Idealism Versus Realism

We had an interesting class discussion today about truth, objectivity, loyalty, integrity, idealism, and realism in relation to journalism.

We also discussed to what extent journalism aims to serve the public rather then serving the employer and becoming just another product available to consumers.

Rallying the cause of idealism are the supporters integrity, objectivity, and truth. Some people in class said these were the reasons they wanted to become a journalist.

Some expressed a dislike in the current news industry because of their biased, rating based, flashy but not truly informative reporting techniques.

Instead of compromising by giving the producers what they want or giving a certain audience the kind of news they want and possibly like to hear, they would rather give what constitutes their idea of truth and what they believe the public should be informed about.

Professor Cressman spoke of his personal experience working in the news industry. If he was put into a situation that would have compromised his integrity, he quit. He joined another news organization.

Meanwhile others acknowledged that news should be entertaining as to capture the attention of the audience. Individuals acknowledged that you can do your best to be as objective as possible, but you can not completely take out personal bias 100% of the time.

Sometimes its the biased opinions that make news interesting.

Journalists as it currently is don't get paid enough. So when it comes down to writing a story you don't like versus not getting paid and not having enough money to support yourself, what do you do?

Not everyone can risk quitting his/her job when faced with that decision and hope to get hired again by another news organization.

Professor Cressman told us sometimes he had to do things he didn't like. He became tired of the business and eventually quit. Now he teaches a principles of journalism class at Brigham Young University.

How do you maintain your integrity and survive in this type of news environment?

I agree that doing nothing is not a good solution. But at the same time, how can the new generation of idealistic journalists support themselves while changing the industry, survive all the opposition, and succeed when some people aren't necessarily looking for, wanting, or willing to accept that kind of change?

Interview

I had the opportunity to interview Sebastian Kitchen from the Montgomery Advertiser.

Kitchen, originally from Lubbock, Texas, began his career as a journalist writing for his high school newspaper. When he started college at Texas Tech University, he began writing features and entertainment articles.

One of his college teachers required the students to work a few hours each week at a local newspaper. As a result of this requirement, when Sebastian needed an internship, he just contacted the newspaper he had previously worked for. They were happy to take him on because of his good work ethic he had demonstrated before. He began writing obituaries and news briefs.

After graduation, Kitchen was hoping to go into sports writing. However, he was offered his first professional job covering politics and government by that same newspaper. He has come to love writing about these topics and takes his job very seriously.

Kitchen defines good journalism as "fair, balanced reporting on a variety of issues including sports, news, and lifestyles that interest and affect people."

When asked if he felt that his current news organization practices good journalism he answered with a bold, no.

He believes that too much focus is put on attracting people to the website "with sensationalism rather then with writing relevant stories... on good, solid news. People deserve to read relevant news and not just about Paris Hilton."

Kitchen serves his community by writing articles that keeps the public informed about decisions being made that could affect their daily lives. He asks questions for the people like, "What is the government spending money on? What are elected officials doing in Montgomery? Will their Medicaid payment be cut? Will their property tax go up? Will their child's school be able to afford books next year?"

With each article, he hopes to inform the readers by presenting the facts in a non-biased way.

When it comes to recent movements of community, citizen, civic, and public journalism, Kitchen
believes it produces both good and bad consequences. Allowing people to interact with the publications by posting their own thoughts and opinions is good. But at the same time, "there should be a line," Kitchen said. Kitchen's news organization had an experience with people posting incorrect information about a man through comments and blogs on their website. Those unconfirmed rumors about the man could possibly destroy the man's political career, hurt his family, and open up Kitchen's news organization to a lawsuit.

Kitchen also worries when bloggers act as journalists because many times they are not knowledgeable about the do's and don'ts of journalism. Problems with fairness, accuracy, libel, and other issues arise.

Kitchen has made a difference with his journalism. In 2005, Kitchen wrote an article about Alabama being one of two states left that did not have a landlord-tenant law. Some people were paying money to landlords to live in substandard, unsanitary conditions where some even ended up getting sick. On the other side, some tenants carelessly destroyed property and failed to pay rent. Kitchen brought these issues to light. During the next legislative session, a landlord-tenant law was passed and many people credited Kitchen with helping get it passed.

Kitchen still believes journalism plays a vital role in democracy. He has also "come to believe that many stockholders and managers for giant media corporations are not concerned about the product their news organizations put out." He knows this may not always be the case, but he feels it is happening more frequently.

Kitchen has been affected by the dropping circulations, ratings, layoffs, and growth of citizen journalism. Over 50 positions have been cut from his newspaper including the publisher who hired him, the humans resource manager who helped him, and many more. Even though Kitchen understands the need for a budget, he thinks it is affecting the quality of the product being sold. They are forced to do more with less.

Kitchen understands how some people would argue that voting hurts your credibility as a journalist. On the other hand, he has already given up his right to speak publicly and express his true opinions. "I am not going to give up my right to go into the polling center and cast a private vote I believe is best for my city, county, state, or country," Kitchen said.

When asked if he would go to jail to protect a source, Kitchen said he would. Since the source has placed his trust in you, you have an obligation to protect that trust.

Kitchen offers the following advice to students wanting to go into journalism. "Do it because you love it. And be prepared for some stress in a struggling industry that is changing every day and laying off thousands of people." Be willing and ready to keep up with the changes.

I really enjoyed interviewing a journalist from my hometown of Montgomery, Alabama. I loved getting his perspective on journalism, learning from his experiences, and listening to the advice he had to offer.

Who is a journalist?

I hate trying to confine the definition of a journalist. So I won’t.

Ultimately, anyone can be a journalist or as we discussed in class the other day, commit acts of journalism.

The journalist may not have spent hours meticulously researching his topic or verifying his sources and could very well be overly biased, but he is nonetheless a journalist.

He has presented another form or type of journalism if you will. Granted it may not be a very good or legitimate one, but it is still journalism.

That journalists contributes one more puzzle piece that helps to complete the whole picture of journalism, what it is, and who can be one.

Concerning journalists and objectivity-

I will still try to write and to present the facts as fairly and objectively as I can, but it would be a lie pretending I don’t have an opinion.

Inevitably, opinion will creep in among the stories presented whether accidentally or purposefully.

A girl in class said, “Opinion is journalism as long as it is not presented as fact.”

I agree with her. As long as the journalist makes a distinction between what is fact and what is opinion if for some reason it is being included, then it still is a part of journalism.

What is News?

The other day I watched the PBS program, "News War: What's Happening to the News?"

The movie explores the different opinions of what news is and who can be a journalist. Once again, I find myself questioning my own views on what news is.

I honestly don't believe there is one set right or wrong answer. 

Some people say that news broadcaster and news writers are being judged by the same standards that you would judge a movie or tv-show. It's all about how well they can entertain. Some people suggest this is part of what is causing the deterioration of the news.

On one hand, not all news is going to capture the attention of the audience and captivate it's followers. Some news will be what some people consider "boring." However, that does not mean that all news is going to be boring and should be presented in a formal stiff manner either. 

It's true you need to catch the attention of people flipping the channel so they will watch your news station. Providing a story in an entertaining way is one solution. The problem lies in when the story is spruced up so much it loses the essence of the original intent of the message and becomes just another entertaining story.

Often times the stories being presented have no meaning or consequence to the public. All they are is entertainment. While it's acceptable to have a story like this every now and then, the American people are not learning the news that could affect their daily lives.

Even when the breaking news is told, it is just headlines. Someone in class brought up the example of the bailout plan. In general, most people know it's a $700 billion bailout plan to help out the banks.  But not much more than that is known. How many news stations or news papers actually broke it down so people could understand why it happened? How many people tried to explain the specific points of the bill? How many discussed specific reasons congressmen or senators opposed the plan? All I read was that many economists said the plan was bad idea, it was too much money, and that was it. What other solutions were offered? How does this affect the American people who are wealthy, middle class, or poor?

Most people don't have the time to do extensive research on their own. This is a reason many rely on the news. But when the news is all entertainment and vague headlines about what is going on, how are the American people supposed to stay informed?

Then the issue of what is news comes into play. One person from the video said news is what is important to the people. That can include anything from dating tips to bailout plans. But are dating tips really news?

The man defended his statement by saying that the definition of news and what it can include has been "broadened, not lowered."

Then I wonder whether newspapers should even include the entertaining news. I think they should keep the section that informs the public on special concerts, operas, etc going on in their area. But the news about Brad and Angie doesn't need to be included. That is why there are a plethora of magazines- People Magazine, Seventeen, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, etc. Also shows like Entertainment Tonight will give you all the news about celebrities and gossip that people love to hear about. It shouldn't have to appear on news stations.

I also wonder about whether news should by hyper-local or not. While it may attract more consumers, if everything is local news, how will you find out about international news?

Yes, The New York Times, Washington Post, and USA today are international newspapers. But are three newspapers covering the entire world enough? 

Should people have to buy several different newspapers so they know what is going on locally, nationally, and internationally?

What is the solution?

Champions for a Cause or Vigilantes?

Somalian Pirates hijacked a Ukrainian freighter ship 200 miles off the Somalian cost that was carrying heavy weaponry worth up to $30 million dollars.

The pirates are not trying to steal the weapons or give them to a country that would misuse the weapons. They are simply holding the ship ransom for what they want- $20 million dollars in cold, hard cash. According to the pirates, that money would be used for feeding their men and helping their country of Somalia.

Although they have no intentions of hurting anyone, they are holding the people on ship captive until they get the money. The pirates feel misunderstood by the world. There are doing this for what they view are legitimate reasons.

"He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. 'We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.'" (From NY Times article. See link at bottom)

So this brings up the question of- what do you do? While holding people ransom for money isn't right, is it right for other people to illegally fish in their seas? The pirates say this is this reason they started doing what they are doing. But have they taken it too far? Do their reasons make it right?

To solve the problem, do you pay the ransom that fuels the cause for piracy, or do you attack? Although some people from other countries are encouraging the United States to help and to attack, remember the pirates could use the captives as human shields as well as have access to all the weapons aboard the ship if they became desperate.

One minute countries feel that the US should back off and not be the saviors of the world. The next minute people are asking for help. What is the United State's role in the world? Do we have an obligation to help? Can we afford it?

Besides wanting the US to help out, other solutions are being discussed. The United Nations is debating whether countries should come together and create a maritime peacekeeping force. Will this solve the piracy problems? Should there be plans on ways to protect the Somalians fishing industry from outsiders that gave cause to piracy movements? Will that help solve the problem? Do you think both actions would help solve the problem and prevent future problems?

I am honestly curious to hear how people feel about this issue. What do you think?

For the full article - Somali Pirates Tell All: They are in it for the Money

For the Question/Answer Session with a pirate- The Interview