What’s informative and what’s funny?

This last week was reported to have been the most watched week ever for The Daily Show with John Stewart, with about 1.9 million viewers per episode. With such an increase in viewers during this past news worthy week I wonder how many people are tuning into the Daily Show to laugh, and how many are watching to get their news.

Either way the popularity and recognition of the shows funny but poignant stabs at current political and economic issues makes me want to know if there is any comparable satirical efforts within the world of print journalism beyond the comic strip?

Maybe in today’s climate of slumping sales and fewer print newspapers a little humor could go a long way to increase the number of readers.

ARTICLE FROM NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/arts/26arts-DAILYSHOWENJ_BRF.html

Responsible Headlines

Sensational emotionally charged headlines may move papers, but some are realizing they can have far reaching consequences.

In a New York Times article earlier this week called “Amid Turmoil, Some Try to Tone Down Emotion” Richard Perez-Pena discusses that many news papers are avoiding some words during this economic situation. Among the words on the do not use list are

CRASH, MELTDOWN, and APOCALYPSE.

the article states the reason for such precautions are because “This year, the media have been accused of contributing to the collapse of both Bear Stearns and IndyMac, a large California thrift, so journalists are more aware of the risk of stoking fear — and the risk of being blamed.”

Although not every newspaper has adopted a new way of valuing the risk factors involved with giant sensational headlines many have.

While fallowing my local paper the Idaho Statesman I was hard pressed to find any of the words accused of causing fear and panic, instead the headlines used words like “turmoil” and “mess” as if this financial problem could in fact be cleaned up. One headline especially stood out to me “Idaho treasurer says state investments are 'safe” perhaps used to even help calm some peoples fears about the this confusing economic situation.

I was happy to realize that the media and especially newspapers are aware of, and are taking steps towards being a responsible help and not hindrance to the public. Especially in a day and age where far too often the media is accused of inciting fear amongst the public it tries to serve.

article link
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/media/22press.html

Protecting Confidential Sources- A Panel Discussion

News is to inform the public. Often this means digging a little deeper and uncovering often un-flattering truths. Illegal business deals, corruptible politicians, and unscrupulous practices by any number of people are things good reporting can uncover. To disclose such things can often lead to legal proceeding and lawyers and judges alike would love to know why and by whom such facts were discovered.

A journalist to gain access to such info will usually be by someone closely related to the problem. These sources at times are promised in exchange for the information anonymity.

Currently a law to protect the journalist and their anonym’s sources does not exist on a national level. Due to this fact often journalists will be summoned to court to disclose names and information, and face jail time if they don’t comply. One person who has faced this possibility was RonNell Anderson, a speaker at tonight’s discussion. Helping her fight off the legal issues and keep her source confidential was journalist turned lawyer Jeffrey J Hunt, who was also present for the discussion. The third speaker in attendance was M. Dayle Jeffs who was a part of a Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee that helped put into law Rule 509 which gave the state of Utah a long awaited shield law to protect journalists and their sources.
Hunt and Jeffs covered the issue in the context of state laws. Each state is left to make their own laws concerning the issue and Utah was one of the last to create their own. Many factors helped make this a reality such as increased media attention and a general consensus amongst local media groups to push for and support the formation of such a law.

Anderson on the other hand focused on the issue on the national level. This issue and the problems which confidential sources can cause is a recurring debate and has been discussed on capital hill and in national courts. Each time it happens the same arguments are raised. Anderson said these arguments revolve back to the argument that the small number of confidentiality problems does not justify legal intervention on a national level. Anderson, who has helped collect data that says otherwise, disagrees with this conclusion.

For me the most interesting question this issue raises is the question of what constitutes a journalist. I was surprised to hear many journalists adamantly oppose such laws. These journalists say that one, claiming protection under the first amendment is sufficient, and two, arguing such laws could be a slippery slope leading into a government regulated news media. These fears perhaps stem from the necessity of the law to define what constitutes a journalist, and in today’s world of online bloging and other online news groups the definition continues to broaden.

It is my hope that if I continue in the pursuit to become a journalist in what ever context that ends up being that there will be at that time laws to protect myself and others in their endeavors to educate and inform about things that may otherwise go un-heard.

I believe in the profession of Journalism

In the Journalist’s Creed written by Walter Williams it is interesting that it starts out with the statement “I believe in the profession of Journalism.” this wording and phrase at first glance reads a little awkward and perhaps, as we discussed in class, somewhat outdated. However, as I contemplated what is journalism and who is a journalist I realized the modern importance of what was some of the first answers to the question.

A journalist despite the medium or method should hold most strongly to two points that of truth and a responsibility to the public to which they present and unfold these truths.

More and more people are questioning not only the truthfulness of what is reported but the very reason behind the reporting of it. Giant media corporations are owned by big business, and many believe they sensor or control what makes the news, and what hits the cutting room floor. Still other news organizations are accused of presenting slanted views and biased opinions.

I remember a conversation with a friend who said they can’t read or watch the news anymore because it’s just entertainment and not informative.

Many people with these views and frustrations have turned to the internet, blogs and independent sources to try to filter out some of the influences that have been brought upon major news corporations. Truly the line of who is a journalist is beginning to blur, and transcend press passes, paper and a pen.

So as a journalist is redefined and people loose faith in the governing principles of fair and balanced news that goes beyond a lead in line my thoughts again turn to Walter Williams words, “I believe in the profession of Journalism.” for William these words were a declaration and now many years later I feel they are more of a reassurance that journalism still is a profession, one which plays an important role in our democratic world.