Story Abstracts for Week 7

Story Abstracts for Week 7

 

            We’ve all the heard the saying – a picture is worth a thousand words. But what if those words are offensive or obscene or insensitive? What if you were an editor and an amazing photo came across your desk, but the subject matter was such that it might disturb or alienate some of your paper’s audience? Would you still run it? The first article I read was Roy Peter Clark’s “You Be the Editor,” which focused on a series of photographs taken in Fallujah, Iraq, nearly four years ago. Many of the photos depict disturbing images of “charred and dismembered remains of American civilians” and Iraqis rejoicing over the carnage. These powerful images go a long way towards informing the public of the hostile, dangerous conditions in Fallujah, much more so than any written words could. The dilemma, however, is determining whether  these photos are fit to run in a publication viewed by mass amounts of people. Clark outlines three sets of questions any editor should ask before deciding on the use, placement and description of the images.

            The three major issues Clark tackles in his article are whether to run the image, how to run it, and the consequences of the decision. Each of the three has a subset of questions that follow it to further aid in the process of choosing what images should be run, where they should be run, and what will happen if they are run in the paper. While the questions he asks are specific to the Fallujah photos, the majority of the possible considerations can be adapted to nearly any questionable picture. I think this article was very helpful in guiding young editors in their decision-making processes. The desire to tell, or show, the truth has often butted heads with the goal of being sensitive and not causing any harm. The line between offensive and ground-breaking can be a thin one, and the answers to the questions Clark proposes could be crucial in determining which side of the line an editor stands on. The only issue I had with this article is that it offered no answers to any of the questions asked. Even though the title of the story encourages the reader to be the editor, I think it would’ve been more helpful if Clark included some input of his own. What would he do in a similar situation? The story is beneficial in that it promotes critical thinking, but lacking in that it offers no guiding contributions of its own.

            The second article I read was Keith M. Woods’ “Nicknames & Mascots: Complicity in Bigotry,” which also touched on the theme of providing “as much truth as possible while doing as little harm as necessary.” In the story, Woods proclaims his dislike of the use of Native American traditions and imagery as mascots and symbols for sports teams, both college and professional. He proposes providing coverage of these teams without using their Native American nicknames, and argues that a publication can still be accurate without mentioning these offensive monikers outright. In Woods’ opinion, the traditions of these universities and pro teams should not take precedent over the traditions of Native Americans, and the printing of the names Redskins, Savages and Seminoles is no less offensive than printing the n-word in a newspaper. He encourages journalists to address the issue as a matter of principle, not policy, and states that these nicknames should not be used at all.

In my opinion, Woods assesses the usage of Native American nicknames for sports teams as insensitive, insulting and uneducated. I agree, to some extent, that “nearly all [of these mascots] freeze Native Americans in an all-encompassing, one-dimensional pose: the raging, spear-wielding, bareback-riding, cowboy-killing, woo-woo-wooing warriors this country has caricatured, demonized, and tried mightily to exterminate.” It seems, however, that Woods is calling every student and athlete at every one of these schools, as well as the journalists who cover them, a racist. The teams he mentions have been using these names for decades, some centuries, and while the nicknames may have not been founded on the most sensitive ground, they do not define the current state of opinion at these schools. Essentially, Woods is arguing that any Florida State fan that partakes in the tomahawk chop is an offensive bigot. I think this is a very inaccurate portrayal of FSU (even though I passionately dislike the school). This brings me to my argument that, overall, the article was of questionable use to an editing student. Woods promotes one of the major tenets of journalism – being truthful while remaining sensitive to all members of the audience – but turns his back on another significant code of all journalists: remaining objective.HMMM, WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THAT ONE – FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY OBJECTIVE? He doesn’t take into consideration any viewpoint that might support the use of these nicknames, and writes them off as irrational and patently offensive. Because this is an editorial-style story, I think it is too opinionated and partial to educate young journalists on the importance of sensitivity. HMMMM, OK, BUT BY ITS VERY NATURE IT IS DIDACTIC.

The final article I read was not about accuracy versus sensitivity, but it still adheres to the theme of not publishing questionable material. In this instance, the question is whether newspapers should allow stories to run that involve some sort of conflict of interest. Edward Wasserman’s “The murky world of conflicts of interest,” describes a situation in which the Los Angeles Times opinion editor, Andres Martinez, decided to get “prominent outsiders to guest-edit Sunday sections” who would be charged with the task of trying to “come up with ideas, find writers [and] shape the final product.” The conflict of interest arose when it was made apparent that producer Brian Grazer, who Martinez slotted to guest-edit the inaugural run, was referred by a publicist whom Martinez’s girlfriend works for. The paper did not want to give the appearance that it had selected Grazer because of a connection between Martinez’s significant other and the publicist that recommended Grazer. The primary question in the article, or at least what I gathered it to be after sifting through some unclear language, is where to draw the line between an actual conflict of interest and a perceived one.

The argument seems to be in favor of throwing out stories that involve a conflict of interest, but running stories that have a perceived conflict of interest, so long as it is noted in the publication why this perception of conflict is not actually such. In simpler terms, a newspaper should not refuse to run a story just because it might look like there is some conflict involved. As long as this supposed conflict does not alter the accuracy and fairness of the story, it should be published. Instead of shying away from a story that might raise questions of a possible conflict of interest, a paper should publish it, along with an explanation of why there is no conflict. I believe this is what Wasserman is proposing, and if I am correct, then I agree with him. If I have misunderstood his argument, which is possible due to the occasional use of overly-elegant language and the poor formatting of the story, then I have provided my own stance on the subject. If a publication withholds stories because it fears what its audience might perceive, instead of taking the time to show why their readers’ perception of a conflict is understandable, but unreal, then that publication is not completely fulfilling its job as a fair and accurate informer of the public.