While I found “Skeptical Editing” to be a very well written article that touches on several crucial aspects of thorough editing, the first thing that really came to my attention was a fact error. I think it’s ironic that an article focused on then necessity of careful editing contains a misspelling of its author’s name. While it is not an issue of fabricating a story or making up sources, I still think the kind of flawless editing that is discussed in the article should be practiced on the article itself. According to the top of the story, the author’s name is Reid MaCluggage, while at the bottom, it is Reid MacCluggage. This error doesn’t detract from the importance of the issues raised within the article, but I always think it’s worth noting when editing stories are partially unedited.
Beyond the misspelling, the article provided a reasonable and usable system of preventing “deeply flawed” reporting. According to the author, dishonest reporters aren’t as much of a problem as unchallenged information, and I believe this to be true. Many times a reporter or editor is too blinded by the chance to crack a major story before anyone else to go back and make sure that every fact is correct and every source is completely accurate. I like the idea of prosecuting a story to find any holes in the information. Making it someone’s job to try and shoot down the story should eliminate many of the falsified stories that make it to press. While it might seem like a waste of resources to assign a reporter or editor to be the “devil’s advocate,” or an adversary to the story, it would serve not only as a function of ensuring truth and accuracy in all reporting, but also as a safeguard for any publication against a libel or defamation suit. I think reporters and editors are often so caught up in having an exclusive story, that they assume every piece of information gathered is either completely true or completely false, and don’t take into consideration that which is uncertain, and not proven one way or the other. It is a journalist’s job to present the truth to the audience, but if the “truth” is unverified or uncertain, it should not be reported as such. Journalists seem afraid to say that they are unsure of anything, because the audience holds them to an expectation of knowing everything. If writers and editors would just admit, occasionally, that they do not have the answer to absolutely every question, it would give them a lot more credibility than making up an answer to an uncertainty.
The second reading is a brief overview of the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which “authorized the formation of joint operating agreements among separate competing newspaper operations within the same market area.” These joint operating agreements allowed newspapers to combine business operations while maintaining separate newsgathering and writing operations, so that two different papers could be printed from the same press at different times of the day. By consolidating advertising and distribution departments, more papers were able to remain competitive and stay afloat in a society of decreased newspaper readership. I think these joint operating agreements were probably much more effective before the advent of the Internet and 24-hour-a-day news coverage television channels. Newspapers seem to be on the decline over the past few years, and will probably continue to lose readers as more and more news outlets arise given the rapid increase of information technology. It is difficult to argue for the necessity of two daily papers in the same market, unless that market is a very large city. Hardly anyone reads evening daily papers anymore, and it seems like instead of arranging an agreement between papers to stay separate, these operations would struggle less if they were joined completely, instead of just in the business department. I think in markets like these, the two newspapers should join forces, and print one paper per day instead of two. This consolidated paper would offer more complete coverage of local issues, have more staff to cover national and international issues, be able to cover a broader range of stories, and stand a better chance of survival in a market dominated by Internet and television news. If these papers continue to stay separate, I believe profits will sink lower and lower, until neither of the papers is able to continue.
The next article was an interview conducted by USC Annenberg’s Online Journalism Review. The subject was Debbie Galant, a former columnist for the New York Times who now runs Barista of Bloomfield Ave., a site that covers a small town in New Jersey. The interview focused on yet another new medium in the journalism industry: a hyperlocal blogging publication. The publication and those like it have created new competition for the traditional local newspaper. As more people are turning to the Internet for their national and international news, a need has come about for more in-depth coverage of local issues on the Net. The Barista site provides an interactive means of informing the public in a relatively cheap and instantaneous manner. With a small staff of reporters and freelancers, the site has attracted many new readers, and has become a credible source for local news.
I like the idea of news blogging, because I think it encourages readers to become involved in the community. With an interactive news medium, the audience can weigh in on issues that will affect them personally, instead of just being told what is happening around them. The site also features live chats with public figures in the community. I think these interviews would be of more interest than a television news interview because the site probably asks several questions that the audience members themselves want answered, instead of just asking what the producer or managing editor of the television news program thinks is relevant. One major problem I see with news blogging such as this is establishing credibility for the site. Some readers may be more skeptical of news found on a blog site, even if it is in a professional tone, because anyone with any kind of opinion can have some input on the issue. In order for a site like this to gain credibility, it must stay focused on reporting accurately and effectively, and monitoring audience responses for false information or damaging, insensitive remarks. The other major issue I see in getting one’s news from a site like this is the lack of objectivity. Galant even admits that the site does have a point of view, and is somewhat subjective. I think so long as the readers are aware that there could be some slight bias in some of the stories, it is a viable means of staying informed. But if a reader expects a totally unbiased version of the news, he should look elsewhere. Interactive news media will inherently have conflicting view points, because no two people have completely like opinions and beliefs. Nonetheless, these types of sites will probably continue to flourish as people become less willing to rely solely on the big corporation news groups to supply them with their news.
I didn’t like the “’Potemkin Village’ Redux” article by Tom Grubisich as much as the article featuring the interview with Debbie Galant. While both stories focused on the new trend of hyperlocal blogging, the Galant interview lends some credibility to the argument that sites like these can flourish and provide solid news coverage. Grubisich, however, is quite unimpressed by these sites, and devoted most of the article to discussing the drawbacks and failures of the medium. He seems to be arguing that limited readership, faint economic success and untrained staff members make these sites just slightly more informative than spam e-mail. He mentions that many “professional journalists” have questioned how legitimate sites like these really are, and because these hyperlocal blogs are comprised mostly of “amateur” work, they are not very useful. I think the primary reason Grubisich wrote this article was to mock these attempts at providing a more interactive, audience friendly means of presenting the news. He uses demeaning, exaggerated language and an abundance of statistics to make his points, instead of discussing what these sites could do to get better. He assumes that the sites are useless because they are not very profitable, and have not completely caught on in all the major news markets. What he makes no mention of, however, is how skeptical everyone was of the Internet when it first saw commercial use in the early 1990s. Less than 15 years later, the Net has become the epitome of growth and success. While it is true that many of these sites have a lot of work to do before they are viewed as credible news sources, I don’t think it was necessary for Grubisich to spend an entire article tearing down the hard work that many of these sites have done in an attempt to further the mission of providing the public with an interactive means of getting news.
Doug Fisher’s “Common Sense Journalism” also focused on hyperlocal journalism. He also calls it “citizen journalism,” “participatory journalism” and “community storytelling.” He offers a much better explanation of this new trend than Grubisish does in his article. Fisher is much more positive about the integration of readers into the news process. He offers tips for up-and-coming blogging news sites, and believes that sites like these will continue to grow and multiply in the years to come. He says he believes that sites like these will increase the ability of local news providers to connect with their readers. The advice he offers includes being very particular when it comes to the details of the site, making the site readable and usable to the average person, taking the time and money to tweak the software, constantly promoting the site, and including many pictures and items that will draw an audience. This article seems mostly like a short self-help manual for start-up online newspaper organizations, and encourages the interaction between the writer and reader.
Case Study for Week 3
It’s not often that an eagle comes swooping out of the air and snatches up a small family pet. Or is it? The reader wouldn’t know from reading the “Eagle Snatches Dog While Owner Watches” story from Valdez, Alaska. While the story is quite entertaining (unless you are a serious dog lover), it seems to lack many important features of solid newsgathering and writing. The first thing I noticed upon reading this short piece was the lack of concrete details and sources. The dog that was snatched up is described as “chihuahua-like,” and the dog’s owners are listed as “an unidentified couple from Georgia.” The only source utilized is Dennis Fleming, a gas station attendant who saw the dog-snatching take place. The quotes attributed to the owners of the dog are not substantial, and only what the attendant overheard. I do not consider “Oh, my God,” and “Yeah! Yeah!” to be strong or necessary quotations. No reporter actually spoke to the couple, so the details are based solely on the depiction provided by the attendant, who phoned in the story after viewing the odd occurrence. Single-source stories are dangerous because there is no verification of what actually happened, and the credibility of the story is lessened.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the case study, there is also no supplemental information given. There is no mention of whether or not this happens often or seldom, or information on the eating habits of the bald eagle, or a follow-up of what happened subsequently. The story almost seems insensitive and callous, as if this was more of a joke than a hard news story. While it only really affects the owners of the dog, and apparently only the woman owner at that, it still made the story seem laughable instead of unfortunate. There were also some assumptions made in the story that weren’t really verified. For instance, the lead of the story says that “a bald eagle satisfied its hunger” when it snatched up the dog, but no one actually saw the dog being eaten, and if someone had, there is no realistic way of knowing that eating the dog actually satisfied the eagle’s hunger. The author of the story also claims that the husband “didn’t appear to take the dog’s departure too seriously.” This information must have been provided by Fleming, but there is no way of knowing if his assessment of the owner’s reaction was accurate. Also, many newspapers would not allow the word “damnedest” to go into print. Some may say that one shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. I would take this as meaningful advice if in the instance of just telling my friends a funny anecdote, but if I worked for a publication, read by many, I’d be a little more skeptical of printing a story before it was completely looked into and verified.
