The ways that we have covered traditionalist journalism as opposed to engaged journalism has appeared to be very black and white at first. And yet, it truly is a continuum; just as civic, citizen and public journalism all flow into engaged journalism, traditionalist journalism practices will flow into it as well. The implications of traditionalist journalism have been addressed in class as a sort of emotionless, unbiased truth telling/fact expression. However, we have to realize that it’s near to impossible to be completely neutral in any telling of a subject; it’s inherently biased based upon the sources used to create the article. Purely traditionalist practices are starting to fail, as social media evolves and the information overload begins to expand. News media nowadays is not the only source of information for the public. Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr are all secondhand or even primary sources of information. The way we have covered engaged journalism has not only embraced these other sources of information but relied on them. Crowdsourcing is meant to be a major part of our project with the community; and since there are few concrete examples of what engaged journalism is, we are creating the definition, both connotation and denotation. What the term “engaged journalism” has begun to imply for me at least is a bond with the community in which the facts are exchanged between the two parties and are not the end, but the means to an end. Especially in our case, the “end” can be very vague, as in the actual situations being covered, a complete solution to any problem is not likely, just as being completely unbiased is not likely. There’s room for traditional and engaged journalism in our practice just as there is in every practice. Especially when dealing with such a tough subject which is gun violence in schools, there has to be a balance of emotional detachment and empathy. It’s easy to be swept up in the storm of feeling when engaging with such emotionally charged content. But because of the objective tone that citizens characterize news coverage of school shootings with, it’s necessary for us to create a more amiable atmosphere so the people we’re talking to understand what we’re trying to do. At the same time, it is important to get across facts that the ordinary person may not understand or know about gun attacks in schools, ie demographics of shooters, the percentages which are mass shootings, etc. These facts need to be communicated so the public has a better understanding of what is actually happening in their country. And at the same time they need to be compressed and expressed in a tactful way. The information phenomena is what is driving people away from traditional news media. It has to be presented in a way that proposes for the future, inspires people to talk and such. This is what creates the solutions we so desire.
I believe the most important ethical approach to engaged journalism is remaining transparent and keeping in mind that everyone has different “truths” that they bring to the table. Kovach and Rosensthiel argued that in order for citizens to be able to take an informed part in shaping their society, journalists must be transparent and open to impugnable queries “that won’t lead critics to call the credibility of the product into question” (p.272). The concept of transparency in engaged journalism heeds way for enhanced credibility of the source. I really like what Kovach and Rosensthiel (and Laura Frank actually used the same metaphor this morning) wrote about the importance of transparency stating, “The first step in that direction has to be developing a means of letting those who make up the market finally see how the sausage is made- how we do our work and what informs our decisions” (p.292). Being transparent is often the first step to building solid citizen/journalist relationships.
Another ethical approach that needs to be accounted for in engaged journalism is the theme of inclusivity and the idea that everyone’s narrative are different. The intersectional building blocks that make up our identity allows us to perceive and experience things differently. Both citizens and journalists must grapple with a diverse plethora of narratives, including their own narratives, and use them to make informed societal decisions. The plethora of narratives should provide a wide variety of diverse epistemologies that can be used to extract knowledge as Kovach and Rosensthiel state, “Where journalism’s role once was to simply provide information as a tool of self-governance, it now becomes a role of providing citizens the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood of rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion, and allegation the communications system now produces” (p.290). A diverse, inclusive pool of narratives helps citizens gain a well-rounded, informed perspective on an issue.
When doctors get ordained, they take the Hippocratic Oath, swearing to “do no harm.” The medical field has recognized its role in protecting and serving people at their most vulnerable and, in doing so, holds its patients’ safety at the forefront. Journalists take no such oath to begin their work – with today’s technology pretty much anyone can take on the role of a journalist – but it is important to recognize the journalist’s ethical and moral responsibility to the public. When reporting, we must acknowledge the impact we can have and to mitigate the potential risks that may come from unethical reporting. Thus, it is paramount for journalists (both engaged an otherwise) to uphold the principles of integrity, transparency, and open communication.
Traditional journalism upholds objectivity as the goal of the journalist. Taking an engaged approach, one must recognize that bias is inherent but some regard for truth must be upheld. Integrity looks like dedication to verification and candor. Kovach and Resenstiel explain this value as a dedication to “truthfulness” as well as a commitment to providing space for constructive conversation. This value is probably the main one in question in the Facebook case, with debates over whether Facebook has a responsibility to prevent proliferation of falsehoods. Integrity is particularly important because people cannot make informed decisions if they are not given access to verifiable information.
With integrity, transparency acknowledges that one Truth may not exist in all situations and people making decisions about content have opinions that shape their ideas. Because we cannot include all relevant information in our pieces, we have a responsibility to be open about how and why we decided what to include. In doing this, we provide our audience with opportunities to question their own beliefs and determine for themselves how they feel about our credibility.
Finally, we must be open to dialogue with the public. This is at the heart of the engaged approach but is something we must remind ourselves to do throughout the entire journalistic process in order to make the most of our work. It is our responsibility as journalists to respect the voices of our audience and, at the very least, be open to their commentary and criticism from which we can grow our work. Beyond that, recognizing that community members have expertise beyond our own will allow us to produce higher quality work. Dialogue with constituents can only improve the process.
One main tension for journalists as mentioned in “Journalists have a Responsibility to Conscience,” is the tension between “its public service mission…and the interests that finance the work” (271). This need to make profits can be the catalyst for unethical journalism. Therefore, to ensure ethical journalism, it is important to focus on the public service component of journalism, and work on informing and engaging the public in news. The principles of “a public forum” and allowing citizen input, while still valuing “truthfulness” (“The Rights and Responsibility of Citizens”) are two main principles that ethical engaged journalism should use.
Facebook has become a news source of sorts, where people get information. They allow for much citizen input and forums for discussion. For example, people can video of things they see and viewers can leave comments of their thoughts, opinions, etc. Additionally, people can create pages filled with ‘news’ or share different ‘reports’ and people can comment and create dialogue based on these. Without more knowledge, it seems like Facebook is getting many community members involved in dialogue and discussion of news and it is a good thing.
After reading “Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before it Breaks Democracy?,” the need for truthfulness becomes a vital component of engaged journalism. The article discusses that a “fake report,” disguised as real news led to a deadly riot and countless other publishing of fake news that created severe consequences. It is important that news sources have intense vetting systems to prevent publishing false information. Even though Facebook was not created to be a news source, their goal was to “build the best community,” or have the highest growth/profits. With this growth and focus on finances, the social media became an information source, and with that it is important that they subscribe to the principles and ethics of journalism.
I think that engaged and traditional methods of journalism can be incredibly effective when used to compliment one another. To enact an entirely traditional method with no community engagement whatsoever generates pieces that the public eye is unable to connect with or trust completely. By not involving the public whatsoever, a heavy divide is created between journalist and audience. To enact an entirely engaged method and involve the community so much so that they basically write the piece can be dangerous. Going overboard with crowd sourcing opens up doors for the publishing of pieces that might not have completely accurate information or data.
To pursue engaged journalism in an ethical way, a journalist must recognize the characteristics of the relationship he or she is meant to develop with the community. There should not be tension between them. Instead, they should be able to work together and get to a place where the community is able to elevate and improve the characteristics of the journalist’s work. And in today’s world, where anybody can readily find any information anywhere, a journalist is also somewhat responsible for helping citizens differentiate between what is true and what is simply rumored to be true (Rights and Responsibilities). Journalists and news outlets also have a responsibility to be honest and in turn, build up the trust of their community of readers. It is absolutely true that “journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience” (Responsibility to Conscience) and that it is their own responsibility to hold themselves to this obligation.
Osnos writes in his New Yorker article: “Facebook has as many adherents as Christianity,” with more than 2.2 billion people logging in every month. While I was familiar with Facebook’s immense international presence before reading Osnos’ article, hearing the statistic framed in this way was incredibly striking and helped reinforce for me Facebook’s mammoth power in our modern world. I also appreciated Osnos’ succinct analysis of the way Facebook grew originally: with ‘speech over truth,’ ‘speed over perfection,’ and ‘scale over safety.’ While these principles and choices arguably contributed to Facebook’s rapid and unprecedented popularization, they are also now contributing to its great demise. In the past several years, Facebook has faced many serious allegations, including most notably: inciting genocide in Myanmar and influencing the U.S. 2016 election through Russian ads. In this way, Facebook helps exemplify both the advantages and disadvantages of citizen engagement in the news in the modern era.
With the creation of Facebook, Zuckerberg opened a pathway for citizens to contribute to public discourse without the usual constrictions of journalistic principles (e.g., truth and fact-checking), thus arguably—and unintentionally—created a space for engaged journalism. While Facebook unquestionably helped democratize journalism by providing average citizens a platform on which to tell their own stories and those from their community, there were also unforeseen negative ramifications, such as the aforementioned violence in Myanmar which—to quote a New York Times headline—was “incited by Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military” (Oct. 2018). Beyond the mammoth consequences I’ve mentioned thus far (i.e., genocide and election tampering), there are many other smaller consequences too. For example, specifically regarding our class’ focus, Laura mentioned how she wished her children had not seen the live footage from the Parkland shooting that was circulating around social media. In this way, we see how while Facebook and other social media platforms gave students the chance to live stream their experiences, said footage may not have been appropriate for all viewers—or necessary to show at all. This larger question tied into a conversation my group had today regarding our Digital Media Campaign. We created a Facebook group where people from around the world could share their stories about guns in school through any medium they so choose (e.g., poetry, photography, etcetera). However, we also had the tough conversation about censorship in the group and what posts should we delete and why, highlighting a challenging debate about citizen contribution to the news and public discourse and ‘how far is too far.’
Laura’s aforementioned hesitation about engaged journalism highlights an important strength of traditional journalism—the (im)(ex)plicit understanding of and adherence to journalistic principles and conduct—which theoretically contribute to ‘good’ reporting grounded in truth. However, there are now outlets (i.e., Fox News), which some citizens may classify and regard as ‘traditional’ journalism which ignore the fundamental ideals mentioned above, while some citizen journalists may hold themselves personally accountable to honesty and integrity. Therefore, I think it is challenging to identify the implications of ‘traditional’ and ‘engaged’ journalism when the lines between them are becoming more and more muddled.
I somehow missed Anthony's email from earlier today until now—my apologies! Here are two explicit ethics principles that I think are crucial to engaged journalism: 1. I really appreciated Kovach and Rosenstiel's principle: "Journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience" (272). We talked during first week about how engaged journalism honors the 'emotive' and human experience more than most traditional journalism. Given this emphasis, I argue it's crucial that journalists engage their own conscience and honor their own identities within the arena of ethics when they're grappling with a hard question or decision. 2. I also really appreciated Kovach and Rosenstiel's discussion of diversity in journalism and how simply having more underrepresented people in the newsroom is "a target, not not the goal, of diversity" (281). Rather, the fundamental goal is "a news organization that is more accurate and representative" (Kovach and Rosenstiel: 281). Therefore, I argue that engaged journalists—given their commitment to all members of the general public—need to avoid unethically tokenizing underrepresented journalists and instead, purposefully create inclusive stories and dialogue in their work.
Journalist have an immense amount of power in our society and with that comes an equally large amount of responsibility. Osno’s articles detailing the history of Facebook illustrates how influential news and the media are. For example, the Russian ties to the presidential election and the spread of fake news impacted its roughly 2 billion users. People rely and believe on their news sources and they have to be able to trust them. Throughout these readings it became clear that a commitment to the truth and facts as well as a transparent approach are necessary journalistic principles, especially in engaged journalism.
During the most recent presidential election, targeted fake news ads meant to influence voters found a home on Facebook. This manipulative content was able to reach many users, “Facebook estimates that the content reached as many as a hundred and fifty million users,” (Osnos 5). Facebook illuminates how destructive fake news can be. A commitment to truth and informing citizens is what journalists pride themselves on. Although Facebook is a social media site and not necessarily an established news source, it still holds the same amount of responsibility due to how dominate it has become. Throughout studying reporting's of school shootings we have seen how influential false news can be. For example, in the coverage of the Columbine shooting, news sources broadcasted false information about the shooter and these myths are still brought up years after. Once information is out there it is hard to walk back from. News sources must have a commitment to the facts the first time around.
Secondly, it is important for journalist to be transparent. It is especially important engaged journalists adhere to this principle of transparency due to the collaborative nature of this technique. It is important to be open and honest about sources and the journalistic process to grow an audience that is able to trust and believe in their news. Kovach and Rosenthiel recognize the importance of transparency in the journalist’s responsibilities. Journalists’ obligations extend outside of the newsroom and to the citizens they are serving, “Journalism is an act of character,” (Kovach and Rosenthiel). Being transparent and honest are qualities journalists pride themselves on. As seen with young journalist Blair, a commitment to the truth is not taken lightly.
I think an ethical approach to engaged journalism should include a commitment to truth and transparency. Fake news and misinformation have a strong influence on people and how they shape their opinions. Although it may be more work and harder to uphold these principles with the collaborative nature of engaged journalism, it is important to uphold the mission of journalism to inform citizens.
"The citizen has an obligation to approach the news with an open mind and not just a desire that the news reinforce existing opinion” (Kovach 292).
Having an ethical approach can be applied to both traditional and engaged journalism, although the two methods have vastly different intentions and employ differing approaches in their work. An ethical approach means transparency, and the role of ethical journalism is to, “provide citizens with the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood or rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion and allegation the communication system now produces” (Kovach 290). Journalism over time has shifted from simply informing the public to giving the public the knowledge to make their own informed decisions. Kovach explains how public opinion and self-government go hand and hand, and with the rise of a public consciousness comes the mindset of a self-governing body of citizens who have access to unbiased information. Ethical journalism is not limited to a certain strategy, rather it’s a mindset taken on by both the journalists and their constituents. It functions with the intention of the objective truth modeled by traditional journalism paired with the collective conversation and dialogue of engaged journalism. The ultimate pursuit of truth and a chance to make the world a better place drives ethical journalism, regardless of the subject matter. Combining engaged and traditional journalistic approaches is both inevitable and something I personally believe will help one pursue a more ethical approach to journalism. In our class in particular, an engaged journalistic approach is the one I probably struggle to grapple with the most due to the lack of structure sometimes. What makes engaged journalism so unique is also what makes it so difficult. With engaged journalism there are no end goals, no to-do lists, no problems to be fixed; there is only the process. The process is not tangible or tidy. It consists of conversation and community, debate and dialogue. With engaged journalism you learn through the process, analyzing problems you didn’t know existed and facilitating others to find solutions for themselves.
"The citizen has an obligation to approach the news with an open mind and not just a desire that the news reinforce existing opinion” (Kovach 292).
Having an ethical approach can be applied to both traditional and engaged journalism, although the two methods have vastly different intentions and employ differing approaches in their work. An ethical approach means transparency, and the role of ethical journalism is to, “provide citizens with the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood or rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion and allegation the communication system now produces” (Kovach 290). Journalism over time has shifted from simply informing the public to giving the public the knowledge to make their own informed decisions. Kovach explains how public opinion and self-government go hand and hand, and with the rise of a public consciousness comes the mindset of a self-governing body of citizens who have access to unbiased information. Ethical journalism is not limited to a certain strategy, rather it’s a mindset taken on by both the journalists and their constituents. It functions with the intention of the objective truth modeled by traditional journalism paired with the collective conversation and dialogue of engaged journalism. The ultimate pursuit of truth and a chance to make the world a better place drives ethical journalism, regardless of the subject matter. Combining engaged and traditional journalistic approaches is both inevitable and something I personally believe will help one pursue a more ethical approach to journalism.
In our class in particular, an engaged journalistic approach is the one I probably struggle to grapple with the most due to the lack of structure sometimes. What makes engaged journalism so unique is also what makes it so difficult. With engaged journalism there are no end goals, no to-do lists, no problems to be fixed; there is only the process. The process is not tangible or tidy. It consists of conversation and community, debate and dialogue. With engaged journalism you learn through the process, analyzing problems you didn’t know existed and facilitating others to find solutions for themselves.
It’s almost impossible to exactly define an ethical approach to engaged journalism. Given that engaged journalism is such an active and alive entity, the best ways to approach such a topic look fairly similar to the approach used by traditional journalists, especially those established in the chapter readings from Kovach and Rosenstiel. Transparency, the embrace of debate, and a constant search of accuracy define an effective approach to engaged journalism.
“It’s part of journalists’ responsibility, in whatever setting they work, to encourage a transparent and open culture that won’t lead critics to call the credibility of the product into question” (Kovach 272). Engaged journalism is all about transparency- it’s almost a given in its practice. Having an approach that begins with complete transparency is the most effective route to take when covering a community. People aren’t going to let journalists into their personally meaningful communities unless they feel as though those journalists will be open and honest.
The embracing of debate follows a similar mindset to that of transparency- complete openness. Communication within and between institutions of journalism have to be absolutely open if they are to succeed. “Journalists have a responsibility to voice their personal conscience out loud and allow others around them to do so as well” (Kovach 273). If journalism is in search of truth, then it’s seekers must feel comfortable in challenging held notions of accuracy. The chapter goes into more depth when considering diversity in newsrooms. Even today, after Elements was released, diversity is still lacking in newsrooms. Statistics can show that demographics are not well enough represented, but the main point is that there isn’t enough diversity of opinion. It boils down to the fact that when there are more differing opinions, the product is enhanced.
The constant search of accuracy wraps these principles of engaged journalism. Despite a less-formal practice of journalism, engaged journalism must search truth in any form. Truth within communities isn’t always as black and white as it can be on a more national scale, and it gets more complex and place-specific the more you zoom in. Whether it's reporting on the everyday reality of citizens in a neighborhood, or investigating a rundown housing complex that has been taken over by rabid dogs, every community has their own truth, and it’s the job of engaged journalism to find it. -Michael Gorman
The first ethical principle that is probably pretty obvious is having an internal moral compass. I think without this basis it is very hard to have any ‘ethical approach’. In the reading, they discuss the importance of journalists having a strong conscience, which in a lot of cases is not easy. Being able to personally determine what is wrong and right is very important. While some people may disagree with you on your personal distinction, it is crucial that you have one.
I think this goes hand in hand with having a moral compass, and so another point would be self-awareness in a journalistic sense. I am thinking in terms of constantly checking your work, fact-checking what people have said to you, etc. I think this helps with checking a typical journalist complexion that manifests by being the ‘savior’ or the ‘necessity’. It is important to recognize that you are not perfect and that while you may have solid intentions, you have to work at things over and over. I think a lot of the anecdotes that were told in tonights reading highlight that journalists were so confident in their work and approach, therefore they could not be questioned. For a more engaged approach, recognizing that you are going into communities and letting them tell their stories, and they mean a lot to that person, thus they should mean a lot to you.
Lastly, having a good sense of what you are trying to achieve and who you are supposed to be working on behalf is crucial. As stated above, so many journalists are definitely in the game to make a difference; to change systems. While that is great, an engaged journalist should first ask who they are representing— in most cases it is a community whose voices are sometimes not heard. From there, you can narrow down what ‘making a difference’ means. Does that mean enacting policy change overnight? How about just finding narratives that haven't been told before?
Collaboration: Kovach and Rosensthiel brought up the necessity of collaboration in the newsroom, which, in my opinion, addresses many of the other possible sticking points within the journalistic process. Collaborating, specifically working with other reporters, editors, etc, and having several other people read your work and genuinely discuss it before it is published, builds a new sense of accountability and responsibility among journalists. It forces transparency and credibility, because all writers need to be able to explain and justify the aspects of their pieces. It encourages more full pictures, because other journalists will be able to pull out the controversies that are (or aren’t) mentioned. It helps newsrooms as a whole find trends and maintain the best content, because they aren’t fighting one another for the best story, and they are aware of all of the different pieces that will be going into the upcoming news and can complement one another. Collaboration in the newsroom also slows down the process, because a story cannot be written one day, read by five other people, discussed and edited, and be submitted within a few hours. Instead, journalists will have time to process, edit, and reevaluate exactly what story they are telling and how they’re telling it.
Slow Speed: This is almost an offshoot of the collaboration principle, but I think that it has its own place. Both Kovach and Rosensethiel and Osnos discussed the nature of speed in most typical journalism / media sharing settings. In an effort to be the first, the quality of content can be lost. As engaged journalists, telling the story of a community or individual requires time and a more expansive process (of interviews, and building trust, etc). As such, allowing and accepting that stories will take time for a media source is one of the best ways to show journalists that they have responsibility for their stories, and are expected to come out with the best product they can, not “flawed and first versus careful and perfect” (Osnos).
Today, with one simple googled question, a person receives many different answers. The engaged journalist’s job is to help people make sense of this information. As a result, the engaged journalists actually must engage with the subject of their piece at a level beyond what used to be expected of a traditional journalist. This makes it even more important that they take an ethical approach to their work. According to the Kovatch and Rosensthiel reading, “journalism is an act of character.” The journalist’s work directly relates to their reputation. In a world where there are so many choices for where to get your news from, the idea that a news company cannot protect a journalist’s reputation is refreshing. Furthermore, the engaged journalist still has an ethical responsibility to provide multiple sides of an argument. The article entitled, ‘Can Mark Zuckerburg Fix Facebook Before it Breaks Democracy,’ written by Evan Osnos does a great job allowing Zuckerburg to react to his criticism. By using this method, the article sounds fair, balanced and allows the reader to decide for themselves what they think of Zuckerburg. Lastly, a journalist must be transparent with their process. Too much is the journalist the granter and the reader the receiver. In an ethical approach to engaged journalism, the reader and journalist are at the same level. The journalist’s job is to help the reader understand the subject and to fully understand the journalist needs to be upfront about their personal stake in the issue. A journalist can achieve this by, as Laura Frank mentioned in class, “showing the reader how the sausage is made.” This allows the reader more tools to understand and evaluate not only the piece but also the journalist.
So folks, the Age of Information has arrived- choose wisely.
I have been working towards thoroughly understanding the ethics and morals surrounding engaged journalism throughout this entire course (given its only been a week). I have specifically been grappling with the ethics of using people as a source of information. When we talked with Madeline Faber, she discussed how she actually keeps a correspondence going with all of the people she interviews every after the interview. To me this is extremely respectable. She seems to hold personal standards beyond those of your traditional journalists.
Even beyond the idea of interviewing — and potentially exploiting people — engaged journalists hold an ethical responsibility to hold each other accountable. In the situation with Blair, it appears as if other journalists knew what was happening and chose to ignore it. This to me breaks the code of moral journalism — specifically engaged journalism. Kovach and Rosenthiel explain how there are innumerable hurdles presented to journalists to remain unbiased and fair, but it is their responsibility to constantly questioning and reworking their pieces.
In the article that talked about mark Zuckerberg, it did a really good job of describing both sides of the story; Marks, and the public. Many people called out Zuckerberg for various reasons. However, The New Yorker gave Zuckerberg ample opportunity to explain himself. Additionally, they quoted many of Zuckerberg’s friends/colleagues in his defense. Thus, the article is well thought out, and presents a relatively unbiased piece in my opinion. It presents two sides of a story.
In many ways, I feel that Zuckerberg himself is an engaged journalist and broke the unspoken unethical code many times throughout his career. He created this massively popular social media hub in which all people can interact. The New Yorker explains how this led. to major issues during the 2016 elections as ‘fake news’ began to pervasively circulate. There were. Many different times when Zuckerberg could have chosen to act a different way than he did, but he thought it was best to act fast, and fix problems later. This reminds me of the Columbine shooting coverage in which a lot of fake news was reported, and then just fixed/adjusted later. To me this is unethical.
Thus, the implications of engaged journalism therefore show me that many times reports can be unethical. By this I mean, people can end up being exploited, fake news can be reported, and so on. Thus, journalists have to be extremely conscientious of their work and how they choose to conduct their pieces.
Some principles that would be good to follow include: 1. Fact checking- it is the duty of the journalist to ensure that their work is truthful/ factual before publishing it. Without this, at atmosphere of falsehood is created. This also pushes people farther away from engaged journalism because then they are no longer able to trust the journalist and their pieces. 2. Double checking with people of which information has been crowdsourced - I know this is not the conventional style of journalism, but personally I was feel remiss if I didn’t check with my source before publishing a piece (similar to Madeline Faber). 3. Keeping bias in check - Finally, a key point of journalism is to keep bias in check. Journalists have to present information without letting the reader know which side they are necessarily on. This is an extremely larger hurdle because biases are inherent in any piece of writing.
Although Facebook was never meant to be a news source or a form of journalism, it has become a forum where people receive less formal news about their friends, family, and the world around them. In the piece, “Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before it Breaks Democracy?,” the importance of intent becomes clear. The piece describes several situations where Zuckerberg launches an advancement and it is met with complaints of misuse. Information, especially when paired with technology, can both empower and mislead people. As engaged journalists we have the responsibility to think about the widespread impacts of a piece before we publish it, especially when our posts cover sensitive and controversial topics like school shootings. We also have a responsibility to fact check stories as much as possible, to ensure that we are accurately portraying an issue.
We also have a responsibility to recognize our own identities and how they impact who we reach and how we interact with people. In the Zuckerberg piece the question was raised of, “How much was the direction of the internet influenced by the perspective of nineteen-, twenty-, twenty-one-year-old well-off white boys?’ That’s a real question that sociologists will be studying forever.” While our journalism will most likely have smaller effects than Facebook, it is crucial to consider how our privilege and perspectives play a role in our coverage.
The importance of noticing the citizens’ reactions to the news is discussed in the Kovach and Rosenthiel piece. As engaged journalists reporting on a difficult topic, we have a duty to notice the response of those we interview to the news we are sharing. If people react emotionally, it is most moral to confirm again that everything is on the record and to follow up with them about the story they are telling. The Facebook piece also serves as a reminder to take criticism and advice with an open mind, as shown by Zuckerberg’s failure to take criticism and resulting mishaps. We should also be aware of how our piece is interpreted by the general public by keeping in mind that the goal of this project is to create conversation and potential solutions rather than furthering the political divide.
Although this might be obvious to other citizens, the fact that news and journalism do not have any concrete ethical guidelines is new and concerning information. Despite the long list of responsibilities that journalists have in our increasingly confusing news cycle, no one has thought about how to mandate or regulate the ethical and moral code of these individuals. Kovach and Rosensthiel dive into these questions and provide a useful framework for understanding how ethics can be a more central part of the conversation and dialogue surrounding journalism as a whole.
To me, there seems to be a large contradiction within the advice they give throughout these pieces. Kovach and Rosensthiel write that “journalists have a responsibility to voice their personal conscience out loud and allow others around them to do so as well” (pp. 272). Is is difficult for me to hold this advice in tandem with a follow statement on the next pages reading that standing by your conscience can be difficult in a newsroom where we are “in the age of layoffs, buyouts, and expanded use of low-paid or free contributors” (pp. 275). How can we expect journalists who are just trying to survive the 24-hour news cycle while not getting fired or laid off to be completely focused on crafting and maintaining their own ethical code?
Within the context of engaged journalism, there seems to be more room and time for thoughtful ethical considerations as compared to the fast-paced reality of traditional newsrooms. As engaged journalism strives to be an equal process between journalists and citizens, working to create ethical writing process that is transparent seems to be the best possible way to avoid immoral behavior. Kovach and Rosenstiel suggest that journalists should “make a major shift toward transparency… We believe that transparency is the first step in the beginning of a new connection between the journalist and the citizen” (pp. 290). Everyone has bias and cannot be fully “objective” while participating in journalism due to our inherent subjectivity. By striving to be transparent with the public about your goals, projects, and aims while participating in engaged journalism is necessary and should be somewhat mandatory. Perhaps a portion of our project could include tips and tricks for how engaged journalists can follow some sort of suggested ethical approach to transparency and journalism in general. This could be crowdsourced by our own experiences and the readings we have done in class up to this point!
In order for a journalistic effort to be truly engaged and reflective of the community it documents, it must firstly be inductive rather than conductive. As we discussed in class in the context of interviews, an inductive process is one that does not have a previously imagined goal or hypothesis. Instead, it follows where the information leads, eliminating bias that a journalist may have coming into a project. This concept is touched on in Kovach and Rosensthiel’s work when they mention that good journalism must be loyal to its citizens. They state that, “This means stories should answer our needs as citizens and not just the interests of the players and the political or economic system” (293).
In removing exterior influences and focussing on the interests and needs of the population at hand, engaged journalism can establish an honest relationship with the community it reports on. Engaged journalism must include and be reflective of every community outlook and opinion in a honest and proportionate manner, regardless of any opinion the journalist may hold. In order to maintain this honesty, engaged journalism also must be an iterative process that takes into account the feedback of the population it is responsible to.
Additionally, engaged journalism has a responsibility to be transparent on all accounts. It must acknowledge the citizens at every step along the way and provide them with any and all pertinent information as the article or study takes form. I think that transparency and honesty are key in the process of engaged journalism because they ensure that the constituency will continue to feel heard throughout the process and prevent the subjects of the article from feeling disenfranchised or discrete from the writing process. Further, it ensures that the final article contains only the truth and that it will accurately reflect what the citizens value. Maintaining transparency, trust, and honesty with the citizens involved in the process of engaged journalism is a necessary step in creating ethical and accurate pieces of work that can improve the communities that are reported on. After reading the article on Zuckerberg, it feels clear that these are harder, and consequently more necessary, to maintain in the digital information age.
Engaged journalism is intertwined with ethics. It’s easy to see through the readings that there can be many benefits from engaged journalism, but also can be difficult to maneuver. Considering the readings and conversations we’ve already had in class, I consider two important principles to be transparency and accountability.
We talked with Madeline a lot about transparency within engaged journalism on Friday. I think transparency is extremely important when it comes to engaged journalism, and also important in maintaining good ethical standpoints with others. If a news source isn’t transparent in what it’s working on or creating, it could lean to feel its work could be unethical by viewers. The more something is kept secret, people tend to think there is something going on. This may not always be the case, but developing a positive relationship with a reader is essential and can be done through transparency. I thought Madeline’s points about this topic were really valuable.
Another principle of engaged journalism is accountability. I think it’s very important to hold everyone who is involved in engaged journalism accountable, whether that is the citizens submitting their own information, or the writers who are editing and creating a story with that information. Holding everyone accountable can ensure that everyone is performing ethically and responsibly. A great example from this is through the reading Responsibility to Conscience. Ignoring the signs that a member of the staff was being unethical in their work hurt the Washington Post later when it was revealed that his information was plagiarized. Although the reporter did resign, it was vital of the Post to keep themselves accountable for their mistakes and be more aware of future ones.
An ethical approach to engaged journalism includes, but is not limited to, the following principles. First, engaging in conversation in the newsroom before publishing. Second, give journalists' coworkers the power and freedom to question and critique what is being published. Third, Give the same to the reader! Ensure that they have the capacity to effectively critique the media they are consuming. Going back to my first point, I found this point made by Kovach and Rosentiel in "Responsibility to Conscience" very powerful. If we are trying to engender conversation outside of the newsroom, the least we can do is to have these conversations in the newsroom first with our colleagues, in order to perhaps improve our coverage and portrayal of events as a result.
Second, and very similar to the first point, journalists and their colleagues must work in an environment that promotes a sense of freedom and power to critique the journalism being produced, to prevent, say, the Blair case at the New York Times in the early 2000s or some of Facebook's data breaches. Lastly, this ability to critique should extend to the readers', and we as journalists would do well in equipping readers with the capacity to critically examine journalistic pieces.
While in this class we have been focusing more on engaged journalism and highlighting its benefits, traditional journalism is just as important, both in the context of this class and in society. As we’ve previously covered many times, in a general sense, traditional journalism focuses more on sharing the accurate facts and figures of each story covered, while engaged journalism focuses more on the perspectives of the people and gaining a collection of different experiences from the people. Since our class focuses on the concept of guns in schools and school shootings, with the topic of children dying at hand, the statistics and facts of traditional journalism are important to show the people how much this is truly an issue, but the empathy and humanization which engaged journalism better provides is also very important as it is an incredibly sensitive topic. However, with engaged journalism’s sincere effort toward involvement of the people, there are principles which must be followed in all journalism and ways in which one’s work can become seemingly useless unethical, or dancing on the line of such. In Kovach and Rosenstiel work, they outline the ways in both the journalist and their audience. Journalists must exercise their conscience and be empathetic of others, while still striving to get the truth out there and be aware of intellectual diversity. Their audience has such obligations as well when choosing what to take from each piece. While the facts of the stories are important, one not dismiss the diversity of perspectives on all issues covered.
The ways that we have covered traditionalist journalism as opposed to engaged journalism has appeared to be very black and white at first. And yet, it truly is a continuum; just as civic, citizen and public journalism all flow into engaged journalism, traditionalist journalism practices will flow into it as well. The implications of traditionalist journalism have been addressed in class as a sort of emotionless, unbiased truth telling/fact expression. However, we have to realize that it’s near to impossible to be completely neutral in any telling of a subject; it’s inherently biased based upon the sources used to create the article. Purely traditionalist practices are starting to fail, as social media evolves and the information overload begins to expand. News media nowadays is not the only source of information for the public. Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr are all secondhand or even primary sources of information. The way we have covered engaged journalism has not only embraced these other sources of information but relied on them. Crowdsourcing is meant to be a major part of our project with the community; and since there are few concrete examples of what engaged journalism is, we are creating the definition, both connotation and denotation. What the term “engaged journalism” has begun to imply for me at least is a bond with the community in which the facts are exchanged between the two parties and are not the end, but the means to an end. Especially in our case, the “end” can be very vague, as in the actual situations being covered, a complete solution to any problem is not likely, just as being completely unbiased is not likely.
ReplyDeleteThere’s room for traditional and engaged journalism in our practice just as there is in every practice. Especially when dealing with such a tough subject which is gun violence in schools, there has to be a balance of emotional detachment and empathy. It’s easy to be swept up in the storm of feeling when engaging with such emotionally charged content. But because of the objective tone that citizens characterize news coverage of school shootings with, it’s necessary for us to create a more amiable atmosphere so the people we’re talking to understand what we’re trying to do. At the same time, it is important to get across facts that the ordinary person may not understand or know about gun attacks in schools, ie demographics of shooters, the percentages which are mass shootings, etc. These facts need to be communicated so the public has a better understanding of what is actually happening in their country. And at the same time they need to be compressed and expressed in a tactful way. The information phenomena is what is driving people away from traditional news media. It has to be presented in a way that proposes for the future, inspires people to talk and such. This is what creates the solutions we so desire.
I believe the most important ethical approach to engaged journalism is remaining transparent and keeping in mind that everyone has different “truths” that they bring to the table. Kovach and Rosensthiel argued that in order for citizens to be able to take an informed part in shaping their society, journalists must be transparent and open to impugnable queries “that won’t lead critics to call the credibility of the product into question” (p.272). The concept of transparency in engaged journalism heeds way for enhanced credibility of the source. I really like what Kovach and Rosensthiel (and Laura Frank actually used the same metaphor this morning) wrote about the importance of transparency stating, “The first step in that direction has to be developing a means of letting those who make up the market finally see how the sausage is made- how we do our work and what informs our decisions” (p.292). Being transparent is often the first step to building solid citizen/journalist relationships.
ReplyDeleteAnother ethical approach that needs to be accounted for in engaged journalism is the theme of inclusivity and the idea that everyone’s narrative are different. The intersectional building blocks that make up our identity allows us to perceive and experience things differently. Both citizens and journalists must grapple with a diverse plethora of narratives, including their own narratives, and use them to make informed societal decisions. The plethora of narratives should provide a wide variety of diverse epistemologies that can be used to extract knowledge as Kovach and Rosensthiel state, “Where journalism’s role once was to simply provide information as a tool of self-governance, it now becomes a role of providing citizens the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood of rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion, and allegation the communications system now produces” (p.290). A diverse, inclusive pool of narratives helps citizens gain a well-rounded, informed perspective on an issue.
When doctors get ordained, they take the Hippocratic Oath, swearing to “do no harm.” The medical field has recognized its role in protecting and serving people at their most vulnerable and, in doing so, holds its patients’ safety at the forefront. Journalists take no such oath to begin their work – with today’s technology pretty much anyone can take on the role of a journalist – but it is important to recognize the journalist’s ethical and moral responsibility to the public. When reporting, we must acknowledge the impact we can have and to mitigate the potential risks that may come from unethical reporting. Thus, it is paramount for journalists (both engaged an otherwise) to uphold the principles of integrity, transparency, and open communication.
ReplyDeleteTraditional journalism upholds objectivity as the goal of the journalist. Taking an engaged approach, one must recognize that bias is inherent but some regard for truth must be upheld. Integrity looks like dedication to verification and candor. Kovach and Resenstiel explain this value as a dedication to “truthfulness” as well as a commitment to providing space for constructive conversation. This value is probably the main one in question in the Facebook case, with debates over whether Facebook has a responsibility to prevent proliferation of falsehoods. Integrity is particularly important because people cannot make informed decisions if they are not given access to verifiable information.
With integrity, transparency acknowledges that one Truth may not exist in all situations and people making decisions about content have opinions that shape their ideas. Because we cannot include all relevant information in our pieces, we have a responsibility to be open about how and why we decided what to include. In doing this, we provide our audience with opportunities to question their own beliefs and determine for themselves how they feel about our credibility.
Finally, we must be open to dialogue with the public. This is at the heart of the engaged approach but is something we must remind ourselves to do throughout the entire journalistic process in order to make the most of our work. It is our responsibility as journalists to respect the voices of our audience and, at the very least, be open to their commentary and criticism from which we can grow our work. Beyond that, recognizing that community members have expertise beyond our own will allow us to produce higher quality work. Dialogue with constituents can only improve the process.
One main tension for journalists as mentioned in “Journalists have a Responsibility to Conscience,” is the tension between “its public service mission…and the interests that finance the work” (271). This need to make profits can be the catalyst for unethical journalism. Therefore, to ensure ethical journalism, it is important to focus on the public service component of journalism, and work on informing and engaging the public in news. The principles of “a public forum” and allowing citizen input, while still valuing “truthfulness” (“The Rights and Responsibility of Citizens”) are two main principles that ethical engaged journalism should use.
ReplyDeleteFacebook has become a news source of sorts, where people get information. They allow for much citizen input and forums for discussion. For example, people can video of things they see and viewers can leave comments of their thoughts, opinions, etc. Additionally, people can create pages filled with ‘news’ or share different ‘reports’ and people can comment and create dialogue based on these. Without more knowledge, it seems like Facebook is getting many community members involved in dialogue and discussion of news and it is a good thing.
After reading “Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before it Breaks Democracy?,” the need for truthfulness becomes a vital component of engaged journalism. The article discusses that a “fake report,” disguised as real news led to a deadly riot and countless other publishing of fake news that created severe consequences. It is important that news sources have intense vetting systems to prevent publishing false information. Even though Facebook was not created to be a news source, their goal was to “build the best community,” or have the highest growth/profits. With this growth and focus on finances, the social media became an information source, and with that it is important that they subscribe to the principles and ethics of journalism.
^Amy Bolton
DeleteI think that engaged and traditional methods of journalism can be incredibly effective when used to compliment one another. To enact an entirely traditional method with no community engagement whatsoever generates pieces that the public eye is unable to connect with or trust completely. By not involving the public whatsoever, a heavy divide is created between journalist and audience. To enact an entirely engaged method and involve the community so much so that they basically write the piece can be dangerous. Going overboard with crowd sourcing opens up doors for the publishing of pieces that might not have completely accurate information or data.
ReplyDeleteTo pursue engaged journalism in an ethical way, a journalist must recognize the characteristics of the relationship he or she is meant to develop with the community. There should not be tension between them. Instead, they should be able to work together and get to a place where the community is able to elevate and improve the characteristics of the journalist’s work. And in today’s world, where anybody can readily find any information anywhere, a journalist is also somewhat responsible for helping citizens differentiate between what is true and what is simply rumored to be true (Rights and Responsibilities). Journalists and news outlets also have a responsibility to be honest and in turn, build up the trust of their community of readers. It is absolutely true that “journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience” (Responsibility to Conscience) and that it is their own responsibility to hold themselves to this obligation.
Osnos writes in his New Yorker article: “Facebook has as many adherents as Christianity,” with more than 2.2 billion people logging in every month. While I was familiar with Facebook’s immense international presence before reading Osnos’ article, hearing the statistic framed in this way was incredibly striking and helped reinforce for me Facebook’s mammoth power in our modern world. I also appreciated Osnos’ succinct analysis of the way Facebook grew originally: with ‘speech over truth,’ ‘speed over perfection,’ and ‘scale over safety.’ While these principles and choices arguably contributed to Facebook’s rapid and unprecedented popularization, they are also now contributing to its great demise. In the past several years, Facebook has faced many serious allegations, including most notably: inciting genocide in Myanmar and influencing the U.S. 2016 election through Russian ads. In this way, Facebook helps exemplify both the advantages and disadvantages of citizen engagement in the news in the modern era.
ReplyDeleteWith the creation of Facebook, Zuckerberg opened a pathway for citizens to contribute to public discourse without the usual constrictions of journalistic principles (e.g., truth and fact-checking), thus arguably—and unintentionally—created a space for engaged journalism. While Facebook unquestionably helped democratize journalism by providing average citizens a platform on which to tell their own stories and those from their community, there were also unforeseen negative ramifications, such as the aforementioned violence in Myanmar which—to quote a New York Times headline—was “incited by Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military” (Oct. 2018). Beyond the mammoth consequences I’ve mentioned thus far (i.e., genocide and election tampering), there are many other smaller consequences too. For example, specifically regarding our class’ focus, Laura mentioned how she wished her children had not seen the live footage from the Parkland shooting that was circulating around social media. In this way, we see how while Facebook and other social media platforms gave students the chance to live stream their experiences, said footage may not have been appropriate for all viewers—or necessary to show at all. This larger question tied into a conversation my group had today regarding our Digital Media Campaign. We created a Facebook group where people from around the world could share their stories about guns in school through any medium they so choose (e.g., poetry, photography, etcetera). However, we also had the tough conversation about censorship in the group and what posts should we delete and why, highlighting a challenging debate about citizen contribution to the news and public discourse and ‘how far is too far.’
Laura’s aforementioned hesitation about engaged journalism highlights an important strength of traditional journalism—the (im)(ex)plicit understanding of and adherence to journalistic principles and conduct—which theoretically contribute to ‘good’ reporting grounded in truth. However, there are now outlets (i.e., Fox News), which some citizens may classify and regard as ‘traditional’ journalism which ignore the fundamental ideals mentioned above, while some citizen journalists may hold themselves personally accountable to honesty and integrity. Therefore, I think it is challenging to identify the implications of ‘traditional’ and ‘engaged’ journalism when the lines between them are becoming more and more muddled.
I somehow missed Anthony's email from earlier today until now—my apologies! Here are two explicit ethics principles that I think are crucial to engaged journalism:
Delete1. I really appreciated Kovach and Rosenstiel's principle: "Journalists have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience" (272). We talked during first week about how engaged journalism honors the 'emotive' and human experience more than most traditional journalism. Given this emphasis, I argue it's crucial that journalists engage their own conscience and honor their own identities within the arena of ethics when they're grappling with a hard question or decision.
2. I also really appreciated Kovach and Rosenstiel's discussion of diversity in journalism and how simply having more underrepresented people in the newsroom is "a target, not not the goal, of diversity" (281). Rather, the fundamental goal is "a news organization that is more accurate and representative" (Kovach and Rosenstiel: 281). Therefore, I argue that engaged journalists—given their commitment to all members of the general public—need to avoid unethically tokenizing underrepresented journalists and instead, purposefully create inclusive stories and dialogue in their work.
Journalist have an immense amount of power in our society and with that comes an equally large amount of responsibility. Osno’s articles detailing the history of Facebook illustrates how influential news and the media are. For example, the Russian ties to the presidential election and the spread of fake news impacted its roughly 2 billion users. People rely and believe on their news sources and they have to be able to trust them. Throughout these readings it became clear that a commitment to the truth and facts as well as a transparent approach are necessary journalistic principles, especially in engaged journalism.
ReplyDeleteDuring the most recent presidential election, targeted fake news ads meant to influence voters found a home on Facebook. This manipulative content was able to reach many users, “Facebook estimates that the content reached as many as a hundred and fifty million users,” (Osnos 5). Facebook illuminates how destructive fake news can be. A commitment to truth and informing citizens is what journalists pride themselves on. Although Facebook is a social media site and not necessarily an established news source, it still holds the same amount of responsibility due to how dominate it has become. Throughout studying reporting's of school shootings we have seen how influential false news can be. For example, in the coverage of the Columbine shooting, news sources broadcasted false information about the shooter and these myths are still brought up years after. Once information is out there it is hard to walk back from. News sources must have a commitment to the facts the first time around.
Secondly, it is important for journalist to be transparent. It is especially important engaged journalists adhere to this principle of transparency due to the collaborative nature of this technique. It is important to be open and honest about sources and the journalistic process to grow an audience that is able to trust and believe in their news. Kovach and Rosenthiel recognize the importance of transparency in the journalist’s responsibilities. Journalists’ obligations extend outside of the newsroom and to the citizens they are serving, “Journalism is an act of character,” (Kovach and Rosenthiel). Being transparent and honest are qualities journalists pride themselves on. As seen with young journalist Blair, a commitment to the truth is not taken lightly.
I think an ethical approach to engaged journalism should include a commitment to truth and transparency. Fake news and misinformation have a strong influence on people and how they shape their opinions. Although it may be more work and harder to uphold these principles with the collaborative nature of engaged journalism, it is important to uphold the mission of journalism to inform citizens.
"The citizen has an obligation to approach the news with an open mind and not just a desire that the news reinforce existing opinion” (Kovach 292).
ReplyDeleteHaving an ethical approach can be applied to both traditional and engaged journalism, although the two methods have vastly different intentions and employ differing approaches in their work. An ethical approach means transparency, and the role of ethical journalism is to, “provide citizens with the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood or rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion and allegation the communication system now produces” (Kovach 290). Journalism over time has shifted from simply informing the public to giving the public the knowledge to make their own informed decisions. Kovach explains how public opinion and self-government go hand and hand, and with the rise of a public consciousness comes the mindset of a self-governing body of citizens who have access to unbiased information. Ethical journalism is not limited to a certain strategy, rather it’s a mindset taken on by both the journalists and their constituents. It functions with the intention of the objective truth modeled by traditional journalism paired with the collective conversation and dialogue of engaged journalism. The ultimate pursuit of truth and a chance to make the world a better place drives ethical journalism, regardless of the subject matter. Combining engaged and traditional journalistic approaches is both inevitable and something I personally believe will help one pursue a more ethical approach to journalism.
In our class in particular, an engaged journalistic approach is the one I probably struggle to grapple with the most due to the lack of structure sometimes. What makes engaged journalism so unique is also what makes it so difficult. With engaged journalism there are no end goals, no to-do lists, no problems to be fixed; there is only the process. The process is not tangible or tidy. It consists of conversation and community, debate and dialogue. With engaged journalism you learn through the process, analyzing problems you didn’t know existed and facilitating others to find solutions for themselves.
"The citizen has an obligation to approach the news with an open mind and not just a desire that the news reinforce existing opinion” (Kovach 292).
ReplyDeleteHaving an ethical approach can be applied to both traditional and engaged journalism, although the two methods have vastly different intentions and employ differing approaches in their work. An ethical approach means transparency, and the role of ethical journalism is to, “provide citizens with the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood or rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion and allegation the communication system now produces” (Kovach 290). Journalism over time has shifted from simply informing the public to giving the public the knowledge to make their own informed decisions. Kovach explains how public opinion and self-government go hand and hand, and with the rise of a public consciousness comes the mindset of a self-governing body of citizens who have access to unbiased information. Ethical journalism is not limited to a certain strategy, rather it’s a mindset taken on by both the journalists and their constituents. It functions with the intention of the objective truth modeled by traditional journalism paired with the collective conversation and dialogue of engaged journalism. The ultimate pursuit of truth and a chance to make the world a better place drives ethical journalism, regardless of the subject matter. Combining engaged and traditional journalistic approaches is both inevitable and something I personally believe will help one pursue a more ethical approach to journalism.
In our class in particular, an engaged journalistic approach is the one I probably struggle to grapple with the most due to the lack of structure sometimes. What makes engaged journalism so unique is also what makes it so difficult. With engaged journalism there are no end goals, no to-do lists, no problems to be fixed; there is only the process. The process is not tangible or tidy. It consists of conversation and community, debate and dialogue. With engaged journalism you learn through the process, analyzing problems you didn’t know existed and facilitating others to find solutions for themselves.
It’s almost impossible to exactly define an ethical approach to engaged journalism. Given that engaged journalism is such an active and alive entity, the best ways to approach such a topic look fairly similar to the approach used by traditional journalists, especially those established in the chapter readings from Kovach and Rosenstiel. Transparency, the embrace of debate, and a constant search of accuracy define an effective approach to engaged journalism.
ReplyDelete“It’s part of journalists’ responsibility, in whatever setting they work, to encourage a transparent and open culture that won’t lead critics to call the credibility of the product into question” (Kovach 272). Engaged journalism is all about transparency- it’s almost a given in its practice. Having an approach that begins with complete transparency is the most effective route to take when covering a community. People aren’t going to let journalists into their personally meaningful communities unless they feel as though those journalists will be open and honest.
The embracing of debate follows a similar mindset to that of transparency- complete openness. Communication within and between institutions of journalism have to be absolutely open if they are to succeed. “Journalists have a responsibility to voice their personal conscience out loud and allow others around them to do so as well” (Kovach 273). If journalism is in search of truth, then it’s seekers must feel comfortable in challenging held notions of accuracy. The chapter goes into more depth when considering diversity in newsrooms. Even today, after Elements was released, diversity is still lacking in newsrooms. Statistics can show that demographics are not well enough represented, but the main point is that there isn’t enough diversity of opinion. It boils down to the fact that when there are more differing opinions, the product is enhanced.
The constant search of accuracy wraps these principles of engaged journalism. Despite a less-formal practice of journalism, engaged journalism must search truth in any form. Truth within communities isn’t always as black and white as it can be on a more national scale, and it gets more complex and place-specific the more you zoom in. Whether it's reporting on the everyday reality of citizens in a neighborhood, or investigating a rundown housing complex that has been taken over by rabid dogs, every community has their own truth, and it’s the job of engaged journalism to find it.
-Michael Gorman
The first ethical principle that is probably pretty obvious is having an internal moral compass. I think without this basis it is very hard to have any ‘ethical approach’. In the reading, they discuss the importance of journalists having a strong conscience, which in a lot of cases is not easy. Being able to personally determine what is wrong and right is very important. While some people may disagree with you on your personal distinction, it is crucial that you have one.
ReplyDeleteI think this goes hand in hand with having a moral compass, and so another point would be self-awareness in a journalistic sense. I am thinking in terms of constantly checking your work, fact-checking what people have said to you, etc. I think this helps with checking a typical journalist complexion that manifests by being the ‘savior’ or the ‘necessity’. It is important to recognize that you are not perfect and that while you may have solid intentions, you have to work at things over and over. I think a lot of the anecdotes that were told in tonights reading highlight that journalists were so confident in their work and approach, therefore they could not be questioned. For a more engaged approach, recognizing that you are going into communities and letting them tell their stories, and they mean a lot to that person, thus they should mean a lot to you.
Lastly, having a good sense of what you are trying to achieve and who you are supposed to be working on behalf is crucial. As stated above, so many journalists are definitely in the game to make a difference; to change systems. While that is great, an engaged journalist should first ask who they are representing— in most cases it is a community whose voices are sometimes not heard. From there, you can narrow down what ‘making a difference’ means. Does that mean enacting policy change overnight? How about just finding narratives that haven't been told before?
Collaboration: Kovach and Rosensthiel brought up the necessity of collaboration in the newsroom, which, in my opinion, addresses many of the other possible sticking points within the journalistic process. Collaborating, specifically working with other reporters, editors, etc, and having several other people read your work and genuinely discuss it before it is published, builds a new sense of accountability and responsibility among journalists. It forces transparency and credibility, because all writers need to be able to explain and justify the aspects of their pieces. It encourages more full pictures, because other journalists will be able to pull out the controversies that are (or aren’t) mentioned. It helps newsrooms as a whole find trends and maintain the best content, because they aren’t fighting one another for the best story, and they are aware of all of the different pieces that will be going into the upcoming news and can complement one another. Collaboration in the newsroom also slows down the process, because a story cannot be written one day, read by five other people, discussed and edited, and be submitted within a few hours. Instead, journalists will have time to process, edit, and reevaluate exactly what story they are telling and how they’re telling it.
ReplyDeleteSlow Speed: This is almost an offshoot of the collaboration principle, but I think that it has its own place. Both Kovach and Rosensethiel and Osnos discussed the nature of speed in most typical journalism / media sharing settings. In an effort to be the first, the quality of content can be lost. As engaged journalists, telling the story of a community or individual requires time and a more expansive process (of interviews, and building trust, etc). As such, allowing and accepting that stories will take time for a media source is one of the best ways to show journalists that they have responsibility for their stories, and are expected to come out with the best product they can, not “flawed and first versus careful and perfect” (Osnos).
The Age of Information has arrived!
ReplyDeleteToday, with one simple googled question, a person receives many different answers. The engaged journalist’s job is to help people make sense of this information. As a result, the engaged journalists actually must engage with the subject of their piece at a level beyond what used to be expected of a traditional journalist. This makes it even more important that they take an ethical approach to their work. According to the Kovatch and Rosensthiel reading, “journalism is an act of character.” The journalist’s work directly relates to their reputation. In a world where there are so many choices for where to get your news from, the idea that a news company cannot protect a journalist’s reputation is refreshing. Furthermore, the engaged journalist still has an ethical responsibility to provide multiple sides of an argument. The article entitled, ‘Can Mark Zuckerburg Fix Facebook Before it Breaks Democracy,’ written by Evan Osnos does a great job allowing Zuckerburg to react to his criticism. By using this method, the article sounds fair, balanced and allows the reader to decide for themselves what they think of Zuckerburg. Lastly, a journalist must be transparent with their process. Too much is the journalist the granter and the reader the receiver. In an ethical approach to engaged journalism, the reader and journalist are at the same level. The journalist’s job is to help the reader understand the subject and to fully understand the journalist needs to be upfront about their personal stake in the issue. A journalist can achieve this by, as Laura Frank mentioned in class, “showing the reader how the sausage is made.” This allows the reader more tools to understand and evaluate not only the piece but also the journalist.
So folks, the Age of Information has arrived- choose wisely.
I have been working towards thoroughly understanding the ethics and morals surrounding engaged journalism throughout this entire course (given its only been a week). I have specifically been grappling with the ethics of using people as a source of information. When we talked with Madeline Faber, she discussed how she actually keeps a correspondence going with all of the people she interviews every after the interview. To me this is extremely respectable. She seems to hold personal standards beyond those of your traditional journalists.
ReplyDeleteEven beyond the idea of interviewing — and potentially exploiting people — engaged journalists hold an ethical responsibility to hold each other accountable. In the situation with Blair, it appears as if other journalists knew what was happening and chose to ignore it. This to me breaks the code of moral journalism — specifically engaged journalism. Kovach and Rosenthiel explain how there are innumerable hurdles presented to journalists to remain unbiased and fair, but it is their responsibility to constantly questioning and reworking their pieces.
In the article that talked about mark Zuckerberg, it did a really good job of describing both sides of the story; Marks, and the public. Many people called out Zuckerberg for various reasons. However, The New Yorker gave Zuckerberg ample opportunity to explain himself. Additionally, they quoted many of Zuckerberg’s friends/colleagues in his defense. Thus, the article is well thought out, and presents a relatively unbiased piece in my opinion. It presents two sides of a story.
In many ways, I feel that Zuckerberg himself is an engaged journalist and broke the unspoken unethical code many times throughout his career. He created this massively popular social media hub in which all people can interact. The New Yorker explains how this led. to major issues during the 2016 elections as ‘fake news’ began to pervasively circulate. There were. Many different times when Zuckerberg could have chosen to act a different way than he did, but he thought it was best to act fast, and fix problems later. This reminds me of the Columbine shooting coverage in which a lot of fake news was reported, and then just fixed/adjusted later. To me this is unethical.
Thus, the implications of engaged journalism therefore show me that many times reports can be unethical. By this I mean, people can end up being exploited, fake news can be reported, and so on. Thus, journalists have to be extremely conscientious of their work and how they choose to conduct their pieces.
Some principles that would be good to follow include:
1. Fact checking- it is the duty of the journalist to ensure that their work is truthful/ factual before publishing it. Without this, at atmosphere of falsehood is created. This also pushes people farther away from engaged journalism because then they are no longer able to trust the journalist and their pieces.
2. Double checking with people of which information has been crowdsourced - I know this is not the conventional style of journalism, but personally I was feel remiss if I didn’t check with my source before publishing a piece (similar to Madeline Faber).
3. Keeping bias in check - Finally, a key point of journalism is to keep bias in check. Journalists have to present information without letting the reader know which side they are necessarily on. This is an extremely larger hurdle because biases are inherent in any piece of writing.
Although Facebook was never meant to be a news source or a form of journalism, it has become a forum where people receive less formal news about their friends, family, and the world around them. In the piece, “Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before it Breaks Democracy?,” the importance of intent becomes clear. The piece describes several situations where Zuckerberg launches an advancement and it is met with complaints of misuse. Information, especially when paired with technology, can both empower and mislead people. As engaged journalists we have the responsibility to think about the widespread impacts of a piece before we publish it, especially when our posts cover sensitive and controversial topics like school shootings. We also have a responsibility to fact check stories as much as possible, to ensure that we are accurately portraying an issue.
ReplyDeleteWe also have a responsibility to recognize our own identities and how they impact who we reach and how we interact with people. In the Zuckerberg piece the question was raised of, “How much was the direction of the internet influenced by the perspective of nineteen-, twenty-, twenty-one-year-old well-off white boys?’ That’s a real question that sociologists will be studying forever.” While our journalism will most likely have smaller effects than Facebook, it is crucial to consider how our privilege and perspectives play a role in our coverage.
The importance of noticing the citizens’ reactions to the news is discussed in the Kovach and Rosenthiel piece. As engaged journalists reporting on a difficult topic, we have a duty to notice the response of those we interview to the news we are sharing. If people react emotionally, it is most moral to confirm again that everything is on the record and to follow up with them about the story they are telling. The Facebook piece also serves as a reminder to take criticism and advice with an open mind, as shown by Zuckerberg’s failure to take criticism and resulting mishaps. We should also be aware of how our piece is interpreted by the general public by keeping in mind that the goal of this project is to create conversation and potential solutions rather than furthering the political divide.
Although this might be obvious to other citizens, the fact that news and journalism do not have any concrete ethical guidelines is new and concerning information. Despite the long list of responsibilities that journalists have in our increasingly confusing news cycle, no one has thought about how to mandate or regulate the ethical and moral code of these individuals. Kovach and Rosensthiel dive into these questions and provide a useful framework for understanding how ethics can be a more central part of the conversation and dialogue surrounding journalism as a whole.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there seems to be a large contradiction within the advice they give throughout these pieces. Kovach and Rosensthiel write that “journalists have a responsibility to voice their personal conscience out loud and allow others around them to do so as well” (pp. 272). Is is difficult for me to hold this advice in tandem with a follow statement on the next pages reading that standing by your conscience can be difficult in a newsroom where we are “in the age of layoffs, buyouts, and expanded use of low-paid or free contributors” (pp. 275). How can we expect journalists who are just trying to survive the 24-hour news cycle while not getting fired or laid off to be completely focused on crafting and maintaining their own ethical code?
Within the context of engaged journalism, there seems to be more room and time for thoughtful ethical considerations as compared to the fast-paced reality of traditional newsrooms. As engaged journalism strives to be an equal process between journalists and citizens, working to create ethical writing process that is transparent seems to be the best possible way to avoid immoral behavior. Kovach and Rosenstiel suggest that journalists should “make a major shift toward transparency… We believe that transparency is the first step in the beginning of a new connection between the journalist and the citizen” (pp. 290). Everyone has bias and cannot be fully “objective” while participating in journalism due to our inherent subjectivity. By striving to be transparent with the public about your goals, projects, and aims while participating in engaged journalism is necessary and should be somewhat mandatory. Perhaps a portion of our project could include tips and tricks for how engaged journalists can follow some sort of suggested ethical approach to transparency and journalism in general. This could be crowdsourced by our own experiences and the readings we have done in class up to this point!
In order for a journalistic effort to be truly engaged and reflective of the community it documents, it must firstly be inductive rather than conductive. As we discussed in class in the context of interviews, an inductive process is one that does not have a previously imagined goal or hypothesis. Instead, it follows where the information leads, eliminating bias that a journalist may have coming into a project. This concept is touched on in Kovach and Rosensthiel’s work when they mention that good journalism must be loyal to its citizens. They state that, “This means stories should answer our needs as citizens and not just the interests of the players and the political or economic system” (293).
ReplyDeleteIn removing exterior influences and focussing on the interests and needs of the population at hand, engaged journalism can establish an honest relationship with the community it reports on. Engaged journalism must include and be reflective of every community outlook and opinion in a honest and proportionate manner, regardless of any opinion the journalist may hold. In order to maintain this honesty, engaged journalism also must be an iterative process that takes into account the feedback of the population it is responsible to.
Additionally, engaged journalism has a responsibility to be transparent on all accounts. It must acknowledge the citizens at every step along the way and provide them with any and all pertinent information as the article or study takes form. I think that transparency and honesty are key in the process of engaged journalism because they ensure that the constituency will continue to feel heard throughout the process and prevent the subjects of the article from feeling disenfranchised or discrete from the writing process. Further, it ensures that the final article contains only the truth and that it will accurately reflect what the citizens value. Maintaining transparency, trust, and honesty with the citizens involved in the process of engaged journalism is a necessary step in creating ethical and accurate pieces of work that can improve the communities that are reported on.
After reading the article on Zuckerberg, it feels clear that these are harder, and consequently more necessary, to maintain in the digital information age.
ReplyDeleteEngaged journalism is intertwined with ethics. It’s easy to see through the readings that there can be many benefits from engaged journalism, but also can be difficult to maneuver. Considering the readings and conversations we’ve already had in class, I consider two important principles to be transparency and accountability.
We talked with Madeline a lot about transparency within engaged journalism on Friday. I think transparency is extremely important when it comes to engaged journalism, and also important in maintaining good ethical standpoints with others. If a news source isn’t transparent in what it’s working on or creating, it could lean to feel its work could be unethical by viewers. The more something is kept secret, people tend to think there is something going on. This may not always be the case, but developing a positive relationship with a reader is essential and can be done through transparency. I thought Madeline’s points about this topic were really valuable.
Another principle of engaged journalism is accountability. I think it’s very important to hold everyone who is involved in engaged journalism accountable, whether that is the citizens submitting their own information, or the writers who are editing and creating a story with that information. Holding everyone accountable can ensure that everyone is performing ethically and responsibly. A great example from this is through the reading Responsibility to Conscience. Ignoring the signs that a member of the staff was being unethical in their work hurt the Washington Post later when it was revealed that his information was plagiarized. Although the reporter did resign, it was vital of the Post to keep themselves accountable for their mistakes and be more aware of future ones.
An ethical approach to engaged journalism includes, but is not limited to, the following principles. First, engaging in conversation in the newsroom before publishing. Second, give journalists' coworkers the power and freedom to question and critique what is being published. Third, Give the same to the reader! Ensure that they have the capacity to effectively critique the media they are consuming. Going back to my first point, I found this point made by Kovach and Rosentiel in "Responsibility to Conscience" very powerful. If we are trying to engender conversation outside of the newsroom, the least we can do is to have these conversations in the newsroom first with our colleagues, in order to perhaps improve our coverage and portrayal of events as a result.
ReplyDeleteSecond, and very similar to the first point, journalists and their colleagues must work in an environment that promotes a sense of freedom and power to critique the journalism being produced, to prevent, say, the Blair case at the New York Times in the early 2000s or some of Facebook's data breaches. Lastly, this ability to critique should extend to the readers', and we as journalists would do well in equipping readers with the capacity to critically examine journalistic pieces.
^written by Oliver
DeleteWhile in this class we have been focusing more on engaged journalism and highlighting its benefits, traditional journalism is just as important, both in the context of this class and in society. As we’ve previously covered many times, in a general sense, traditional journalism focuses more on sharing the accurate facts and figures of each story covered, while engaged journalism focuses more on the perspectives of the people and gaining a collection of different experiences from the people. Since our class focuses on the concept of guns in schools and school shootings, with the topic of children dying at hand, the statistics and facts of traditional journalism are important to show the people how much this is truly an issue, but the empathy and humanization which engaged journalism better provides is also very important as it is an incredibly sensitive topic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with engaged journalism’s sincere effort toward involvement of the people, there are principles which must be followed in all journalism and ways in which one’s work can become seemingly useless unethical, or dancing on the line of such. In Kovach and Rosenstiel work, they outline the ways in both the journalist and their audience. Journalists must exercise their conscience and be empathetic of others, while still striving to get the truth out there and be aware of intellectual diversity. Their audience has such obligations as well when choosing what to take from each piece. While the facts of the stories are important, one not dismiss the diversity of perspectives on all issues covered.