Journalism minds meet to minimize harm

-Courtesy of Google Images

During an hour-long round-table discussion yesterday, four journalism representatives from Washington State University and the surrounding Northwest region met to discuss the ethical implications of journalism and what can be done to minimize the harm caused during the reporting of the news.

About fifty students, alumni and administrators gathered at the Minimizing Harm workshop, sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists as part of the 33rd annual Murrow Symposium, to hear the panelists discuss the morality of the reporting done in a 2006 story concerning registered sex offender Nathan Sterr, then living in the residence halls.

In this discussion, whose panel included Peter Bhatia, editor-in-chief of the Portland Oregonian, and Rebecca Tallent, a journalsm professor and SPJ representative from the University of Idaho, the issues of the case were discussed, along with the consequences of media action, which ultimately may have caused the student to leave the school.

Jacob Jones, a third member on the panel and former editor of the Daily Evergreen, WSU's student publication, was part of the writing team which covered the Sterr case in the spring of 2006. When asked whether or not Sterr's leaving the school could have been predicted, Jones said that the effects of the exposure of something embarrassing in a person's past can have a very profound impact, especially in a small community.

"I kept in my mind the whole time we were reporting it, that he had a right to an education," he said. "He had done everything that had been asked of him since his conviction."

Sterr was convicted of First-degree child molestation at the age of thirteen. After five years of rehabilitation and efforts to rebuild his life, he was accepted to WSU in 2006, where he informed administrators and local law enforcement of his status as a level 2 sex offender. According to Al Jameson, WSU's Interim Vice President for Student Affairs and final member of the panel, it was the opinion of the administration that Sterr was of the lowest risk to other people; he had done every positive thing possible to atone for what he had done. Sterr was granted admission and given the option to live in the dorms with a roommate.

Unfortunately, his roommate was not informed of Sterr's status, who after being informed by other students who had found out from the Internet where all of the information is public knowledge, informed his parents back in Seattle. The scandal began when the roommate's mother went to Seattle's KING news station with the story. After KING broke the story live and identified Sterr openly with a picture, the Daily Evergreen and Jones's team followed with print coverage further ironing out the facts and exposing that Sterr would probably be forced to leave school because of the coverage. He did not finish the academic term

As Becky Tallent said in the discussion, "the overarching scope of ethics is to do no harm, but in this business you can't help it; it's the nature of the beast."

The discussion did not revolve around the accuracy of the facts presented by KING or The Daily Evergreen, which were immaculate, but rather it was ethical to expose all of Sterr's personal information, even though it is public record, if it was obviously going to end his education.

"There's a difference between publishing and reporting; you usually report 800 percent more than you publish," said Peter Bhatia. "As a reader, I would want to know everything, so it's a very tricky equation figuring out which information holes to leave."

Where a situation might be cut and dried in the case of a public official embezzling funds, it is much more complex when dealing with the young and presumably innocent like this case, where someones life, career or education might be at risk, he said.

Becky Tallent said that SPJ, with it's 250 chapters and nearly 10,000 member journalists, reworked it's own code of ethics in light of events such as this one, specifically concerning themselves with children and other people unable to defend themselves from just such harm.

"To me, this was pretty much business as usual for the media," Tallent said. "That's why we have these codes, to guide us; they're just tools, we still will have problems."

Frontline: The Future of News

Although I was unable to attend our in-depth class discussion of the unique ideas presented in Frontline's 4-part NewsWar series, I did view it online and will attempt to react to it now.

This series was quite compelling as it showed me some very unique insights into the future of my industry. We all know how the Internet is changing just about everything these days, but the impact it has had on the news is profound, and as it is shown by Frontline, stands to be one of the most influential developments affecting the presentation of the news in a long time.

Although the newspaper industry remains large and widespread, it is losing the credibility that it once had. Readership primarily falls to older generations, with youngsters second-guessing what we have called in class, "their parent's media." However, even with this decline in newspaper popularity, 81 percent of Americans encounter news at least once a day. This mind-blowing majority speaks directly to the case of growing integration of technology in the dissemination of information. People who are no longer interacting with print media are getting it elsewhere, whether it be an Internet news site, their favorite blog, or on the television (although that medium is falling to the Internet as well).

The Internet has also allowed for diverse and ethnic media sources to get their voice out to thousands more people than might have access to it otherwise. Sites like the one that play the Al Jazeera English channel, rejected and banned in the U.S., are growing in popularity, if for no other reason, because people want to hear both sides of the story, not just what the American public decides to feed them.

What has driven this growing flux of media consumers to the Internet, is the increased curiosity of American's, the ability to question what is given to them as fact. This also demonstrates the quickly growing "blogosphere", where we not only cannot hear the points of views of others, but can share ours as well. What the media should learn from this, is they need to be more thorough and all-encompassing with their coverage, and should share the information in a variety of mediums, if only in the interest of getting the highest volume of facts, to the most people.

Al Jazeera English

-Courtesy of Google Images

Due to strong opposition by American cable stations, and as recent survey results suggest, American citizens as well, the Al Jazeera English news station has been all but banned from our television sets, and restricted to broadcast online.

In our changing climate post-9/11, the Al Jazeera Network has become in some circles, known as the "Terrorist Network," a claim that I find to be mostly unfounded. For the most part, Al Jazeera English seems to hit stories that both the American and UK news frequently miss. The network has a monopoly on the news within their countries borders in the sense that they have enough proximity and context to report honestly on stories that otherwise would go ignored.

The question of whether or not Al Jazeera English will ever be allowed to broadcast within the US seems to have been answered already. I think the negative feelings of many Americans will prevent this channel from going anywhere but the Internet for quite a while. This is a mistake, because from my point of view, they should be allowed to broadcast.

The purpose and duty of the news is to inform the public about issues that affect them, and allow them to make an informed decision for themselves. For this purpose, Al Jazeera English is a vital component to the media environment. Because of their ability to scoop both American and world news sources on many issues, and then cover these issues from often unrepresented perspectives, Al Jazeera is giving all it's viewers the opportunity to be just that much more informed, and to make better decisions.

The interviewing and reporting style used on this new news venue differs from what I am used to in the Western News. The interviews seem to be more personal, usually in the subjects environment, and very up-close and personal. The reporting style follows the same theme, with reporters often going out to see and experience the story, instead of just sitting in the newsroom. I think this furthers yet again, their proximity to the news, and improves their story-telling potential.

Ethically, the Al Jazeera network does as good of a job of fulfilling it's obligations as any news network. They have most fulfilled their 5th element of their Code of Ethics, which is "Present diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality." Their point of view, by default is a diverse one, but they also do an outstanding job of avoiding bias and partiality, a huge step towards ethical operations. As far as avoiding encroachment by commercial or political sources, Al Jazeera does a better job than many Western channels; if they didn't the American audience wouldn't be small, it would be nonexistent.

It's obvious to me that the negative publicity and reputation that the Al Jazeera English network is receiving is mostly impulse judgement, and largely unfounded. With enough patience and perseverance I do believe the channel will gain popularity in the online space, though it may take a very long time for it to be allowed on American networks.

Who needs real life when you can have a Second Life?

-Courtesy of Google Images

For those people looking for an escape from the everyday hustle and bustle of the real world, there is a growing online outlet that may soon allow everything from virtual music, games and businesses to operate in a false reality, reaching millions of members.

Second Life is an online virtual environment, which allows users in their 3-D community persona, called Avatars, to do everything from attend press conferences, dance at night clubs and even show their support for select political campaigns. Estimates of registered users currently range from 400,000 to 4 million.

Washington State University professor Brett Atwood has become a relatively frequent user of the online reality under an Avatar pseudonym, and recently gave an online lecture to his 20 student journalism class using the site.

"It's something that's fairly new and it's getting a lot of hype," Atwood said. "At this point, from my perspective, it's experimental, but it's worth looking at."

The site is nowhere near a perfect process. More than half of Atwood's Convergent Journalism class was unable to load the site which caused numerous computer crashes. Problems varied from improper graphics cards to slow processor and connection speeds.

"If you have an older computer, good luck," Atwood said.

For those people lucky enough to be able to regularly visit the site, roaming the virtual reality opens up growing amounts of options such as browsing online school campuses, visiting corporate headquarters for companies such as Adidas and Reebok, and even spending money through a virtual economy that uses a currency cleverly coined as Linden dollars, after the sites' parent company, Linden Labs.

In addition to useful tools such as the Harvard and Texas State virtual campuses, there are some potentially harmful activities as well, as with any internet site.

Linden dollars translate into real dollars, and there are some entrepreneurs who have been successful making their living through that currency including gambling outlets, Atwood said. There are also "red light district" type areas where unexpected nudity, sex and profanity may run rampant.

"Sex drives a lot of web traffic and it's no different here," he said

Although still mostly experimental, the site sees between 40,000 and 400,000 visits during its peak hours on Friday and Saturday, and with a wealth of content from politics to upcoming music, it's hard to see why the fad will not continue to grow.

USA Today Re-worked, For the Better?

-Courtesy of Google Images

During their recent reproduction of their website, USA TODAY has fallen to mixed praise from many readers, and some criticism from other news agencies. Their new actions include providing access to other news sources, allowing reader content and discussion directly on-site and improving communication with their news staff. This I believe, though it has met with some harsh reviews so far, will do amazing things to increase the amount of credibility and trust that readers place in USA TODAY.


The ability to access other news sources online, directly from the site of USA TODAY, is a huge step. It will most likely do wonders to decrease the distrust that the public places on newspapers for being merely profit-run businesses. While the journalism trade is for profit, the primary obligation is to the readers and to inform them, no matter what. An informed reader is one that can make better decisions concerning their community, and USA TODAY is encouraging this without fear, by providing their readers with a great wealth of information, previously unavailable to them.


One of the other interesting topics of their re-vamp is the allowance of reader contribution. This brings the site closer to the growing “blogosphere,” in that it allows readers to not only comment on the stories that they see reported, but allows them to suggest their own stories as well. While the navigation on the site for some of these controls leaves something to be desired (or found as it is), it is a huge step in bringing a particularly large news organization closer to their community. It will hopefully allow USA TODAY to bring a voice to people who had previously been voiceless, and promote more complete and well-rounded stories on a variety of topics that interest everybody.

On a similar note, the increased communication ability with the news staff is vital to an evolving form of journalism. Recently Steve Smith, editor of the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, gave a lecture to my class concerning the same issue. His paper had also recently re-vamped their web-site and was integrating what he called the “transparent newsroom,” to the point that the public can now actually watch video of their morning news staff meetings. As I stated earlier, credibility is essential in journalism, because if people don’t trust the news, they may never get the information they need. Communication is also vital in maintaining constant contact with everyone that you are supposed to represent. This is why this singular action by USA Today, while not as drastic as the Spokesman’s, is another step in the right direction to bring public faith back to this agency sworn to serve
them.

I encourage the editors to push through this early criticism of their new look. The accessibility and increased navigation is second only to an elite few in the world of online news, and their new actions will catch on eventually. For some time now, the entire journalism field has suffered from a credibility gap between the writer and editors and the readers that they serve, and there is no better way to close that gap than by increasing community involvement. It’s clear that USA TODAY is set on strengthening not only their own image, but the image of the field as a whole, hopefully the stragglers will catch on soon.

Take This Poll!

CADD Building Slide Show

Gabcast! Journalism Channel #1

Welcome to my Journalism Blog!

Importance of the Complete Story

Ownership convergence within the journalism field has been under a lot of scrutiny lately and perhaps for good reason. When the same parent corporation owns multiple channels of communication or content, it does allow for the wider and more complete distribution of the news. As Jack Fuller, president of Tribune's publishing subsidiary, said, "Owning television, radio and newspapers in a single market is a way to lower costs, increase efficiencies and provide higher quality news in times of economic duress." Mr. Fuller raised a good point; consolidating multiple news venues allows for widespread distribution of news with fewer costs. However a few questions are raised.

When an entity such as the New York Times Company owns eighteen daily newspapers internationally, nine network television stations and two radio stations, as well as operating more than 30 web sites, it is obviously cost effective for them to share resources. However, this concentration of control could also equal a stifling effect on the diversity of stories and topics that are covered in the news. The company may, in an effort to maintain certain societal or organizational values, choose certain stories and coverage over others and cover some issues more rigorously than others. This may not distort the "picture of reality" that audiences receive from the news in the case of a single newspaper, but when the same messages are put out by a company as large as the New York Times it is easy to see how some audience members may become ignorant to topics that it and all of it's affiliates chose to ignore

News Corporation, an even larger conglomerate than the Times owns more than 20 international newspapers, 30 or more television channels including Fox and an innumerable amount of websites; all of these reaching up to 300 million subscribers according to their corporate website. Now if NewsCorp chose to ignore the other side of a story on say, the Iraq war, in an effort to preserve their status quo, all of those 300 million subscribers would be completely ignorant to that issue, unable to make their own decision on where they stand. Viewers and readers would need to go to another news outlet to receive the other side, and it is a reasonable assumption to think that many of those 300 million do not get to read or watch more than one source of news regularly.

Due to this conglomeration or convergence of news ownership, audiences may be suffering. At least a small portion of media consumers may be geting a distorted view of the truth. With this knowledge it is important for all of us to not take what we see or read as absolute truth, to diversify the news we encounter and to try to get the complete story.