Step outside the bubble of American journalism
An interesting experiment to conduct with one’s self is to step outside American journalism and read some international news. Our culture gets bogged down with catch phrases and talking points, and while other countries have similar trends occurring in their journalism and politics, theirs are different than ours and we can surely learn something from them.
I recently began subscriptions to The Economist and The Guardian Weekly, both of which are published in the UK. They cover international affairs and a variety of topics, but they are undoubtedly coming to the table with a British perspective. For example, the most recent issue of the Economist from Dec. 12 had a story about Republican Mike Huckabee. European politics are generally more to the left than America on the political spectrum, but they had a great piece here about the small government social conservative from Arkansas.
I have to admit, I am not a fan of Huckabee. He is a great speaker and a respectable person, but his social views are something I cannot get past. As the article from the Economist pointed out, on paper, he is the same as Sarah Palin, only she has been discredited as being unintelligent and an unrealistic contender for the Republican nomination. The article went on to present him as a likable and down-to-earth person who Americans can relate with.
This is interesting. The Economist’s editorial stance differs greatly from Huckabee’s personal stance. They are writing from across the pond, but they still had an interesting take on the man. This is what i mean when I say we should get an outsiders perspective to compare with the things that we hear in our media everyday. Google News has a handy feature that lets you change the country of what news you want to see. There is a little tab in the upper left portion of the page that allows the selection of a variety of countries. Yes, many of these are in different languages, but it is still a great feature to be able to see Botswana’s local news with the click of a button.
Stepping outside of American journalism is like stepping outside of one’s own body and looking back to see what others see. It is a worthwhile experiment that keeps us in check. Even the tone of news articles is different. Opinion pieces may be riddled with straightforward critiques of America, but we can see this in news as well. The Economist covering Huckabee shows that he should be taken seriously, which gives the man a lot more credibility than if Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin were to say so.
Reading news from another country is like traveling without the expenses and jet lag. It puts things into perspective and allows for a culturally enriched mind. Try it; visit web sites or even blogs that are based in foreign places and see what you learn.
Should journalists be politically affiliated?
I find myself struggling with this question quite often. Should journalists openly affiliate themselves with a political party? It is ideal for a journalist, in most situations, to report objectively on a story and leave any personal political baggage at the door. Many news sources have underlying tones of bias in their reporting, but others are very effective at giving the news. I think it can be agreed upon that for news which is meant to be news, political affiliations should not make their way into a story, but columns bring in another question. Columnists are a different breed here, because they are giving a straightforward opinion, but does it help or hurt them to affiliate with a party or movement?
In the realm of columnists, I find myself enjoying those which are more independently minded, such as Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman. With the exception of Sullivan, these men have done a pretty good job of keeping the public guessing of which side they are on. Actually, Sullivan is almost better than the others, but he does label himself. He has called himself a conservative for a long while, but has endorsed Obama, spoken out in favor of gay rights and written of his disdain for Sarah Palin. He actually recently wrote an article about leaving the Right. He despises everything that the current American conservative movement stands for, but will still not say he is a liberal. He is doing a great job of opinion based journalism and still keeping himself labeled as an independent thinker.
On the other hand, people like Paul Krugman, Geore Will and Robert Novak have been more open about where they align themselves (Krugman a liberal and the latter two conservatives), but are still very much respected in their profession. They have taken an opposite route but still gained the respect of readers on both sides of the spectrum. I must say here though, I know Hitchens and Sullivan both speak out against labels or “cliques.” They find the idea of one ideology to run one’s life a very negative thing. I don’t think they are secretly wanting to come out with a party affiliation, I think they truly disdain them.
The reason I have trouble with this question is because of two reasons.
1) I feel that if a reader does not know my stances prior to reading me, my message will get across much more effectively (the quote, “if you label me, you negate me” comes to mind here)
2) I cannot make up my mind of where I would affiliate myself if I were to. I definitely lean to one side more than the other, but if I were to embrace that side for all it is worth, I would be forever labeled that and feel that I would not be taken seriously anymore. (see, I’m even hiding my affiliation now)
I think that party affiliation is necessary though. We live in a two party system and it is going to be that way for awhile. It is either going to be the Republicans or the Democrats that get elected, and I think it is important to align one’s self with a party if any progress is to be made. Many think that political affiliation automatically means sacrificing independent thought. I don’t think this is true. At the end of the day, Krugman, Will and Novak are still independently minded and thoughtful journalists, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are still crazies. They would be crazy even if they did not align themselves. A lack of affiliation would not make them independent thinkers. Krugman will still be a brilliant economist, regardless of whether or not he aligned himself.
More important than affiliation is a critical mind. Being able to call your side out when they are wrong and embrace the opposite side on an issue in which they are right on is what makes someone a respectable journalist. It shows a denial of one-sided thinking, and a willingness to asses something for what it really is. In short, I think journalists should affiliate themselves if they can. As long as they hold true to being logical and rational, they will serve an important purpose in the world of ideas.
Even terrorists blog
Okay, so in the instance I am about to refer to it wasn’t an actual terrorist, at least not one who has performed an attack himself, but simply an Islamic extremist who could arguably be the inspiration for Major Nidal Hasan’s attack on the Fort Hood army base. In all of the recent articles that I have read about Hasan, it seems that the evidence may point to some type of religious motivation originating from Islamic sources, but I am not going to make a conclusive claim about that yet.
Anwar al-Awlaki
What I am getting at is the extremist that he was in contact with prior to the Fort Hood incident, Anwar al-Awlaki. al-Awlaki was a cleric at the mosque that Hasan worshipped at in Virginia, and has since moved to Yemen. This is a man who regularly preaches jihad on America and runs a web site to promote his cause. The reason I am writing this post is a single sentence from the November 14 edition of The Economist.
It said, “In a blog after the attacks, Mr al-Awlaki called Major Hasan a hero.”
This struck me as funny that even the Islamic extremists have adapted to the new media environment and use the power of the internet to get their message heard. We tend to have this picture of Islam in our head of a tall, dark man in a Middle Eastern desert living in a cave and having the technology of an early hominid. This is obviously no longer true, if it ever was. As we can see, it is not even the simple videos that Osama bin Laden would record and send for the U.S. to see, they have moved beyond that.
Hasan may or may not have been religiously motivated, that is not at issue here. But al-Awlaki is what is of interest. People have causes, both rational and irrational, and they will use the necessary tools to get their voice heard. The internet is currently the best option available for that. One can get thousands of hits per day on a blog or web site. It is an excellent tool and even those who we don’t want to use it to their advantage have figured out how they can promote themselves in a more effective manner.
Logic in journalism
Thomas Friedman brought us one of the best opinion pieces that I have read in a long while yesterday. It seemed to be inspired by two things, the prominence of Sarah Palin in the news lately, and the struggle of climate bills to pass legislation. He didn’t specifically mention Palin, which was nice to see, but he referenced her notorious catch phrase, “drill baby drill.” The reason this article was so good was that it was a near perfectly sound logical argument. He laid out a straightforward case to explain why alternative energy and climate bills are good, regardless of one’s stance on global warming or off-shore drilling. He showed the hypocrisy of the proponents of keeping oil as the primary source of energy, and he did it in a fashion that was structured so well that it is almost impossible to miss his point. Opinion-based journalism in all areas is missing the logical connection in argumentation. Arguments are made but proper reasoning is lacking, Friedman got past this. Here is an excerpt from his piece:
So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don’t believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you’re hurting America’s future to boot.
I strongly suggest giving the article an entire read through.
The Guardian gets it right
Here is an example of quality journalism. The Guardian newspaper recently ran an article covering a study that concluded drinking alcohol in large quantities can cut one’s risk in half of contracting heart disease. Here is a blip from the article:
Until now, studies have pinpointed moderate drinking as being beneficial to heart health. But research reported today in the journal Heart found that men who consume large or very large amounts of alcohol are least at risk of developing the condition, which kills more than 90,000 Britons a year.
Men who drink regularly, even in small quantities, are more than 30% less likely to suffer from heart disease, it found. But those who drink the most cut their risk by the most. Those classed as high consumers of alcohol, between 30 and 90 grams per day, had 54% less chance of getting the disease, while those deemed to have a very high intake, of more than 90 grams or at least eight glasses of wine a day, were 50% less likely.
The point I have stressed before is to be non-partisan, not bi-partisan. In other words, don’t give equal time to both sides, report the news as it comes and don’t feel obliged to give the opposition time if it is not relevant. This article, which will obviously stir controversy, is simply reporting on the findings of a study. It does mention some downfalls of drinking heavily and quoted an opposition voice, but it concentrated for the most part on reporting a finding in an unbiased manner. There are obviously other sides to the issue of drinking, but that’s not what this was about, it was about a study where the results happened to turn up in favor of alcohol. It is an interesting article and is a fine example of good journalism. Two thumbs up Guardian!
The Sarah Palin extravaganza
Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin. That’s all I’ve been hearing for the past few days. Yes, I know, she has a new book out. Why is she still being covered so rampantly by so many media outlets? Didn’t her ticket, which she was the lesser portion of, lose last November? We’re not still hearing about everything John McCain says or does. So why Palin?
Well for one, she is easy to pick on. She has a level of wit that I think is below even former President Bush and she has shown time and again that she has sympathy for crazed ideas like the dinosaurs walking alongside humans around 4,000 years ago or that the rapture is coming within her lifetime. It is sad that someone with these views can come that close to public office, but now she’s a media favorite. At first glance she may be likable, but I can’t believe how easy it is to get a book deal today. Sadly, it will sell and she will get more supporters for it.
Here is a great take on her from Christopher Hitchens via Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
Sarah Palin appears to have no testable core conviction except the belief (which none of her defenders denies that she holds, or at least has held and not yet repudiated) that the end of days and the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime.
Well said, Christopher. As scary as the thought of Palin is to someone like me, recent polls show that around 50 percent of Americans still do not accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is no wonder she can get attention. For the average gun-loving Christian male, Sarah Palin is a good looking politician who shares the same views. And as many noticed during the campaign, the ploy by McCain to pick Palin as a running mate was likely an attempt at attracting the Hillary supporters after she lost the Democratic bid to Obama.
I can understand the media attraction to her, but it still gives me an ill feeling in my stomach. I read an article recently saying that Mrs. Clinton was willing to sit down to coffee with her. As much as I don’t like Hillary, I can acknowledge the fact that Palin would be way out of her league when up against the current Secretary of State. Which brings up the point, why is Clinton wasting her time having coffee with someone who is more of an entertainer than a serious political figure? Shouldn’t she be worrying about our foreign relations?
This Palin nonsense is not going away anytime soon. It is present in all mediums of journalism and news, both positive and negative, and as long as Palin keeps talking or tweeting, journalists are going to jump on it. We are only witnessing the beginning of the Sarah Palin extravaganza.
What is the definition of a blog?
The technical definition of a blog, as given by dictionary.com, is “an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a web page.” This is a definition that many will agree with, it seems to fit the model. While even the blog that I am writing here fits this description, there are many “blogs” now that do not.
For instance, the two examples that I usually cite when discussing this is the New York Times and Slate.com. These are both well known news outlets, and both currently have “blogs” to compliment their web sites. So are these just blogs like the one I am writing, or are they professional columns that should be taken just as seriously as the editorials that appear daily in both publications? I think the latter is true here. They are not actually blogs, but columns under the guise of the “blog” title and format. They are still credible and they are sponsored by a professional news outlet, just as a column or editorial is.
So why call it a blog then? To someone like myself, this is a term that is not necessarily positive. I think blogs serve an important purpose for writers and journalists, but I will admit that they are not professional columns, at least in the sense that most of us think of them. The term “blog” must be a catchy meme that these sources have realized works. It is certainly the buzz of many different areas of communication.
Whether we like it or not, blogs are evolving and becoming more relevant. I don’t understand why a news source would want to use the title so often quite yet, but it seems to be working. We can no longer think of blogs as just online diaries written by Joe Blo, and dicitonary.com may have to change its definition.
Google News is your friend
Google seems to have a product for everything. The have everything from shopping to web surfing to movie times, and everything in between. They have all but monopolized the search engine industry, with a few decent ones trailing such as Yahoo! and Bing, and Google has taken over other areas with the endless number of services they offer. I remember hearing an interview with Google’s founder, Eric Schmidt, where he discussed what he saw as the future of the omnipresent search engine. He said that he wanted it to not only answer research type questions, but also ones such as, “What should I do today?” Kind of a scary thought, isn’t it? That Google may one day know you on a personal level by tracking your searches so that it can then suggest activities that you may engine. That is all Sci-Fi futuristic talk for now though. To get to the meat of this post, let’s talk about Google News.
A screen shot of Google News
The news service offered through Google is an interesting concept. It does not publish any information of its own, simply pulls from a plethora of news sources and online newspapers to present the reader with some of the best content that the web has to offer. I have had this as my homepage for a year or two now, and have been very pleased with it. Many of the leading stories come from the LA Times or the Washington Post, but others come from lesser known outlets who have interesting stories that may otherwise not have been seen.
The other handy option is Google alerts. Whenever I have searched for something within the news section of the site, I am offered the option to be notified whenever a new story comes out about the subject or person I am interested in. Let’s say, for example, that I am interested in Carl Sagan (I’ll use him since it was what would have been his 75th birthday today). I can tell Google that I want to hear about whenever he is in the news. So whenever a news story comes out about him, I receive notification about it. It is a great tool and a way to keep up on any given subject that one is interested in.
As a journalistic tool, Google News is a great asset to the online world of journalism. It helps to get reliable sources back into the open, and gives many different ones indispensable exposure by being featured on Google’s News page. Also, the fact that the user gets to choose what they want to be notified of is nice. Humans are selective readers as it is, the transition to online journalism will not change that. Google now helps us do that automatically.
Honestly, what can’t Google do? They have one of the highest rated e-mail services and offer every other internet tool imaginable. I give them two thumbs up.
An Orwellian view of newspapers
After waking up this morning and drinking some coffee, I decided to do some usual morning web-surfing. For some reason, I decided to look up quotes by George Orwell (Eric Blair for the avid fan). Maybe a little early morning inspiration? Or maybe that’s just always a great way to start the day. As I was reading through some quotes, I stumbled upon one that did the opposite of inspire me, it depressed me. The quote is:
“Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper.” –George Orwell
When I stumbled across this, I thought, “wow, is he right?” Now I’m not sure of the context of this quote or how he meant it, but I think it spurs worthwhile discussion. Newspapers, especially in today’s world, are often rushed to be put out. Any of us who have worked at a newspaper knows that when deadlines loom, double-checking and fact checking can sometimes go out the window. It’s sad, but true if a paper wants to have up to the minute information for the public to view. The up-to-the-minute information is more of a reality with todays online news, but things were probably just as rushed back in the glory days of newspapers.
So the question is, do newspapers get things wrong, and if so, how often? Of course they get things wrong now and then. Sometimes it’s just typos, but sometimes it’s misinformation, which is unfortunate but inevitable. It happens to the best of us. I would argue that these occurrences happen proportionally less in say, a well-researched book that took years to write. There is more time to fact check and spell check, and the number of errors will be driven down because there are years and months to correct, not hours and minutes. It is simple probabilities that newspapers will get things wrong from time to time.
So how do we deal with this, or can we? The argument takes on a much different form today because, as I have been writing about here for a while, people get their news from a large assortment of outlets. As pointed out in earlier posts, Twitter can serve as a self fact checker because the number of users it has are likely to filter out false information very quickly. But how would a newspaper get its false information filtered out? It’s not so easy now. Depending how often it is printed, mistakes and wrong facts can stay on the newsstands for days. So is Twitter and other social media more reliable in this sense?
Maybe, but I’m not willing to throw my lot in with them just yet. And now that newspapers can update their web sites instantaneously, they can filter out any mistakes themselves. I still think reporters have greater access to getting the right information than the average person on the street who will then update their Twitter, which makes me think that newspapers are still the better choice as a reliable resource. It is a bit of a depressing notion to think that Twitter may be more reliable than newspapers, but I hope that that’s all it is, a notion.
Thank you, Mr. Orwell, for providing at least the inspiration to write on this Friday morning.
Write to inform, not entertain
I’ve been reading a lot of articles lately about not only the evolution of journalism, but the future of it as a whole. This means not just the transfer in formats, but rather how professional journalists themselves are changing their writing styles. I read an article recently about the much dreaded fact that news is becoming more and more like entertainment, rather than news. It is a sad time for journalism if this is the case. When news outlets aim to give their readers what they want to hear, not what they need to hear, the valued “4th branch” of our government is in jeopardy.
There is an interview with the renowned journalist Christopher Hitchens that took place on a Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast about journalism. In it, Hitchens presents some important ideas. At one point, he references a book by Michael Frayn called The Tin Men, that presents a hypothetical survey conducted by a hypothetical newspaper. The questions goes along the lines of, “If a plane crash occurs, would you rather hear about the woman who just missed her flight, barely surviving, or the woman who just made her flight, thus dying in the crash.” This book was published in 1965, where this idea was only a hypothetical; now it is becoming more and more of a reality. In the same interview, Hitchens also mentions that ABC has a segment on their evening news titled, “ABC on your side.” As he points out, how can news be on your side? It is a ridiculous idea and defeats the purpose that a news channel is supposed to serve. Once again, they should give us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear.
I fear that this is a downfall of all formats of news. I have seen it on television, in print, online, and probably even on the radio as well. Yes, people enjoy being entertained, and I can see how it might attract more people to watch the news if it is entertaining, but it then ceases to be news. Us journalists need to take a serious look at our profession and do a quick reality check on what it is we are supposed to be doing. At a certain point, it needs to be acknowledged that a news source should not stoop down to the level of its readers if all they care about is reading something that makes them feel good. I would like to think that quality journalism will still attract readership, but that may be wishful thinking.
