exist. Such a tragic experience must be treated with respect, but the journalist also had to make it emotional enough so that people living in a big city would sympathize with the plight of farm workers. The opening paragraph, showing the reaction of a mother who has just been told that her son was killed, was a brilliant way to introduce the story. He also gave very vivid descriptions of the deaths of several young men, and emphasized how the deaths were all preventable, which augmented the tragedy.

As to how to not make a story sensational, I think that sticking to the truth and not using the techniques of yellow journalism or the National Enquirer magazine would be a good start.

The story should be the interesting part, not the headline. If a journalist has to resort to offering secrets or shocking truths to draw a reader in, they should get out of the business. Sensationalism isn't just disgraceful, it's annoying for the consumer. If you're promising an amazing, mind-blowing story, actually deliver one!

Marketplace of Ideas

Journalism is responsible for spreading the news, and keeping the public informed. Because there is always more than one side to a story, and because the truth is so variable, journalism is responsible for presenting all possible ideas and letting people make their own informed decisions.

I think that all people ought to be aware of what is happening in the world, and journalism encourages this. Even if something happens far away, I think it affects all of us, because we all share the human experience. I think it's important to realize that things that happen to others can have an impact on all of us, and journalism has an obligation to present those stories. I think every aspect of journalism relates to this obligation, from feature stories to investigative reporting to breaking news.

Journalism should also create a marketplace of ideas so that everyone has access to the same information, which would create better social equality. This responsibility is being threatened by a phenomenon called the Digital Divide, which is discussed in this article.

Nothing about the world is perfect, and everything can be improved. Journalism needs to focused on presenting a variety of ideas so that we can consider all the options available to improve our own lives and the world. Without a marketplace of ideas, we would all be sheep, living our lives according to someone else's ideas. Journalism provides information, which is essential to a free and productive society.

Investigative Journalism

http://cironline.org/reports/plugins-kill-facebook-timeline-come-security-headaches-3840

As a young adult in the 21st century, I am an avid Facebook user. I, like so many other Facebook users, was upset when the format of the website radically changed. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a big deal. Facebook is merely an opiate of the masses, not exactly a necessity of life. However, some serious issues did arise that caused Facebook users to have a legitimate reason to dislike the new Timeline. Every post you ever wrote, and even every private message, was now on display for the world to see. Any semblance of privacy disappeared. Thus, the desire to destroy Timeline was born.

The story influenced my life on two levels: First, on a very shallow and selfish level, I wish there were legitimate plugins that could block Timeline. I don't like it. Again, I know it doesn't matter, but I find it annoying. Second, on a more serious note, it made me stop and wonder if I've ever accepted the terms of a plugin or app without first reading them. It's a scary thought. Have I ever let a hacker gain access to my private files? My debit card number? Our society has gotten so used to the Internet as a tool for entertainment that we've forgotten how dangerous it could be. This article reminded me that the Internet is not just for games. We have to be careful.

How can journalists accurately cover the news without being neutral?

If journalists were to completely strip away their biases, they would no longer be human, and thus be unable to report on information that humans care about. I think that as long as the perspective of the journalist is clear, and they stick to facts that they have proven through evidence, the news they report will be accurate. 

For instance, this article does a hilarious job contrasting the response of the Mormon church to an offensive play with the Muslim response to an offensive video. Stephens's point is clear: Why is one slanderous piece of entertainment okay but the other one worth murdering over? He is certainly not neutral about the issue, but neither does he twist facts or try to manipulate the information. Both the play and video are offensive to their respective churches. Only one church's members killed because of it. Hillary Clinton enjoyed the Book of Mormon play, but called the video mocking Muhammed "disgusting." It was a very interesting and opinionated look at a serious current event issue that stuck to the facts without being dry and emotionless.

Being emotionless is bad. We don't want robots reporting our news. We want people who are professional, but still human. 

(You can start around 2:10)

We're all one big human family. Sometimes, it's impossible to be neutral. And that's wonderful.