Had a problem this week with accuracy and verification in a story we published. It was unsettling because the person who raised the biggest stink about it wasn't even named in the story.
The story had to do with alleged fraud from a political committee. It was discussed during an open meeting and we published the account from that meeting. The fact we got wrong was writing that the case had been turned over to authorities when it, in fact, had not. Our mistake and we printed a correction.
The other thing we didn't do, if we thought the case had been turned over to investigators, was we didn't contact the people we named who served on a committee during the alleged fraud timeline.
It was distressing because my reporter, who is a veteran, should have known better ... and I, as editor, should have caught it. It went through several people and none of us caught it.
There can be plenty of excuses made as to why this happened ... but bottom line, I should have caught it. It's frustrating because we have people logging on to social media calling us "fake news." This person seemingly had many friends in town, so folks are expected to jump on the "dishonest media" bandwagon. It seems we cannot make one error without getting disparaged. It is disheartening, to say the least.
This week's unit never applied so much.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Sunday, February 5, 2017
A call of conscience journalism
When the American media is attacked by its country's own President as being "dishonest" and "scum -- and the American public eats it up, it's extremely disconcerting.
Media trustworthiness, according to a Pew study conducted as recently as September 2016, showing at only 32 percent (and that number has been steadily declining since the late 1970s), it's high time for journalism to take a long, hard look at itself.
Has it been providing the public with truth and accuracy? Yes. Has it been providing the public with news it needs? No.
Why do I write this? Because it seems, in an age of declining revenues, publishers want more eyes directed toward its websites. That enhances advertising representatives' ability to sell advertising space (by pointing to viewership numbers on a chart, Google Analytics, or any other measurement instrument). When those numbers go up, the drive to produce more content goes up, even if that content isn't what we'd call "newsworthy."
From my experience in the professional media, content that receives the most "eyeballs" are police reports, cops and courts stories, and pets. Analytics show this is what people are reading, therefore the push to produce content that reflects what the public wants also increases.
Something is seriously wrong when the top news story is actress Lindsay Lohan "allegedly" converting to Islam.
In reflect on this week's readings in my master's class at Kent State University (Social Role of the Media), the piece by Poynter titled "A Call for Conscience Journalism," talks about the current dark days of the Fourth Estate in which people trust their mechanic more than the media; refuse to believe what they watch on the television news or the newspaper, but listen wholeheartedly to the babble of talking heads - on TV and radio.
I really enjoyed the take by Edward R. Murrow, who challenged Joseph P. McCarthy and his claims in the 1950s during the so-called "Red Scare."
As Poynter writes, "Murrow's words to the nation seem more appropriate today than they did a half-century ago:
Poynter writes that journalism cannot allow the public's fascination with celebrity news "overwhelm what is important. We need not feel for the public's pulse to determine what stories we should publish. And we must never give in to those trying to thwart our attempts to expose the truth."
Truth. Let's all give it a try.
Media trustworthiness, according to a Pew study conducted as recently as September 2016, showing at only 32 percent (and that number has been steadily declining since the late 1970s), it's high time for journalism to take a long, hard look at itself.
Has it been providing the public with truth and accuracy? Yes. Has it been providing the public with news it needs? No.
Why do I write this? Because it seems, in an age of declining revenues, publishers want more eyes directed toward its websites. That enhances advertising representatives' ability to sell advertising space (by pointing to viewership numbers on a chart, Google Analytics, or any other measurement instrument). When those numbers go up, the drive to produce more content goes up, even if that content isn't what we'd call "newsworthy."
From my experience in the professional media, content that receives the most "eyeballs" are police reports, cops and courts stories, and pets. Analytics show this is what people are reading, therefore the push to produce content that reflects what the public wants also increases.
Something is seriously wrong when the top news story is actress Lindsay Lohan "allegedly" converting to Islam.
In reflect on this week's readings in my master's class at Kent State University (Social Role of the Media), the piece by Poynter titled "A Call for Conscience Journalism," talks about the current dark days of the Fourth Estate in which people trust their mechanic more than the media; refuse to believe what they watch on the television news or the newspaper, but listen wholeheartedly to the babble of talking heads - on TV and radio.
I really enjoyed the take by Edward R. Murrow, who challenged Joseph P. McCarthy and his claims in the 1950s during the so-called "Red Scare."
As Poynter writes, "Murrow's words to the nation seem more appropriate today than they did a half-century ago:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. ... This is no time for men ... to keep silent. ... We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."I agree that those words have never held more truth. They did in 1954 ... and they are equaly as powerfull in 2017.
Poynter writes that journalism cannot allow the public's fascination with celebrity news "overwhelm what is important. We need not feel for the public's pulse to determine what stories we should publish. And we must never give in to those trying to thwart our attempts to expose the truth."
Truth. Let's all give it a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)