Response to Sundance Clip

To be honest, I was somewhat slow in reacting to this clip.  I didn’t know how to take it.  Not being someone who has watched a lot of documentaries, the discussion lacked context.  Similarly, I do not plan on going into the business of documentary making.  The video lacked immediate significance for me. 

One line stood out in particular however.  It was when the man with the glasses said something along the lines of “listen for what you want to hear”.  I found this very interesting.  The statement promotes an idea of laissez-faire journalism, which allows the story to come to the journalist in lieu of the journalist seeking out the story.  This intrigued me because it went against a lot of what I’ve been told thus far.  I’ve been taught that as a journalist I must find the story, cut through the red tape, do my homework, and investigate all aspects.  Instead, the gentleman in the glasses is suggesting that the “silence” approach to interviews may be better.  It allows the speaker to really get at the heart of their message. 

I am interested in broadcast journalism.  This idea could be very useful.   Silence can always be edited out of the piece if need be or it could be kept.  Silence has a tendency to speak volumes about what is going on in the interview. 

There is also something to be said for not steering the story in a certain direction.  That is where unethical bias can come in.  Asking provoking questions is important and creates the story, but one must also let the subject share their piece.  Cutting off a subject can do as much harm as it can good when attempting to direct and interview in a certain direction. 

My other thoughts about the video are as follows.  I thought it was pretty cool that the man with the glasses was wearing a True/False sweater.  I did not know the documentary film festival was that well renowned.  I thought the gentleman to his left could use a haircut.  I also did not fully understand his comment about the journalism school and asking questions.  He said something along the lines of “journalists are never supposed to ask questions they don’t know the answers to”.  I think this doesn’t make sense.  Any journalism professor of mine has never told me that.  How are we supposed to gather knowledge and insight about a story if we can’t ask questions we are unsure about.  If we knew everything reporting would not be necessary.  I think a better statement would have been “always verify the answers to the questions that you aren’t sure about”.  This country would have been robbed of a lot of great journalistic pieces had the reporters only asked questions they knew the answers to.  In short I’m surprised and disappointed that a man in his position at such a famous film festival would make an ignorant statement like that. However, he is on the stage for a reason.   

Response to email scrutiny

I’ll begin with this.  I see nothing wrong with the use of the email and its quotations.  The email was sent to people for the purpose of being read.  It was not from a private account.  It was from an account that was and is paid for by tax dollars and monitored by the University.  The journalist obviously did his or her homework in writing this obituary and found the email.  Presumably, the quotations of the email contained nothing but condolences for the family and words of admiration for the departed.  It would not have harmed those hurting the most, the family of the deceased.  Having found the email, I believe the journalist was within his or her bounds to publish it. 

However, I also believe he or she should have talked to the professor beforehand.  While the reporter has done nothing that is legally wrong, he or she has potentially burned a bridge in the journalism department.  In a job market like this, one cannot afford to do that.  Similarly, it is usually in better taste for softer news like an obituary to inform people that their correspondences are being published.  Doing this can establish a good reputation as a journalist.  Similarly, when a reporter informs the professor of his or her intent, the conversation could shine new light on the deceased and lead the reporter to friends that knew the deceased better.  Similarly, the actions of the reporter reflect on the entire Missouri School of Journalism.  Despite its’ legality, such actions can reflect negatively on the school and possibly impact thousands of other journalists in their quests for credibility and careers.

I do not doubt that this probably crossed the reporters mind.  He or she probably considered all these pros and cons.  If I had to guess, the decision came down to deadlines and/or workload.  The reporter probably did not have the time to confirm something that they already knew that they had permission to do.  It is another step that slows the process of publication.  Our society values and rewards those who break the story first.  While an obituary is not breaking news, it is accompanied by content that is.  That content cannot be published with an incomplete obituary section.  Similarly, breaking news demands more time and energy.  Reporters make their mark breaking stories, not writing obituaries.  If I had to guess the reporter probably had other stories on their plate and deemed the obituary of low priority, diminishing their need to verify the email quotations. 

In short, I believe that in situations like this it really depends on the circumstances and the journalist themselves.  They must choose what to do.  If they feel comfortable possibly alienating a source in pursuit of a deadline, I do not hold it against them.  Journalism and life in general is about making hard choices.  If one can make a hard choice and be able to defend that choice on scrutiny with no regrets, I think they should go for it.   

Combat photography

The pictures blew me away at first.  They were so real! They were so beautiful!  They were so painfully honest!  Had I not read the article itself I would have never known that the soldiers, guns, and situations were all fake.  I had casually glanced at a caption that had contributed that particular photo to Spain.  I was surprised because I could not recall a major conflict in Spain but otherwise did not think much of it.  Then I read the article. 

Structurally, I think it was very well done.  Every two short paragraphs saw a fantastic photograph divide them.  Naturally, the photos accompanied the topic of the article at that point.  It not only gave me context, it kept me interested.  With today’s short attention span, this nuanced way of presenting a story seems very effective, at least for myself.  I eagerly read through the article hoping for new photos and tidbits and I was not disappointed.  If I ever find myself in charge of a website that produced news, that is the way I would present it. 

The content of the article was equally as interesting.  To be completely honest, I seriously do not foresee myself as a photographer in a war zone.  For one, I prefer broadcast journalism.  Secondly, being in an area where there is gunfire does not at all appeal to me.  However, if I was, a training session like this could be extraordinarily useful.  It would present the realities and necessities of photographing a military conflict in a consequence free environment.  I have never been in a warzone, but it seems to me that probably nothing would compare to the real thing.  That being said, an organization like “Conflict Photography Workshops” would presumably grant me some idea. 

Another reaction I had was happiness.  I was glad that the veterans who run “Conflict Photography Workshops” were able to channel their experiences as something positive for them and their families.   Most of what I hear about veterans returning home is their crippling PTSD, their permanent physical/emotional wounds, their inability to rejoin civilian life, and their inability to get a job.  It seems to me that organizations like “Conflict Photography Workshops” are a great way to combat the effects of a warzone. 

·      It provides a source of income for the soldiers and their families.

·      It is a job that the soldiers are expertly trained for.

·      It gives the soldiers returning home another mission or purpose.

·      It recreates the trauma of a battle without the real-life consequences.  This in turn conditions the brain to perhaps let go of the war and minimize the trauma. 

·      It trains journalists how to act and react to war situations, making them easier to work with as soldiers.  This takes a responsibility of the soldier and allows them to do their jobs and protect their people more effectively.

·      It grants both the participants and the workers the opportunity to work in the beautiful Spanish countryside. 

In conclusion, I find both the article and its content very cool. 

Native Advertising

I’m not going to lie.  Native advertising scares me.  It scares me because it is journalism willingly and knowingly feeding the public either false or twisted knowledge.  It betrays almost everything the institution stands for and what Walter Williams wrote about in his creed.  Unfortunately, it has been happening for a while now and probably will not stop.  The business insiders article only confirmed my fears.

Realistically, it seems that journalism has been heading this way for some time.  Somebody has to pay for publications.  Those publications cannot rely on subscriptions anymore due to the pace and freedom of information thanks to the Internet.  It seems that only advertisers can bridge the gap.  Naturally, when a company pays for something that will be read by many, it reflects on them.  They want nothing but positive press.  They want their products and company shown in a good light.  Before native advertising came to prominence, publications were already subject to review by its advertisers whether they’d like to admit it or not.  Any publication with sane leadership would not run a story that attacked an advertiser.  This is a form of censorship.  My point is that companies have been impacting the news cycle for some time and will until the rise of a revolutionary new method of funding. 

As long as there is diversity in the ownership of companies, I do not think this is an Armageddon level of encroachment on journalistic freedom.  There are Liberal companies and there are conservative companies.  There are environmentally conscious companies and there are economically conscious companies.  There are companies run by minority CEO’s and there are companies that are run by WASP’s.  They all need to advertise.  They all need their voice heard.  What will presumably result from native advertising is two very distinct interpretations on the state of affairs.  Publication A will tout the benefits of their backers point of view.  Publication B will support the converse.  Ultimately, this puts the citizen in a powerful position to decide which makes the most sense to them.  However, this puts a great deal of responsibility on the citizen.  Gone are the days where they were spoon fed the neutral truth about an issue.  Publications will lambast eachother for perceived inaccuracies in their reporting.  An educated public will have to sift through it.  Thus, as a side effect of native advertising, education of the masses becomes critical.  It is now up to the citizen to find out what is true. 

Of course, truth is a very relative term.  What is true to one can be a blasphemy to another.  Again, does this really change much?  Do we not already live in a world where people deny Global Warming despite a mountain of evidence?  Do we not live in a world where, despite literally millions of years of data, people still doubt Darwin’s ideas of Natural selection?  I believe that the growth of Native advertising is a not a good event, but not one that should be mourned over.  Misinformation is already the norm.