Journalism textbook are basically a hard copy version of what journalists are told on the job. For example chapter 4 has some of the most basic journalism values spelled out for us. Yet it is so easy to mess up! A lot of times when you are in a desperate need for quotes, you end up quoting "dull, repetitive, ill-phrased,...or just plain dumb quotes." I now wonder what happens when the interviewees quotes are all just worth paraphrasing...is it possible to write a story with no quotes? Is that allowed? Anyway, the book makes great points about quotes, and about what to write and what not to write. Like the part about capturing dialect, or correcting grammar. I think it is okay to correct grammar, but I feel that the choice once made should me made consistently. For instance, the example of the president. Most of us kow, that public speaking and impeccable sentences are not the President's cup of tea. Therefore, we should present the quote as it is. But the two most important things that was discussed was the need of accuracy and the topic of anonymous sources. Quotes are probably the most important part of a story- it can bring accolades through the revelation of information or it can bring a lawsuit thorugh the revelation of incorrect information. WE NEED TO BE ACCURATE!
I did a story on anonymous sources for a workshop that I attended. I did the story during the Judith Miller case where this topic was especially prominent. I persoally think that the quality of the quotes should be the cause of a promise of anonymity. Yet a condition should be made that in case of excruciating circumstances aka a court trial, the journalist should be allowed to disclose the source, but only after the permission of the source in question.
The timeline reading was basically an informational page on the need to be clear. As a journalist, I have so much to tell, but I remember my teacher in high school telling me that I should write so that even a five-year-old can understand what I am saying. When the author said that the journalist should not have the reader click on something that he or she does not know the destination to. Similarly, I do not want to give the reader information that either proves futile or takes the reader to a new level of confusion.
I especially liked the poynter article because it showed journalism in action. I really liked how the blog prompted a petition and other similar action. Journalism is a service to the public. But a responsibilty to respond also lies within the public. Together many things can happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes! The textbook *is* what journalists learn on the job. And accuracy is at the heart of the job.
About the question of revealing sources: If one of the values of journalists is information for the public good, and if an anonymous source told me something that could drastically alter lives -- and that I could only make use of if I divulged the source, I think I would divulge the source. Of course, every case is different, but I've wondered about what other journalists would do in such a case.
Post a Comment