Ethical Code

Before taking this class, I would have easily defined the word “journalist.” Now, looking back over all the material we covered, I’m not so sure of myself anymore. It’s apparent that the term “journalist” has become an ambiguous title with new media. Is a blogger a journalist? Am I a journalist? In the syllabus for our class, Dr. Cressman writes,

“During this semester we will have the opportunity to together explore, discuss, analyze, and define the practice of journalism.”

I feel confident that I have explored, discussed, and analyzed the practice of journalism—perhaps to the point of incredulity—but have I defined it? Rather than give a one sentence, dictionary-like definition, I can better say what a journalist is and isn’t. A journalist is not only defined by what they do, but how they do it.

Many organizations have published guidelines that they think journalists should abide by. One such publication that I respect is Reuter’s “Handbook of Journalism.” Reuter’s says a journalist is not defined by how they report, but by their ethical values:

“There are many different types of journalism practised in Reuters, across text, television, picture services and online. No one definition of our craft applies to them all. What must unite us is honesty and integrity.”

According to Reuter’s, there are ten absolutes of journalism, some of which include being accurate and never fabricating or plagiarizing. This definition of journalism eliminates a few members of the media: rumor-dependent tabloid reporters, for one. If we determine who is a journalist based on the Reuters definition, then it is clear a journalist is defined by their ethical values. There are four ethical rules nearly all news organizations seem to agree on. They are: eliminating conflicts of interest, reporting with transparency, accuracy, and truth.

A journalist is someone who reports for a living. Because of this, they must remain loyal to their audience and eliminate any conflicts of interest within their personal life. National Public Radio created their own "News Code of Ethics and Practices." They clearly state that anything a journalist does in their personal life has the potential to conflict with their role as a reporter. NPR says,

"All of us are in positions of trust with our audience. To maintain that trust requires that there be no real or perceived overlap between the private interests and opinions of NPR journalists and their professional responsibilities."

By simply attending a political rally or tweeting their opinions, a journalist can give readers an excuse to question the transparency of their reporting. A journalist represents their news organization and should live up to that responsibility. It is also their responsibility to remain loyal to the citizens. A reporter's power should not be abused with conflicted interest between loyalty. They are employed by a news organization, but they work for the people. Because of this it is also their duty to remain transparent.

A journalist should report facts without spin or intended bias. This rule of transparency could be the most difficult for a reporter to follow. Michael Grunwald, an environmental reporter for the Washington Post, says, "I've tried to let the facts speak for themselves." This solution allows reporters to fulfill their duty and lets the public create their own opinions. However, it only works if journalists report the truth.

Truthfulness and honesty are at the heart of journalism. This requires journalists to verify their facts to ensure accuracy. Bill Mitchell of the Poynter Institute believes that the tools of verification are more readily available today than ever before. Journalists can access each other's work more easily, and they can keep each other in check as well as their own audience can. These tools of verification are available through new media--the new frontier of journalism.

New media is changing journalism as we know it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges this in their statement “Journalism Integrity and the Compartmentalization of Ethics." Within this statement we read, "News organizations across the country are doing their best to adapt to changes as they develop. Nonetheless, these dynamics have not altered the fundamental ethical imperatives of journalism." The Fourth Estate must always stand for these traditional journalistic values. The definition of a reporter or journalist may change, but their ethical values are eternal. In order to become the most credible of journalists, it is important that I abide by both the fundamental ethical values of journalism, and my own personal code of conduct. In addition to the ethical rules stated, I have a set of personal values I follow as a journalist. This includes: stand as a watchdog, stay comprehensive and proportional, and be appropriately involved with the community.

Today the press is regarded as the Fourth Estate; reporters must keep people of power in check. It is my responsibility to act as a watchdog for the public. Many people rely on news to find out what goes on in their community. Not everyone has time to do research on their local leaders or government. Because of this, the responsibility falls on journalists. Poynter Online did a survey where they asked journalists to give meaning to the term "watchdog journalism." The results were a variety of responses, from "watchdog journalism is news that looks out for personal and civic interests," to "watchdog journalism is just kick ass and take names." No matter what watchdog journalism actually is, it all boils down to investigation. No watchdog journalist can produce quality work without digging for stories, sources, and facts. Sometimes I find myself in an unrealistic newsroom. The BYU Daily News doesn't have all the resources of a regular news station, so sometimes it is necessary to borrow material from other organizations. I feel like a journalist when I compile stories to be produced in a show, but at the end of the day, what have I really done? I've simply rewritten words to fit the television newscast. I need to take my role as a watchdog reporter more seriously. I need to cover a wider variety of topics and tell the audience more about the world around them.

When reporting, it is essential to remain comprehensive and proportional. In one of our textbooks, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel say:

A citizen and a journalist may differ over the choices made about what is important. But citizens can accept those differences if they are confident that the journalist is trying to make news judgments to serve what readers need and want. The key is that citizens must believe the journalists' choices are not exploitative--they are not simply offering what will sell--and that journalists aren't pandering.

Different people find different things important in their lives. However, like Kovach and Rosenstiel say, the public trusts journalists to give them information that is important and relevant to their lives. The United States is one of the most ethnocentric nations in the world. I want to change that. The better I am able to report on different topics, the more educated my audience will become.

It is important to me that I am active in the community without crossing the line of what is appropriate for a journalist. One news organization that I think does agreeable advocacy, is Salt Lake's ABC 4. They live up to their motto, "Taking action, getting results," by running news stories about problems in the community they want to change. They use their popular status as a tool to make a difference in their market. I think this is an effective form of advocacy as well as a good way to appeal to their viewers, since much of their market consists of parents who want to see their community become a better place for their children.

I can become an excellent journalist by becoming an ethical journalist. Anyone can share information but it takes certain qualities to become a true reporter. For example, a journalist can be a blogger, but not any blogger can be a journalist. When determining true journalism from citizen reporting, it is critical to evaluate the reporter's ethical standards. I don't want my values to ever be questioned. The cheesy statement from Spiderman that says “with great power comes great responsibility” is true. Journalists need to be heros now more than ever.

Engaging and Relevant Journalism

In class we discussed how engaging readers is quite like getting engaged. It's hard to find "the one" because there are so many people, just like it is hard to decide what news to read because there are so many news organizations to choose from. As a result, people are choosing the most engaging news.

George Rebeck from the UTNE Reader, says:

Proponents of public journalism argue that "objectivity" and "balance" have caused people to believe that papers are merely mouthpieces for spokespeople and spin doctors, and that the real stories that affect people's lives rarely see print. The idea is to discover what the people really think, beyond the gripes that appear in letters to the editor.

When I first read this quote, I was confused. Is he saying that people don't want objectivity and balance? In a way, I think so. People want news from sources that reflect their own personal views. That is why some people think FOX news is outrageous, but others love it.

Timothy Griggs, manager of the New York Times, regards journalism as a calling. part of his responsibility includes "helping a community solve problems through engaging journalism." I think that is an excellent goal for journalists. Their journalism should be so engaging that it helps their audience solve problems. All in all, the best thing for a journalist to do is get to know the public that they are trying to reach. The more you know people, the more you know what they want.

The Journalist and Faith

In class we've often discussed bias and objectivity in journalism. I feel like I've reached a conclusion: it is impossible for a journalist to be impartial. In our latest class when we discussed religion, I had prepared myself for another lecture on objectivity and balance. This time, however, what I found most interesting was the discussion on how religion is covered.
Religion has become cliche in the news. Islams are terrorists and Mormons are polygamous. Unfortunately, the most popular knowledge of religion comes from news media. These cliches become stereotypes.

Jon Meacham, pulitzer prize winner and editor of Newsweek magazine, said that the days of the religion desk in the newsroom are over.
“The journalists who will survive and thrive in this era are those who are able to think holistically and not just see through a narrow lens,” he said.
Journalists shouldn't view religion as a beat, but as a part of a bigger story.
Meacham wrote a cover story for Newsweek in 2004 about Mel Gibson's controversial film, The Passion of the Christ. The magazine received hundreds of responses from readers, who both commended and condemned the story. One such reader wrote in:

"It strikes me as inappropriate that Jon Meacham takes a dry, detached, journalistic tone in making such pronouncements as "Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events" and the claim that the Bible's authors "shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion--understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism--attractive to as broad an audience as possible," without a disclaimer that this is a view held only by some. Why work such a dismissive note of authority into his far from universally held understanding of the Bible's origins and accuracy? I'll match my credentials as a textual critic with his any day, and I accept the Bible's accuracy and reject the claim that it pushes a human agenda."
Doyle Srader, Ph.D., Dept. of Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas

First of all, it is interesting that Dr. Srader criticizes Meacham for being too "journalistic" when he himself is a communications professor. If this is the case, should journalists be more emotional when writing about religion? Of course not. It just goes to show that no matter how a certain religious topic is covered, someone will always be displeased.
Religion is a sensitive subject because it is something that people hold very dear to their hearts. It is too easy for a reporter to wound someone by printing an incorrect fact about a religion, making assumptions, or including bias. Even though Dr. Srader said it is inappropriate to be too "jounalistic" when writing on religion, it might be a reporter's only option.

Journalism as a Public Forum

I never imagined how important it was that journalism act as a public forum until I tried to imagine a world without free journalism. The sad part is I didn't have to imagine very hard; a place like that already exists.

In North Korea journalism is anything but a public forum. The only reason it exists is to serve the dictatorship. There is only one news organization and it is run by the government. The reporters have strict rules they are to follow, and their publications can only support their leaders

It's hard to imagine living in a world like that, especially since our government was founded through journalism.

I think that the Internet has helped journalism grow into the mass public forum that it is today. Reporters can keep each other in check because it is easier to access one another's work. Citizens can blog and even comment on news stories.

Commenting on news stories is the perfect way to find the audience's opinions, but it is also the perfect way to cause unnecessary contention. The saying "no news is good news" applies towards commenting. People comment the most when they complain or have something negative to say, and many people keep the good comments to themselves. A couple weeks ago when Mark Willes spoke to the university, he mentioned that his media is undergoing massive comment control. Some of the changes include:

• no anonymous commenting
• comment view control (readers can hide comments)
• no off-topic comments (readers can vote off certain comments)

The public side of journalism is impossible to control. There are simply too many people in the world that have access to news stories and different methods of sharing their opinion. It's just important that journalists don't let it get out of hand, while at the same time not taking over the public forum entirely.

Ethics: Responsibility to Conscience

Ethics has always been a critical part of journalism. Now that the journalistic media is blurred, so is the definition of ethics. Not only do journalists have to make ethical decisions regarding what they print or broadcast, but they must manage their blogs, twitter, social networking pages, and other online productions. Poynter Online lists some assertions of ethical decision-making in digital media--things that should be remembered when doing online reporting.

• Online publishing has the opportunity to serve audiences in new and meaningful ways.
• Journalism values in such areas as truth, community and democracy will endure only if we embrace dramatic changes in the pressures and competition we face and the products we publish.
• Written ethics guidelines based on those values are an essential ingredient in the decision-making required in various forms of emerging media.
• Transparency is a necessary dimension of the relationship that journalists and news organizations maintain with their audiences.
• Limited resources, the novelty of online publishing or a lack of protocols cannot become an excuse for shoddy work or causing harm.

The Internet, while at times can compromise a journalist's ethical values, is also causing for more ethical opportunities to arise. For example, building a newsroom where conscience and diversity to thrive has always been a challenge. It is hard for a single newsroom to house different genders, races, political parties and backgrounds in one place. Yet through online journalism readers can find the work of thousands of journalists together through news search engines such as Google News.
Still, as discussed in class, whether you are an online reporter, newspaper writer, or television producer, all journalists should have one thing in common:

Tell the truth. Don't make anything up.

Journalists are ultimately responsible for what they publish. They should put their responsibility to citizens above all else. One reporter who did not live up to this value is Bjoern Benkow.Benkow reported fabricated interviews that he had with Bill Gates, Michael Schumacher, Oprah Winfrey and Margaret Thatcher. The freelance reporter then sold his stories to Scandanavian Newspapers.
In this instance no one was particularly harmed by Benkow's fabrications. However, imagine the catastrophic results that could erupt if a journalist were to report false crimes or even fake weather reports. Journalists could do damage to themselves and the reputations of others. All in all, ethics should not be ignored. People want to believe what they read, but that trust can be easily broken if reporters abuse their positions.

Mark Willes

Mark Willes, President of Deseret Management Corporation, was both an informing and entertaining speaker. He explained that many exciting things lay ahead if the corporation combines old with new media, and they have a mission statement to help them accomplish great things.

"To be trusted voices of light and knowledge reaching hundreds of millions of people worldwide."

Even though DMC is owned by the church, Mr. Willes reinforced the fact that they "are not the church." Still, their purposes must be aligned with LDS values. The goal to reach hundreds of millions of people may be a steep one, but Mr. Willes said there is power in setting a goal that is so ambitious you might never get there.

It was very inspiring to hear about his life achievements. At General Mills, he was able to reduce an assembly line process from 3 hours to 11 minutes, saving the company millions of dollars. At the LA Times, he increased subscription by 20%. All of his success was a result of having nearly unreachable goals.

I believe that journalists have to embrace advancing technology and the wide range of media that lies ahead. As Mr. Willes would say, if you shoot for the moon, you'll land among the stars. If journalists do not set goals to advance with the times, they will be left behind.

Watchdog Journalism

Poynter Online did a survey where they asked journalists to give meaning to the term "watchdog journalism." The results were a variety of responses, from "watchdog journalism is news that looks out for personal and civic interests," to "watchdog journalism is just kick ass and take names."
No matter what watchdog journalism actually is, it all boils down to investigation. No watchdog journalist can produce quality work without digging for stories, sources, and facts.

In the end, all reporting is investigative
A reporter gives the public information about a certain topic. They don't just pull the facts from nowhere; facts are researched even if it's simply from an AP wire alert. Without journalists, the public would be in an information crisis. Most people don't know where to turn to find out what they need to know. Journalists help them by compiling all the latest news to convenience and inform the consumer.
Still, one asks, why does it matter?
In class, we discussed that watchdog journalism

• monitors power
  
• offers voice to the voiceless
  
• helps prosecution
  
• finds crimes that wouldn't have been found otherwise, and helps reform.

Watchdog journalism is so critical, but there are dangers that come with uncovering stories. At Columbia University's Watchdog Conference, journalists decided they need to take a stand in defiance of legal threats against investigative journalists. If more reporters were aware of their rights, they would be able to produce better work confidently. Legal issues sometimes stand in the way of a reporter publishing what they have discovered.

Just as the public needs watchdog journalists, journalists need the public to be watchdogs themselves. Consumers need to keep journalists in check. It is important that the public understands media literacy and how to interpret what a journalist has written.

Journalists as Ideologues

In our class discussion about journalists as ideologues, someone made an interesting statement:

"More people want news that fits their ideology rather than factually correct."

Is this true? If we look at it from a religious perspective, then it might be. People of different faiths believe different things. They want to hear stories told from their point of view, even if what they believe in is not factually correct. If that is the case, if people hold on to their religious values, do journalists keep to theirs?

I scanned Google News for examples of the eight journalistic values we discussed in class. Looking only at the home page, I was able to find examples of all of them.

• Altruistic Democracy: In an article based on "government for the people, by the people," one journalist reported people in San Jose who are rallying for educational funding.
  
• Responsible Capitalism: Reporters look for threats to our economic market. This article is about an Apple lawsuit against HTC, which could have bad results for consumers.
  
• Order: Crime is a threat to the normal value of order. In California, journalists are reporting on a man accused of raping and killing a teenage girl.
  
• Moderatism: Journalists look for examples of extremetism such as fascism or communism. This article features a story about the Afghanistan government and censorship.
  
• Leadership: Journalists like to spotlight poor leaders or heroes, like the Russian President who is trying to save his country's economy.
  
• Small-Town Pastoralism: Many people want to find a safe place to live with good schools, low crime, and affordability. This story highlights such enjoyable places.
  
• Rugged Individualism: This article on Sarah Palin is a perfect example.
  
• Ethnocentrism: This journalist writes about suicide bombing in Iraq. The event is written under the context of U.S. invasion.

In a way, these journalistic values reflect what the public values as well. Journalists control the flow of information and determine what people should know about. However, it is important that journalists not place their own value statements in stories. It should be left up to the public to make their own judgments.
Still, sometimes the media advocates a particular point of view. It's a fine line between acceptable and uncalled for. One news organization that I think does agreeable advocacy, is Salt Lake's ABC 4. They live up to their motto, "Taking action, getting results," by running news stories about problems in the community they want to change. They use their celebrity status as a tool to make a difference in their market. I think this is an effective form of advocacy as well as a good way to appeal to their viewers, since much of their market consists of parents who want to see their community become a better place for their children.

Journalists should take their roles as ideologues very seriously. It's not fair to the public if they don't let their readers make their own decisions, or promote corrupted values.

Independence From Faction

In class as we were discussing the journalist's responsibility to remain independent from factions, there was one statement that really struck me.

Journalists often appear to come from the "cognitive elite."

It's completely true.
This could be a deterrent for journalists when they try to connect with their audience. They may come across as know-it-alls or living in a higher economic status. However, I think it also gives the public a reason to look up to journalists. Reporters should be respected for the amount of research and learning they must do for each story they produce. Still, the more a journalist appears to come from the "cognitive elite," the more they appear to stereotype themselves as members of that faction.
Factions always have an agenda. It's not always devious our self-serving, but they want to make a difference. For a journalist, it's hard to know where to draw the line concerning activism. It's not wrong to have opinions. In fact, they can't be prevented.
Michael Grunwald of the Washington Post said The Post tries not to practice advocacy in journalism. He said, "My editors never pressured me to hedge any of my findings for the sake of false balance; they just insisted that I stick to facts rather than rhetoric... That doesn't mean we can't make judgments. In The Post, I've written that the Corps is dysfunctional. In my book, I wrote that Everglades restoration is off to a rough start. But those were fact-based judgments that I could back up with documentation." Grunwald lets the facts speak for themselves.

In class, there were four examples listed to show how a journalist can keep independence from those they cover:

• Accuracy. As Reuters says in their journalism handbook, "Accuracy is at the heart of what we do. It is our job to get it first but it is above all our job to get it right"
• Verification.
  
• Serve larger public interest.
• Possess a desire to inform.

Of these examples, I think the most important is to serve larger public interest. It is easy to serve oneself or their employer, but serving people who you've never even met before is very difficult. In some ways, journalism is a calling. It should be treated as a service and responsibility rather than a job.

Journalism of Verification

Media consumers these days have a difficult time differentiating between news reporting and news analysis. For example, when I watch KSL at night then turn to Glenn Beck's program, I hear the same facts but portrayed very differently. Transparency is vital in the world of news; journalists are entitled to their own opinion, but they can only share it when they make their thoughts perfectly clear and separate from the facts.

Josh Wolf, a journalist who was imprisoned for refusing to give up information he reported on, believes that "objectivity is a false ideal." I completely agree. No one can be completely unbiased in their reporting because certain partialities will always remain. In fact, these opinions can actually enhance the news. Reporters with different backgrounds can give their readers or audience a fresh analysis of the facts. However, this only works if they make their bias clear and explain exactly where the facts came from.

One idea that Josh Wolf has is to teach media literacy during secondary or even primary education. If this were in effect, more children would grow up able to identify slanted news and honest journalism. They would not feel like a deceived audience, because they would be able to recognize fact from fiction and opinion.

If journalists knew their consumers were educated in media literacy from the time they were children, I think reporters would double check their facts. Bill Mitchell of the Poynter Institute believes that the tools of verification are more readily available. Journalists can access each other's work more easily, and they can keep each other in check as well as their consumers. Since media is available more now than ever before, it is important it is transparent and completely verified. A journalist can never be sure who will end up reading, watching, or listening to their story.

Journalism as a Professional Priesthood

Journalist Geneva Overholser fears the Priesthood is dead.
That's right: journalists have gone off the deep end. They are no longer looked up to or respected. There are no more Walter Cronkites in the world. In fact, journalists are no longer human.

Do I agree with this?
I am going to have to say yes. I feel like journalists are all motivated for the wrong reasons these days. They don't put the public first; they list themselves or their news organization as a higher priority.

Journalists don't use their priesthood. How, exactly, is a reporter supposed to use their position for the better? They need to connect with the audience while keeping reasonable distance and balance their occupational obligation with their legal obligation. It seems like a journalist lives in a constant state of contradiction. Everything they do will please some and disappoint others.

It's amazing that journalists don't cease to exist. The fact of the matter is this: we need them.
Twitter, blogging, and citizen journalism can only go so far. Journalists can get information that other citizens can't. They can usually get easier access to officials and important records. It's their job to investigate the goings-on in the community and report what we need to know. Often times "whistleblowers" or other people with information will leak it to the media. Journalists are the first to know things and the first to share them.

Because they have such a responsibility, journalists need to be advocates for their sources. Anonymous sources can sometimes be the greatest, because they will talk if they know their identification is secure. I am reminded of Deep Throat, an anonymous FBI source that helped Bernstien and Woodward uncover the Watergate scandal. It is crucial that journalists act as advocates for protecting their sources. The only instances that merit identification are when lives or communities are in danger.

Journalists have a lot to live up to. As they say in Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." Perhaps journalists are the "spidermans" of the professional world.

... It's a good thing that not much is expected of them these days.

Loyalty & Journalism

Henry Fielding once said, "A newspaper consists of just the same number of words, whether there be any news in it or not." While we used to find that many of those words used to be advertisements, today those ads are gone. With the newspaper industry crumbling these days, advertisers are less inclined to provide revenue for newspaper companies. The Associated Press recently reported that most new information comes from newspapers. This means that the information we get from television, radio and internet news sources--sources which are fed by newspapers--are also crumbling. This gloomy perspective presents a question:

If newspapers are falling, why not find better sources of income?

It's hard to draw the line between revenue and responsibility. Journalists rely on advertising, but their primary responsibility is to citizens. An interesting example of this is the Utah People's Post. The UPP was started by a group of citizens who realized this responsibility and decided to take care of it themselves. In fact, we're seeing this more and more: citizens informing citizens without the journalist middleman. People these days are informed about news through Twitter and Facebook instead of a newspaper.
Could it be possible for citizen journalism to envelop the five characteristics of successful a news company?

• The owner/corporation (citizens) must be committed to citizens first. Citizens can be loyal to themselves, but they can also focus their priorities on other things. For example, across the globe some people are more loyal to their government than to other citizens. In some cults we find people who are more loyal to their religion.
  
• Hire business managers who also put citizens first. Citizens might not put the reporting responsibility in the right hands. They would most likely want to listen to people who will say only what the citizens want to hear.
  
• Set and communicate clear standards. As we see through personal blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, people usually say what they want. Whatever standards they have seem to come second when it comes to expressing their opinion.
  
• Journalists (in our case, citizens) have the final say over the news. This is the only characteristic I don't agree with. I believe that citizens have the final say over the news, especially in the United States. In our democracy it is the people who decide what is important in their lives.
  
• Communicate clear standards to the public. News companies often make their employees sign ethical or professional statements. This helps the public trust them. Would citizens be willing to bind themselves to a same type of contract? I don't think so.
  

Although citizen journalism is vital for information in our day, journalists are still needed. It is critical that journalists remain loyal to the citizens. If they aren't, news would cease to be news and become some mix of tabloid sensationalism or propaganda.
Still, whether our world becomes one of news corporations or citizen journalism, one thing is for sure; citizens will always have the power.

Blogging: Inappropriate for Professionals?

Everyone is biased: it can't be prevented. In class we discussed that not only what you say on air affects what people think of your opinions, but what you say every other day of your life.

Our professor warned us about the significantly negative influence a personal blog, social network membership, or even twitter account could have on a journalist's professional career. I thought about how often I share my personal life with the Internet, and let's face it--I put a lot out there. Granted, I'm not nearly as open as some people. I make my Facebook profile settings private, and don't treat my blog as a "dear diary"-type journal. Still, a future employer or audience could find out quite a bit about me with just a little bit of Google sleuthing.

I thought about it and came to a conclusion: I could never have a job that stifled my creative outlets through blogging, twittering or Facebooking. I would hate being a local celebrity. You would be watched wherever you went, and anything you did would be news.

I think I'll stay anonymous, thank you.

Why Do I Blog?

Why do I blog?

I might also ask, why do I breathe? Answer: because I can.

I don't have a specific reason as to why I blog. I don't do it to keep in contact with friends or family, nor do I have a specific topic I blog about. I find myself typing up a blog whenever I come across an interesting website or discover a story to share. It's not quite a journal because I don't share very intimate feelings. However, I do share my opinions.

I think I blog because I have a desire to be heard--or in this case, read. I don't care who reads what I have to say, I just want them to know I exist and have things to say.

Click here to see my personal blog.

What is Journalism?

Journalism is difficult to define. It's constantly changing. Today, what we call journalism is very different from what the journalists of a hundred years ago were doing. Nonetheless, one thing has remained the same; story telling. Journalism is the sharing of truthful stories and news.

Anyone who reports or tells news can become a journalist. It requires three things: a medium, an audience, and a truthful story. The medium can be almost anything with today's technology. It can be written in a newspaper, a video package on television, told on the radio, or published on the web. The publication needs to have an audience, and it needs to be true.

Today's definition of journalism is different from yesterday's and tomorrow's. However, it is important not to confine journalism into a single definition. It prevents some forms of news from getting out to an audience. "Journalism" will always be an amorphous term, but you will know when you see it.