In honor of ethics

Journalists carry a monstrous burden of responsibility. People expect them not only to be credible and fair, but to be ethical. Ethics vary among people. They are not a matter of legality, but a matter of personal opinion. What one may find unethical, others would think is okay. So this is where they are open to criticism. When I hear about ethics in journalism, I usually only think of the United States, but it is an issue in other countries as well. Especially those with less regulations than what we have. In Nigeria, the Prophet Primate Babatunde Elijah Ayodele has asked journalists to shun sensationalism and adhere to journalistic ethics. Ayodele has said, "The ethic of the profession demands that you meet those you want to scandalize to verify your facts and get their own side of the story before publication. Papers are not there to scandalize achievers but to mirror the society. Journalism is not just to sit down and browse on the net and cook up stories, I refer to such people as ghost journalists, journalists should be able to confirm what they hear and verify the facts before publishing." Making sure you have an accurate story is more important than having a story that is so out there that it will sell. You are not writing fiction or a tabloid. For journalism to be respected it is essential for people to consider what they are reading to be credible. If they know it's not and they read it just for entertainment, the publication now has a bad reputation. 

Ayodele's comments were a reaction to stories about him being poor and asking for money. The stories took to extremes on this lie. They could have ruined the man's reputation. When a journalist does this they should be subject to legal action. In the United States they could get sued for libel or slander, but not all countries do this. But what about when ethics are further challenged? Are there more severe consequences? Should there be? When something is so greatly affected by perception and individual beliefs on morality, it is hard to make legislation that would regulate it. 

I thought this was interesting....

Journalism Scholarships

It's the time of year when many if not all students are stressing out about college applications. Another thing to add to the stress is wondering about how they are going to pay for scholarships. Fortunately, there are scholarships available to transfer students who are pursuing journalism as their major. Of course, in order to receive a scholarship it is important for the student to be in good academic standing and it helps if they have a portfolio of what they've written available. Some scholarships will ask for writing samples.

Here are some of the scholarships available:

One scholarship available is from the Inter-American Press Association. They give an annual $20,000 award to support journalists between the ages of 21 and 35 who wish to study in and report from a foreign country for one year. US journalists will spend a year studying and reporting in Latin America and the Caribbean. The deadline to apply for this scholarship is December 31st.

The William B. Ruggles National Right to Work Journalism Scholarship is a $2,000 scholarship that is given to a journalism major who "demonstrates the potential for successful completion of the educational requirements for the degree, and an understanding of voluntarism and the problems of compulsory unionism".  The deadline to submit an application for this scholarship is December 31st.

And last but not least...Google, the Online News Association, and the Associated Press have announced that they will be offering a $20,000 scholarship to six journalism students for the 2012-2013 school year. In their press release they stated, "The program is targeted to individual students creating innovative projects that further the ideals of digital journalism. A key goal is to promote geographic, gender and ethnic diversity, with an emphasis on rural and urban areas." The requirements listed on the website are as follows:

• Be a U.S. citizen
• Be a minimum of 18 years of age
• Be currently enrolled full time at an accredited U.S. post-secondary institution pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree. (College graduates returning to school are eligible to apply and must provide an acceptance letter from graduate institution.)
• Have at least one year of full-time undergraduate or graduate study remaining
• Have minimum grade point average of 3.0
• Be at least a college sophomore at time of application
• Be available for in-person or remote interviews with selection committee if selected as a finalist

 The deadline to submit applications is January 27th 2012.

In order to be taken seriously as a journalist it is important to be trained properly and have the skills necessary to look professional. Getting a degree is essential. There are many ways to get a degree without ending up with a massive amount of debt. Some scholarships require essays, some just ask you to fill out an application. Don't give up. Everyone can go to school.



You can find many more scholarships here and here.


And some relief for those of us who will have to take out student loans...

Wikileaks wins award in Australia

Wikileaks was awarded a Walkley Award for its "outstanding contribution to journalism." When presenting the award to WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, the Walkley Trustees said, "WikiLeaks applied new technology to penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup. Its revelations, from the way the war on terror was being waged, to diplomatic bastardry, high-level horse-trading and the interference in the domestic affairs of nations, have had an undeniable impact."
Assange claims that Australian journalists are strong and fight back with the truth. While he did make many significant documents public, he also created chaos.
The WikiLeaks website claims its purpose is "to bring important news and information to the public. One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth." While bringing the truth is important to journalism, there are better ways to make the truth available. Journalists are respected. If leaking documents and private files means exposing the truth, then the means of accessing the information is much like stealing....and that is not respectable. The ends do not justify the means.

Personally, I have a low opinion of Wikileaks. What is your opinion?

Should newspapers endorse political candidates?

Newt Gingrich was endorsed by The Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire's largest newspaper. While many did not think he would be a strong contender for President, it has been shown that endorsement from that newspaper has led to an increase of about 11 percent in the vote (from the poll taken before the endorsement). Endorsement may not be the only factor in this, but it is very possible that it influences people. People trust the newspaper they read. If they believe that a candidate is trustworthy and competent because a newspaper tells them that that person is the best for that election...then it is likely that they will sway more towards that candidate.

It may not seem like a big deal, but I don't think newspapers should endorse candidates. Newspapers need to remain unbiased and report the news simply as it is. While editorials allow opinion, this can get tricky when they endorse a candidate. Any news reported after that editorial runs will be subject to the bias the readers will then have. If anything, newspapers should publish profiles of all the candidates with both pros and cons about their platforms, but not full-on endorse a candidate. It isn't fair and it seems like a weird loop-hole. News stations give candidates equal air time....so shouldn't newspapers be just as fair?

Feminist Rant

The more I have been thinking about how female journalists are perceived as the sexy weather girl...the more I get angry. That's not right. Unfortunately, our society reinforces that stereotype by telling girls that they should write about "girly" things like clothes, relationships, and beauty. With it being Thanksgiving weekend, I spent some quality time with my DVD player and my DVR. Two of the movies I watched had a theme similar to what I am writing about. One, called "Beauty and the Briefcase" and the other called "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days".....you can already tell where this is going.

The first movie is about a girl who wants to be a journalist for Cosmopolitan. She gets assigned an article, but she'll have to work undercover at a firm in New York City. She has to find her perfect guy and date lots of the guys at the office. Perfect, right? No. In the end, she ends up writing her article about how she found the perfect guy for her and he wasn't anything that was on her list. What is sad about this movie is that the focus of a female journalist is makeup and sex and men. I understand that the publication she was writing for was Cosmopolitan, but by showing this....girls think that it is the dream job for a female journalist. Well, when I think "serious journalist" I do not think "Cosmo".

The second movie starred Kate Hudson as a girl who was stuck at a typical "girly" magazine, but wanted to write more serious articles. She gets assigned an article about "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days". Essentially, she has to make the guy fall for her.....and then drive him crazy so he breaks up with her. This doesn't exactly happen and she considers leaving for a more serious job and to get away from the guy she now has feelings for. She ends up staying. While I do not have as much to say about this one, I think it's important that she showed how upset she was that she wanted to write more serious pieces and all she was getting was fluff.

A movie that was also on this weekend was "The Devil Wears Prada." This movie is about a girl who gets a job as an assistant at a fashion magazine when she really wants to be a serious writer. After losing everything that was really important to her she walks away and ends up getting a job at a serious newspaper. What I enjoyed about this movie was that they showed the negative side of being in the "feminine" part of journalism. It is not all what people think it is.

It is important for women to realize that they can be journalists and can have fun at their jobs. They don't need to work at a women's magazine if they don't want to. Also, they can start anywhere and end up being a serious journalist. It all ends up being about a woman taking herself seriously and not succumbing to gender stereotypes.

The life of a journalist can be fun

Tom Wicker, one of the Times most distinguished journalists, passed away today after suffering from a heart attack. He was 85 years old.

In his time as a journalist he covered the White House, wrote 20 books, and even covered the assassination of JFK. He was able to report on the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and give his opinion on American involvement in Southeast Asia. He was even put on the president's enemies list over his opinion on the Watergate Scandal. Now, that's what you call having an interesting life.
Tom Wicker showed that although people think journalists simply report the news, there is so much more. He was able to give his opinion and encourage people to "engage in civil disobedience" in order to get their points across. Journalism isn't a monotonous career filled with endless stories about city council meetings, new laws, and the latest technology. While it is up to the journalist to embrace the other aspects, many New York Times journalists do.

An example of this is Nicholas Kristof. Lately i've been trying to figure out how my major, my interests, and journalism fit together. After reading several of Kristof's articles, I finally realized that it is important for me to be able to view issues from a journalist's point of view if I am going to be successful in law or politics. While they do have a stand, a view, they know when to report without a bias and they know to look at the whole truth. The information does not get manipulated to suit their opinion. They just know how to defend it when the time comes. Being involved in politics or law or even journalism...well, it doesn't have to be a bore. Maybe my life won't be so dull afterall.


And here's a video clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart....I would love to have that job.

Click Here for Video

Fox News Fails

If you're watching Fox News...you might just be wasting your time. A recent study found that adults who don't watch the news performed better than those who watched Fox News on a series of questions. The people who did the best were those who listened to NPR, watched the news on Sunday mornings, and yes even those who watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The phone survey was given to 612 adults in New Jersey.
Fox has a reputation for being less than reliable and pretty much a joke. Most people I know don't watch it. I watch The Daily Show every night and while he does not go too in-depth on topics, at least people retain information and the information is correct. If a satirical show on a comedy TV station can be more informative than a real news show....then that's bad. Fox needs to step up and start becoming more serious. Also, people need to start paying attention to what's going on in the world around them. The results of this survey showed faults with a news station, but it was also a reflection of American society now. We are living in a time when people don't really pay attention to the news or what is going on globally. People are too concerned with trivial things. Maybe a show like The Daily Show, that keeps viewers interested by not being so serious would be a better format for news...but would opinion get in the way of hard news? That would be a never-ending debate.



And now for a funny Fox News Fail...

Want to be a news anchor? Get a makeover.

I have never understood the male obsession with female TV news anchors. But, even without understanding it, I do understand why sometimes people who are less qualified for that position get the job. When you are on the radio, it does not matter how you look. When you are writing, no one is staring at you. But on TV, appearance does matter. While it may be a cheap way to get viewers, having attractive news anchors works. They also may get hired due to the way the human brain works. People perceive someone who is more attractive and symmetrical as being smarter and having better social skills. This has been known as the "halo effect". Beauty can influence whether someone will get hired and it can influence how much they are paid. On TV, it is necessary to capture the audience and keep viewers watching. This will have an effect on ratings and how much people are paid. So while hiring the better looking person may not seem ethical, it can be beneficial.
When it comes down to how much someone is paid. Those who have above-average looks usually are paid more. This is called the "beauty premium" and it is especially true in professions where someone needs to keep the "client", or audience in this case, interested. They can earn around 5% more than their colleagues. The below-average looking people are subject to the "plainness penalty" and can be paid around 9% less than their more attractive colleagues. Age, weight, height, and how symmetrical and appealing to the eye people are can really influence their luck in the work force. When it comes to TV journalism, it is very obvious.






And now...a clip about my favorite tv show about a girl trying to make it in the world of journalism...and she got a makeover...go figure!

Journalism then and now

In class we learn of the different types of news writing and the different jobs available. We also learn about beats and how journalists are assigned jobs. Watching the below video, it is easily noticed that not much has changed except for technology. But some aspects have changed a lot.
Now, women are involved in all aspects of journalism. That wasn't the case years ago. I was watching the clip below from HuffPost Media's "A Look Back" series and it left me feeling very proud to be a feminist. It pretty much said that women were only involved in the society pages and wrote stuff about cooking, beauty, and keeping house. It also said that women find it difficult competing with men in general reporting jobs....well could this be because of how much they are already oppressed? If someone isn't taken seriously and they need a job, chances are that they will take the job that they can get. So instead of encouraging women to go for their goals in journalism, it claims that if a woman wants to be successful in journalism she should aim for the special women's departments. I am glad we are no longer in that time. If I were to pursue journalism there is no way I'd want to write a column on how to set the table.

Clinton on the news

Many know news reporters by watching the news. Some people have a favorite journalist because of the articles they read in publications. But when a station needs viewers, sometimes a celebrity reporter is added to the payroll.
Chelsea Clinton, the girl who evaded reporters, is now one of them. She has no journalism experience and is famous due to her political parents. For someone who truly has worked towards their goal of being a journalist and has not had the advantages she has had, this would be really unfair. I'm simply a viewer. As a viewer I think it's unfair, but at the same time I see how she will pull in viewers and even though she comes from a famous family, she shouldn't be barred from the profession.I do strongly believe that only those who are best fit for the profession should be working in it, but just because someone comes from a privileged upbringing does not mean that they are not fit. The real issue at hand is that journalists are losing jobs to celebrities because stations want more money. This is wrong. If this trend continues, news sources will lose the credibility that people trust them for.
I hope she does well and if people don't like her on the air, well then change the channel. It's as simple as that. 

"Journalism License and registration please."

You are on your way to report on something and all of a sudden you get stopped by the police. Only registered journalists can be in that area. In a country built on a foundation of freedom, is this right? Is it right for police to ask journalists to have a permit to report in certain areas? While to some this idea seems ridiculous, some journalists and organizations are actually okay with the idea of journalists having to have some sort of license or registration. This is due largely to civilian reporters. Access to websites and social media have made it possible for anyone to be a reporter. News can be posted online instantaneously by anyone, meaning that the rush to be the first to post is more intense than ever. My personal opinion is that while people might read something on a social media site, they usually want to check with a credible source to make sure that what they are reading is true. Real journalists will never become a thing of the past as long as they remain trustworthy and accurate. As far as licensing goes, it could lead to a reduction of the freedom the press currently has. It might also lead to more rules about who can post news online. But if done correctly it could be like other professions that require licensing. In order for the journalist to have access to more sources and to be seen as more official, licensing could take place. Considering licensing is being used as an excuse to keep people out though, it probably won't happen. 

SOPA = censorship?

The Stop Online Piracy Act is a bill that was introduced to the House of Representatives last month. The purpose of the bill is mainly to protect Intellectual Property online. People fear that without enforcement, the US copyright system will become obsolete and that many jobs will be lost. Personally, I am really interested in this because Intellectual Property Law is what I hope to go into.....but on the other end, it is necessary to question what measures will be taken in order to enforce the bill.
  This bill would end up censoring the internet. The Attorney-General would be allowed to create a blacklist of websites which Americans would not be allowed to access. Now, the last time I heard people not being able to access certain websites was when I was reading about China and Egypt (before the revolts)....that is not the US I know. The blocking would be done by the same system used by those countries and if the United States does it, chances are more countries will follow. What this would mean for journalism is that any site that has self-expression on it would be blocked. So social media such as blogs, and facebook, and twitter would be things of the past. These are used as ways to reach audiences now in the world of journalism. And if these sites get blocked, then the avenues for news would be print or maybe a really self-censored website. News writing would suffer. Goodbye Opinion pages! Some websites would not even allow you to upload images or video due to the fear of being blocked. This would be a step backwards for innovation of thought and technology. Unfortunately, due to a lot of support in government (thanks to some "helpful" nudging by corporations) this bill could be passed. Our careers could be in danger, so it's time to speak up.