Showing posts with label Journalistic standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalistic standards. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2007
Do we just see ‘the tip of the iceberg’ of newspaper errors?
Monday, August 20, 2007
The average newspaper should expand by a factor of 50 the amount of space given to corrections, according to an item posted by Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer. Shafer’s column cites a recent study by Scott Maier, an associate professor at the University of Oregon, that also found that fewer than 2 percent of factually flawed articles had generated newspaper corrections. The study explored data from 10 dailies by sending stories to sources to check on the articles’ accuracy. About 69 percent of 3,600 news sources completed the survey, spotting 2,615 factual errors in 1,220 stories. Shafer takes the discussion a step further – discussing the merits of fessing up to errors and pointing out that papers might actually take pride in posting more corrections rather than assuming that an increase reflects growing negligence. To see Shafer’s column, click here: http://www.slate.com/id/2172283/nav/fix.
Friday, August 3, 2007
“You Know You’re A Journalist When…”
Friday, August 03, 2007
Ever seen the Society for Professional Journalist (SPJ)'s answers to the question above? (They’re hilarious.) “At weddings you take notes on the sermon.” “You shoot B-roll for your vacation videos.” “You’re not a social drinker. All drinking is work-related.” Etc.
Well, you can add being extremely unpopular to the list. As if newsroom working stiffs didn’t have enough to deal with these days with low pay and long hours - a Harris Poll measuring public perceptions of 23 professions has placed the field in the Bottom 10. What do farmers, lawyers and priests have in common? They’re all more popular in the popular mind than journalists. At the top are fire fighters, teachers and scientists. Hovering at the bottom – even below evil reporters - are bankers, actors and real estate agents. Go figure. Click here to see the study http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=793.
Well, you can add being extremely unpopular to the list. As if newsroom working stiffs didn’t have enough to deal with these days with low pay and long hours - a Harris Poll measuring public perceptions of 23 professions has placed the field in the Bottom 10. What do farmers, lawyers and priests have in common? They’re all more popular in the popular mind than journalists. At the top are fire fighters, teachers and scientists. Hovering at the bottom – even below evil reporters - are bankers, actors and real estate agents. Go figure. Click here to see the study http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=793.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Pomp-ing Up The Volume?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
When you watch a candidates’ debate on television, do you feel your questions are answered? Or do you feel more like you’re watching a series of live campaign ads? The problem may not be as simple as the integrity of the candidates, it might be the format of the debates themselves.
Dante Chinni, a senior associate at the Project for Excellence in Journalism, writes in a June 12 column in the Christian Science Monitor that the televised debates between presidential hopefuls, which were once such a useful tool for voters wanting to compare candidates’ stances on important issues, have become a cumbersome mess full of showmanship and resembling “talent shows” more than actual discussions about the issues.
Chinni contends that this is largely attributed to having more candidates staying in the races than ever before. The “compressed schedule” means candidates “with a prayer and a few bucks” aren’t necessarily forced or encouraged to drop out if they feel they won’t place well in the race. This also leaves voters with more choices to make than before. All of this makes the debates very important, as the actual discussions between candidates offer more insight than individual campaign materials. But it also becomes a problem: with more candidates on the air, and more issues to discuss than ever before, each candidate gets less individual air time. Does this process serve the electorate well enough? Do these factors inhibit the thorough media coverage of the election process?
(Read Chinni’s full column here.)
Dante Chinni, a senior associate at the Project for Excellence in Journalism, writes in a June 12 column in the Christian Science Monitor that the televised debates between presidential hopefuls, which were once such a useful tool for voters wanting to compare candidates’ stances on important issues, have become a cumbersome mess full of showmanship and resembling “talent shows” more than actual discussions about the issues.
Chinni contends that this is largely attributed to having more candidates staying in the races than ever before. The “compressed schedule” means candidates “with a prayer and a few bucks” aren’t necessarily forced or encouraged to drop out if they feel they won’t place well in the race. This also leaves voters with more choices to make than before. All of this makes the debates very important, as the actual discussions between candidates offer more insight than individual campaign materials. But it also becomes a problem: with more candidates on the air, and more issues to discuss than ever before, each candidate gets less individual air time. Does this process serve the electorate well enough? Do these factors inhibit the thorough media coverage of the election process?
(Read Chinni’s full column here.)
Tony The Tiger
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Tony Blair's blistering attack on the British news media showed the frustration of a lame duck politician who once feasted on media adulation by mastering the art of PR spin. But once you move past the bitterness, Britain's outgoing prime minister offered perceptive criticisms of media standards and strategies. Kevin Sullivan's piece in the June 12 Washington Post quotes Blair as saying today's media "hunts in a pack" and "is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits." He said newspapers have morphed into "viewpapers" by emphasizing opinion over balance and impact over accuracy.
Blair also cited the pressures of the technology-fueled 24-hour news cycle for "unraveling" sound journalism standards. He fears the media's shrill tenor produce conspiracy, crisis and scandal stories that "sap the country's confidence and self-belief" while reducing the ability to make proper public policy decisions.
Speaking of media critics, O.J. Simpson told Editor & Publisher that "when Paris Hilton was going to jail last week, more people knew about that than knew we were sending people into space that day." The infamous former football star/actor said he yearns for the days when peephole reporting was the purview of gossip writers such as Rona Barrett. "Now, it is the equivalent of Edward R. Murrow reporting it today." Fanning O.J.'s flame was the Project for Excellence in Journalism's weekly roundup of top stories, which showed Paris Hilton snagged more cross-platform coverage last week than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul McLeary of the Columbia Journalism Review also tackled the "war-free news" issue in his June 12 column.
Blair also cited the pressures of the technology-fueled 24-hour news cycle for "unraveling" sound journalism standards. He fears the media's shrill tenor produce conspiracy, crisis and scandal stories that "sap the country's confidence and self-belief" while reducing the ability to make proper public policy decisions.
Speaking of media critics, O.J. Simpson told Editor & Publisher that "when Paris Hilton was going to jail last week, more people knew about that than knew we were sending people into space that day." The infamous former football star/actor said he yearns for the days when peephole reporting was the purview of gossip writers such as Rona Barrett. "Now, it is the equivalent of Edward R. Murrow reporting it today." Fanning O.J.'s flame was the Project for Excellence in Journalism's weekly roundup of top stories, which showed Paris Hilton snagged more cross-platform coverage last week than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul McLeary of the Columbia Journalism Review also tackled the "war-free news" issue in his June 12 column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)