Abstract #3
The first article I read was “Covering the Outsiders.” I think it is especially important to think about the issues raised here considering that we are in the midst of the primary season and an election year. It reminded me how the issue of lopsided campaign coverage is still going strong in 2008. Obviously, there are many factors to consider in this election: it is the first time in many years that an incumbent vice president is not running for president, leaving the Republican race wide open. Furthermore, the Democratic field includes perhaps the most viable black and woman candidates ever. So, it’s understandable that coverage is going to be somewhat biased.
However, there have still been some strong candidates in both parties that have been largely ignored as a result. For example, Kucinich was denied a spot on one of the recently televised Democratic debates because producers felt his poor turnout in early primaries didn’t warrant him such attention and instead decided to focus on Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I guess I can understand why the media would want to focus on the leading candidates but by sidelining coverage of the other candidates, it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I liked her point that perhaps the issues that other candidates bring up should be the focus of coverage. Although they may not have a realistic chance of winning, they can at least use their position to bring up relevant issues that may be overlooked by the front-runners. Additionally, I agreed with her point that it’s usually the people who go against conventional wisdom that have the most lasting effects, and I think that we as journalists should at least be willing to give them a fighting chance.
Continuing with the theme of diversity, I found the article talking about accents to be very interesting. This is something I personally have had to deal with when writing my name in a word processor. Typically, I omit the accent over my name for the sake of simplicity, but it does bring up the issue of accuracy-one of the hallmarks of journalism. To correctly pronounce my name, you would need to place the emphasis on the last syllable-something that is uncharacteristic of English. I can wholly appreciate the difficulties associated with putting an accent into a program and having to worry about using the Alt key or character mapping. Furthermore, Norm Goldstein brings up a valid point that we would have to decide where to stop and what languages would be included, though with Spanish being the second most widely spoken language in the U.S. it would follow that it would hold a proportionate amount of clout.
Though diversity is an important theme for journalists, I found the final article I read, “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today,” to be hard to swallow. Though it was on the so-called Accuracy in Media Web site, it screamed of being geared to the right. Perhaps that is just my liberal tendencies kicking in, but I couldn’t help but roll my eyes after reading what issues the author thought were being ignored or not reported “objectively” about. What is this guy thinking? I can understand some of his argument that the news can sometimes lean to the left but I think that is just a fact of the industry. As much as we talk about objectivity, personal beliefs are inevitably going to filter through, despite our best efforts.
The tone of the article was almost sarcastic and most of the topics he brings up go against what most people, including scientists and academics, hold to be true. He speaks of Hugh Hefner as a “dirty old man,” talks of Islam as if there is a concrete interpretation of its tenets, gives undue credence to intelligent design and calls its opponents “secular humanists”, and finally talks of ex-gays as if the idea is something that is normally validated. The list could go on. Last time I checked, journalists wrote about things that had been thoroughly researched and had credibility from the scientific community. Intelligent design is discussed in a fairly objective way, though it is based on religious views-something that is inherently subjective. I guess my point is that ideas of objectivity and diversity can vary, sometimes to an extreme as in this case, but they are still important topics in journalism we need to consider.
Case Study-”Jimmy’s World”
As was the case with the “Eagle snatches dog” story, this is another instance of editors being too trusting or not being inquisitive enough. However, I can’t completely blame them. I’d like to assume that reporters are honest, credible people with good reputations, especially at a place like the Washington Post, but I guess you never know. I can only imagine the reasons why people like Janet Cooke would fabricate such a story, but I know part of it has to do with personal gain and preying on editor trust. I don’t buy her apology that we read in class-I think it’s a bunch of crap. She’s only sorry she got caught. But, I digress. I liked reading the story graf by graf and analyzing what red flags would have gone off in our heads had we been the editors assigned to this story. I felt it was a useful exercise and helps us to hone our inquisitive tendencies. I think egregious errors such as the Cooke case serve their own purpose, however, in that they warn us what not to do and help ensure things like this happen as little as possible.
Leave a Reply