One of this week's readings stuck out to me: Lying to Reporters Especially in the wake of Brian Williams' exaggerated stories, we often think about journalists who lie. Rarely do we (or at least I) consider the possibility that sources will lie. OK, obviously we check a source's story and make sure it's true, confirm it with others, etc. But what about little white lies? Sources, like any other human being, can succumb to the temptation of exaggerating or making themselves seem better than they are.
How do journalists cut through the spin and the exaggeration?
I think there are a few ways.
1) Get more sources to triangulate.
2) Ask pressing questions to test parts of the story that seem weak.
3) Go into the interview with healthy skepticism.
I'm sure there are more ways, but these would be a start. From big lies to little white ones, our stories are only as strong as our sources.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
7: Filter Bubbles
The TED Talk we watched for week 7 sunk in with me. In the past, I had been guilty of allowing myself to be walled in by only the news that I wanted to see.
I only bookmarked sites that would provide news about the topics I cared about. I only clicked on Facebook links for articles I thought I would agree with. I ignored local news completely.
Since companies like Google and Facebook are now deciding what news will trickle into our feeds, we have to be conscious of the need for dissenting opinions, contrary evidence, and news that doesn't directly affect us. We have to read every article and watch every video with an open mind and a skeptical eye.
One of the best ways to do this is to take from a variety of sources. I now have a digital subscription to the local paper, and I at least read the title and blurb for every major article. I also read USA Today online daily. On my phone, I get breaking news updates (international and domestic) from BBC.
Maybe enough pressure will be placed on Facebook and Google to take up the mantle of civic and social responsibility. Maybe they will stop causing users to exist within a bubble of affirmation journalism. Unfortunately, your average citizen probably has no idea it's happening, and no understanding of the importance of seeking out other sources and opinions.
I only bookmarked sites that would provide news about the topics I cared about. I only clicked on Facebook links for articles I thought I would agree with. I ignored local news completely.
Since companies like Google and Facebook are now deciding what news will trickle into our feeds, we have to be conscious of the need for dissenting opinions, contrary evidence, and news that doesn't directly affect us. We have to read every article and watch every video with an open mind and a skeptical eye.
One of the best ways to do this is to take from a variety of sources. I now have a digital subscription to the local paper, and I at least read the title and blurb for every major article. I also read USA Today online daily. On my phone, I get breaking news updates (international and domestic) from BBC.
Maybe enough pressure will be placed on Facebook and Google to take up the mantle of civic and social responsibility. Maybe they will stop causing users to exist within a bubble of affirmation journalism. Unfortunately, your average citizen probably has no idea it's happening, and no understanding of the importance of seeking out other sources and opinions.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
6: Sources
After this week's readings about sources, I found myself growing skeptical of every report I heard.
This morning on NPR, Dave Mattingly reported that Russia is preparing to open two fronts of fighting in the Ukraine. However, he simply cited "multiple reports." With that one statement, Mr. Mattingly has stripped our ability to be informed listeners--critical thinkers who digest information slowly and consider potential motives for misinformation, among other things.
Where did these reports come from? Why should we believe them?
Anyone who follows world news is aware that Putin's motives, potential moves, and past actions are highly speculated about, but rarely actually known.
Even ESPN does a more solid job with sources (not saying NPR normally doesn't do a good job). They often cite "team executives" or "team members" as sources. Sometimes they also cite these mysterious "multiple reports," but more often the source is listed, even if not by name.
We should look to organizations that make a habit out of giving us reason to believe sources. More transparency!
This morning on NPR, Dave Mattingly reported that Russia is preparing to open two fronts of fighting in the Ukraine. However, he simply cited "multiple reports." With that one statement, Mr. Mattingly has stripped our ability to be informed listeners--critical thinkers who digest information slowly and consider potential motives for misinformation, among other things.
Where did these reports come from? Why should we believe them?
Anyone who follows world news is aware that Putin's motives, potential moves, and past actions are highly speculated about, but rarely actually known.
Even ESPN does a more solid job with sources (not saying NPR normally doesn't do a good job). They often cite "team executives" or "team members" as sources. Sometimes they also cite these mysterious "multiple reports," but more often the source is listed, even if not by name.
We should look to organizations that make a habit out of giving us reason to believe sources. More transparency!
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
5: Sports Journalism
I'm an avid sports fan. This week's article about the two types of sports journalism (There Are Two Kinds Of "Sports Journalism." Only One Of Them Is Really Journalism.) struck a chord with me. I think there is vast potential in sports for "good" journalism. Here are a few examples that I've wondered about over the years:
- The Seattle Seahawks have had 7 PED suspensions since Pete Carroll took over as coach. Is he to blame, or are there other factors?
- What in the NFL's culture might be contributing to the issues with domestic abuse?
- Why do so many athletes go broke after they retire? What should professional sports organizations be doing to keep this from happening? Are any measures currently being taken?
- A lot of animosity exists between the NFL and the NFL Players' Association. Issues like the NFL's media policy, changing rules/penalties, and CTE/concussion problems should all be looked into.
- The Patriots have a history of cheating. What other allegations have come out in recent years, and might they now be substantiated?
- There is a major issue with racism in European soccer. One player even had a banana thrown at him during a game. Could those issues be explored?
The potential here is limitless. Fans love to hear the latest trade rumors and free agent gossip, but sports could benefit from true journalism. Sports fans everywhere would read these in-depth reports, just like anyone would read the stadium food safety story on ESPN that we read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)