Blog 6

Justin Smith

COMS220

4/8/11

Blog 6

            Last Friday, NBC News anchorman Keith Olbermann was put on indefinite suspension without pay for making monetary donations to three Democratic candidates. Olbermann had full knowledge that this behavior is prohibited by NBC News, yet he proceeded with it anyway.

            What’s the big deal? There shouldn’t be anything wrong with a man privately donating money to political candidates he wants to endorse. However there is a written or unwritten code of conduct somewhere that prohibits journalists from public participation in political, religious, or other activities that “may compromise their integrity or damage their credibility.”

            This should be respectfully abolished, and journalists should be allowed to dig their own grave if they choose to because they are Americans and have freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and should be able to put their money wherever they want.

            Freedom of speech doesn’t need to be explained. It’s the right to say what you want to say, with the slight exception of having to be politically correct when on television or radio. However, it’s perfectly within politically correct boundary lines to choose the Democratic party.

            Almost the same as freedom of speech, is freedom of opinion. Someone – anyone should be able to freely state their opinion, no matter how right or wrong they may be. They may be deemed a fool to air their opinion so loudly, but it’s a choice, and a right. So long as the person is not imposing his or her opinions upon someone else, then there just can’t be anything wrong with it.

Finally, if someone’s opinion is in favor of a Democratic candidate, then can’t he or she make a choice to fund that candidate with his or her own money? Olbermann didn’t impose his opinions upon anyone else, but he simply donated money to three different candidates. Now tell me what’s wrong with that.

In summary, I don’t think there should be anything wrong with journalists publicly participating in political, religious, or other activities that may or may not compromise their integrity or credibility. It’s at the journalist’s personal discretion.

Justin Smith

Blog 5

COMS220

3/25/11

            Have you ever been distracted? Well, of course you have. We all have at one point or another. Sometimes we’re distracted from little things, and sometimes we’re distracted from things of much greater importance. But has your distraction ever led to the death of an innocent child? The article titled, “Fatal Distraction,”

written by Gene Weingarten focuses on numerous instances of parents forgetting their children in their cars, and the children dying of hyperthermia (a form of heat-stroke) as a result.

This article was not an easy one to read, but I believe that it was extremely well written and practical to the public as a whole. The central idea is that people, through a slue of unexpected distractions or out-of-the-ordinary routine changes, can become so distracted that they forget even their child in the back seat of their car, go about their day, and return several hours later to find a dead baby in the back seat. Many ask, “What kind of person forgets a baby?” The article returns and says that, “the wealthy do, it turns out. And the poor, and the middle class. Parents of all ages and ethnicities do it. Mothers are just as likely to do it as fathers.”

Despite the seriousness and morbidity of this article, I felt it was a good feature article. It focused mainly on a court case of a man who had accidentally left his child in his car one hot summer day. The child had died, and the jury was deliberating on whether to accuse this man as guilty of manslaughter. It was a dreadful and dramatic case, but in the end, the man was ruled not guilty, and despite the child’s death, the article ended on a good note.

I think it’s important that the public realize the dangers of distraction, especially when young ones are involved. The result of distraction could prove to be fatal.

Oh, this is old news.

Upon review of the news documentary clips, I found that there was a word that was often repeated. This word held significance, and possibly the very future of news stations and publications worldwide. This word? “Local.” Local, local, local. That’s what people want in news. They want information that pertains directly to them – even if it’s not dubbed “news” at all. This information can be gossip, or new trendy clothing styles, all the way down to the scores for the local high school basketball game. The news used to be dry, straight, informational, to the point, etc. That was what news was and it was accepted as such. However, times have changed, and so have news values from informational, to entertainment, and local news.

         This shift has dramatically altered the way a large news publication such as The New York Times, or the Chicago Tribune works. Old-fashioned printed newspapers are quickly phasing out, and the newspapers have to work harder every year, and produce more than the year before just to keep their stockholders satisfied. The emergence of amateur online video news shows has seriously caught the attention of the major corporations and threatens their existence. These amateur news shows are entertaining, and relevant – two qualities that the newsrooms greatly lack.

         A student who is considering a career in the news business may want to greatly consider the cost before proceeding into it. The news business really isn’t the news business anymore. The news that sells is entertainment, and if the student is willing to sacrifice the values of the news and it’s true role – informing the people of what is going on in the world – then he or she will more than likely have a successful “news” career. However, if the student remains true to old-fashioned news, he or she would be wise to watch out because he or she may be out of a job soon. 

Mission Possible: Objectivity

Justin Smith

COMS220

Alban

2/16/11

Mission Possible: Objectivity

            After reading through the two opposing articles on objectivity in journalism, I’ve gathered some thoughts. I’m here to answer the question, “Can journalism be objective,” and for a short answer, up front and vulnerable, I will say yes.

            The first article that I read, which promoted objectivity in journalism, simply made more sense to me than the second article. Essentially, the message that was conveyed was that objectivity in journalism is a reality; you just have to play your cards right and state facts. You may have to betray friends in the process of being objective, or you may have to be a little more modest than you normally would when writing about the high accolades of your company. However, the fact still stands, objectivity in journalism is possible.

            Taflinger’s opposing article went heavily into the senses of the body and how we have the ability to detect external things with our physical body. He used holding a cup of coffee as an example of this. He said that when holding a cup of coffee, the brain is able to realize that it is hot, while another part realizes it’s weight, and another realizes it’s shape, and so on. He says that not everyone interprets these signals the same way, which I would agree with. However, I don’t believe that the physical senses of the body and objectivity in journalism are very comparable. When objectivity in journalism is done right, there shouldn’t be much, if any, room for interpretation, but simply factual content. The objective writer takes a “third party” position and evaluates the pros and cons of either side, discovers facts of either side, whether positive, negative, or neutral, and then states them in a clear, concise, and consistent manner.

            If the writer can do this, then objectivity has been achieved. Now to sum it up: I believe that objectivity is possible, but not necessarily easily achieved. It takes a great deal of skill, and not to mention self-control to be an objective writer, but it is possible to achieve objective journalism. 

To Lie, or Not To Lie?

                                            To Lie, or Not To Lie? 

In the article “Why Tell the Truth,” Joseph Stowell sheds light on the virtues of the forgotten value of truth; moreover, he exposes the incredible detriments of falsehood. Stowell explains the spiritual consequences of lying, and the different forms of non-truth that manifest in daily life. These different forms of non-truth are beguilement, deceit, lying, and false witness. Stowell identifies specific passages in the Bible for reasons that we, as Christians, shouldn’t lie. A few of the specific passages can be found in Proverbs 6:17, Revelation 21:8, and Psalm 51:6. Truth is so important to God – it aligns us with Him, and when we speak non-truth, we are actually identifying with the devil and his nature, rather than God.

Nowadays, it’s very easy to let non-truth slip through the cracks and be found as acceptable. Modern journalists sometimes speak non-truth through beguilement. Beguilement is the tendency to come to a wrong conclusion or false assumption about someone or something without sufficient evidence to prove it as true. This can lead to destructive rumors and vilification of someone’s reputation.

While beguilement is defined as jumping to false conclusions without sufficient facts, deceit is taken certain facts and twisting them to distort truth. Stowell uses a Biblical example to display deceit in it’s most original form. He uses Satan’s presentation of the tree to Eve and how he twisted the words of God to make Him appear to be a restrictive and unloving God, rather than a God who is genuinely loving and caring for the well being of his creation. Deceit destroys trust, and tears down relationships, and ultimately led to the fall of man.

Lying is the most direct way of communicating non-truth of the four forms that Stowell describes. We lie almost every day. We all know what it is, and it almost doesn’t need any explaining. Many believe the lies of the devil because he’s so good at it. He’s the father of lies – it’s his language. According to Stowell, “Lying is the strength of Satan’s system. Not only does he lie, but his desire is that we will lie as well. When we lie, we imitate Satan rather than God.” That’s a harsh reality.

The fourth form of non-truth that we use is false witness. Many have, to some degree more than others, given false testimony against someone for their own personal gain. It’s destructive, and God’s tenth commandment to us says not to do it.

I believe that Stowell does a great job in explaining the damage and consequences that non-truth has. He also logically breaks down all of the nuances of non-truth and it’s different forms. This is a must read for the modern Christian journalist!

COMS220 blog 1

Justin Smith

COMS220

Alban

1/24/11

Blog 1

            If I properly understand the article and have accurately interpreted what Aikman is trying to say, then I would agree with him in saying that journalism these days portrays, in many instances, “self-worship and idolatry.” Journalists are so wrapped up in creating a ridiculous and often outrageous story for the sake of shock value, gossip, popularity, etc. that they’ll write about anything. Aikman states, “Much of the decline in respect must derive from a widespread sentiment that journalists have gradually distanced themselves from the standards of integrity that were once broadly practiced by the profession.” To say that there is a decline in respect, in this day and age, for journalists may be an understatement in my opinion; furthermore, there’s more evidence than just my opinion alone. James Fallows, writer of the book WHY AMERICANS HATE THE MEDIA, points out that there are patterns in movies and television shows for just about the last 20 years showing the utter pestilence of journalists. In regards to journalists, he says they have “been portrayed, on average, as more loathsome than the lawyers, politicians or business moguls who are the traditional bad guys in films about the white-collar world.” Now this is all since the 1980’s, and I don’t feel that the situation or outlook on journalists has improved much since then.

            This all leads me to a logical question: is there a solution? Now, for the secular world, I’ll say no, certainly not. There probably isn’t a solution or a hope of redemption for secular journalists – it’s just a slippery slope into deeper muck and mire and “self-worship and idolatry.” However, Aikman points out later in the article regarding the definition of Christian journalism that the key to how successful a journalist you are relies on how truthful you are. It’s simple, yet powerful. Aikman closes with this point: a Christian journalist will only be as successful as his or her degree of holiness extends. So what does that say for Christian journalists? It says that we have a big opportunity to make a big difference in the way the world views journalists and we need to be good stewards of that responsibility.