Journalism and faith can easily mix. I think that faith can mix into any profession, and easily at that. A moral journalist is more respected than one who doesn’t have or practice moral journalism. Lying to get the answers that one wants and faking sources take place at times in the field of journalism. If someone does not practice journalism with morals the field becomes much less trusted. I think that a Christian doesn’t need to necessarily be outward about their faith, but needs to live like a moral follower of Christ.
I don’t think that faith is always appropriate in the workplace. I think there are times to be open about it and times not to. Everyone doesn’t need to know that a journalist is a believer to know that what they are doing is right and is respectable.
On the other hand, the journalist must be comfortable if others know his or her faith. In “People of Faith” by John Schmalzbauer, he tells the story of a journalist who was upset that her faith was revealed (47). I don’t think that is alright. If you are a person of faith then you should never separate that from your work.
Work as though you are working for God (Col. 3:23). I think that it is important to constantly work for your maker even if you don’t say daily that you are a Christian. As cliché as it is … Actions speak louder than words. Much louder actually. I think that acting like a Christian in the work place is as simple as treating co-workers with respect, not faking sources and using a moral compass when writing stories. It is simple to navigate what is and is not right in the work place by thinking things through.
The truth is, Christ is bigger than our workplaces. He is bigger than our majors and than the things we live out. I am so thankful to live in a world where being a Christian doesn’t mean that I have to be persecuted, or hide it. Sadly it can often happen that someone is descriminated against due to their faith, and it will probably happen at least once after I graduate. Leaving Biola, it won’t be easy to hide the fact that the B of Biola stands for Bible, but why would I want to hide that? I don’t want to work for an outwardly Christian publication necessarly, but I do want to proclaim Christ. I do want to live out my faith. I think that can be easy anywhere. It just takes courage, and that is something that I have a lot of.
If I end up working with Christians I will be so glad, and if I don’t I will be put there for a reason, to represent Christ, I will be equally as glad. Evangelism takes place in many forms. I am excited for my future in journalism, I hope that I am courageous enough to sometimes just be quiet.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Monday, 9 November 2009
Interview with a Journalist.
(Since this journalist has asked that this would not be published in print, I decided to leave out his name for this interview on the blog for his privacy.)
I contacted about 15 or so journalists for this interview. I tried to get ahold of photojournalists, since that is my emphasis and it would have been interesting to me to hear their responses, and journalists from multiple Los Angeles or Orange County based publications. Only two of them got back to me, and only one of those was actually willing to answer the questions that I gave them, however, he answered them quite hesitantly.
I did preface my interview with the fact that I was a Biola University senior journalism student. The reporter was obviously more unsure about how to answer his questions once he knew that I was a student at a Christian university. He understood that I just wanted to know this from a journalists perspective, and there was no agenda behind my interview. I tried to be as objective as possible, and didn’t interject to make him feel uncomfortable.
I ended up interviewing a staff writer from the Los Angeles Times. He has given me answers to only a few questions on the condition that they are not published in any paper. He is a political journalist who reports on anything from the coverage of the Mike Duvall controversy to the state water plan. He was not entirely comfortable with the interview so I was only able to have him answer a few questions.
Emily: Why do you think what you do matters?
Los Angeles Times: Despite the fact that many people have negative feelings about journalists, I do think what I do is important and makes a difference to the health of society.
Emily: And what do you mean by “what you do” exactly?
Los Angeles Times: My role is to tell the public about what is going on in their government, which helps people make informed decisions when they vote on election day and when they evaluate their leaders. I also serve the role of watchdog. State politicians have to think twice before engaging in misconduct because it has to be in the back of their mind: what will this look like on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. I think it deters misconduct.
Emily: Do you feel like you are called to be a journalist?
Los Angeles Times: I feel I am called to the extent that I have certain talents that help me do my job and that I have a passion for informing the public.
Emily: Do you feel like God, or a sense of something bigger, is real to others in your profession?
Los Angeles Times: Contrary to the public perception that journalists are all secular
liberals, newspaper reporters represent a broad spectrum of political
and religious beliefs. Many of my colleagues are religiously devout, and
it informs their work to the extent that their religion provides a sense
of responsibility to do the right thing. That extends to performing the
work of a journalist to expose wrongdoing and help citizens understand
their government and society.
I really liked this journalists answers. He never explicitly said his beliefs or his lack of beliefs. But he did seem to respect his colleagues that held true to their religious beliefs. It is very clear that this journalist has convictions. He seemed to be an honest man that cares about spreading truth to his readers. As a political journalist, he often writes about controversial government issues that some people would not want to be exposed. But he writes the truth of these issues.
Although he did not hint to his own beliefs, he had a sense of calling, that some may see as God, but he saw as passion. His passion is apparent, and his reason for doing what he does, telling the truths of the government to the people, is very honorable. This is a man with convictions and morals. He wants people informed, without forcing an agenda down their throats. He is a talented and respected journalist.
I am glad that this was an assignment. I often am afraid to call and ask questions, whether it is for an article, or even just to get something done. I want to get better at that, and talking to this journalist gave me context, journalists are people too. Often people doing exactly doing what I had to do. Calling and asking questions.
I contacted about 15 or so journalists for this interview. I tried to get ahold of photojournalists, since that is my emphasis and it would have been interesting to me to hear their responses, and journalists from multiple Los Angeles or Orange County based publications. Only two of them got back to me, and only one of those was actually willing to answer the questions that I gave them, however, he answered them quite hesitantly.
I did preface my interview with the fact that I was a Biola University senior journalism student. The reporter was obviously more unsure about how to answer his questions once he knew that I was a student at a Christian university. He understood that I just wanted to know this from a journalists perspective, and there was no agenda behind my interview. I tried to be as objective as possible, and didn’t interject to make him feel uncomfortable.
I ended up interviewing a staff writer from the Los Angeles Times. He has given me answers to only a few questions on the condition that they are not published in any paper. He is a political journalist who reports on anything from the coverage of the Mike Duvall controversy to the state water plan. He was not entirely comfortable with the interview so I was only able to have him answer a few questions.
Emily: Why do you think what you do matters?
Los Angeles Times: Despite the fact that many people have negative feelings about journalists, I do think what I do is important and makes a difference to the health of society.
Emily: And what do you mean by “what you do” exactly?
Los Angeles Times: My role is to tell the public about what is going on in their government, which helps people make informed decisions when they vote on election day and when they evaluate their leaders. I also serve the role of watchdog. State politicians have to think twice before engaging in misconduct because it has to be in the back of their mind: what will this look like on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. I think it deters misconduct.
Emily: Do you feel like you are called to be a journalist?
Los Angeles Times: I feel I am called to the extent that I have certain talents that help me do my job and that I have a passion for informing the public.
Emily: Do you feel like God, or a sense of something bigger, is real to others in your profession?
Los Angeles Times: Contrary to the public perception that journalists are all secular
liberals, newspaper reporters represent a broad spectrum of political
and religious beliefs. Many of my colleagues are religiously devout, and
it informs their work to the extent that their religion provides a sense
of responsibility to do the right thing. That extends to performing the
work of a journalist to expose wrongdoing and help citizens understand
their government and society.
I really liked this journalists answers. He never explicitly said his beliefs or his lack of beliefs. But he did seem to respect his colleagues that held true to their religious beliefs. It is very clear that this journalist has convictions. He seemed to be an honest man that cares about spreading truth to his readers. As a political journalist, he often writes about controversial government issues that some people would not want to be exposed. But he writes the truth of these issues.
Although he did not hint to his own beliefs, he had a sense of calling, that some may see as God, but he saw as passion. His passion is apparent, and his reason for doing what he does, telling the truths of the government to the people, is very honorable. This is a man with convictions and morals. He wants people informed, without forcing an agenda down their throats. He is a talented and respected journalist.
I am glad that this was an assignment. I often am afraid to call and ask questions, whether it is for an article, or even just to get something done. I want to get better at that, and talking to this journalist gave me context, journalists are people too. Often people doing exactly doing what I had to do. Calling and asking questions.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Annette Buchanan
In 1966 I was the student managing editor of the University of Oregon Daily Emerald and I decided to run a story titled “Students Condone Marijuana use.” In it I wrote about seven students and their drug habits. Quickly after it ran, the police decided to get involved. They wanted to know names. Why would I give up my fellow classmates? That could not only ruin my reputation as a college students, but also as a reporter. To me, off the record stays off the record. In fact, as a student reporter, I should feel safe in my writing and not have to give up sources. As a reporter, I have the first amendment right and should not have to give up anything unwanted, right?
I had to go to court. I was fined $300, they pried it unwillingly out of my cold hands, and my case was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, where the District Attorney had no sympathy for me. Me, a young budding reporter, how could they not have sympathy for me? I was trying to get more readers. This is a huge issue on my campus at the University of Oregon. Apparently the Oregon Constitution does anything but protect me and my reporter rights.
Luckily, for the reporters who follow in my footsteps, of making a scene and not backing down until they subpoena you into doing so, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a journalistic shiled law. We can only get in trouble as journalists, according to the Oregon Shield Law, if there is cause that a journalist has or is going to commit a crime, or if the defendant has a defense based on the content.
In March of 1971 my case was revisited by the Eugene Register-Guard by the prosecutor from my case, William Frye. He angrily said that I was “still being glamorized by the press.” And he argued that this new shield law gave the press “not a shield but a sword.” Frye is angered at me for losing my case. Also in this article Robert Notson, publisher of the Portland Oregonian was interviewed. “It is considered the gravest ethical breach for a journalist to violate a confidence,” Notson was quoted. Notson is right. I breached confidence. I was forced to breach confidence. I was told things, in secrecy, about drug users on my campus, an issue that I feel is quite prevalent, and I did not want to break the trust of those that I interviewed.
This has been a rough ride. I have been poked and prodded out of and into things that I did and didn’t want to do. I have paid the fine, I should be left alone. This is unethical for myself as a young journalist. I should not have to give personal information away if it is not harming anyone. These students chose to make terrible decisions, and I chose to report on that. If that means I should be interrogated, what is journalism becoming?
I had to go to court. I was fined $300, they pried it unwillingly out of my cold hands, and my case was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, where the District Attorney had no sympathy for me. Me, a young budding reporter, how could they not have sympathy for me? I was trying to get more readers. This is a huge issue on my campus at the University of Oregon. Apparently the Oregon Constitution does anything but protect me and my reporter rights.
Luckily, for the reporters who follow in my footsteps, of making a scene and not backing down until they subpoena you into doing so, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a journalistic shiled law. We can only get in trouble as journalists, according to the Oregon Shield Law, if there is cause that a journalist has or is going to commit a crime, or if the defendant has a defense based on the content.
In March of 1971 my case was revisited by the Eugene Register-Guard by the prosecutor from my case, William Frye. He angrily said that I was “still being glamorized by the press.” And he argued that this new shield law gave the press “not a shield but a sword.” Frye is angered at me for losing my case. Also in this article Robert Notson, publisher of the Portland Oregonian was interviewed. “It is considered the gravest ethical breach for a journalist to violate a confidence,” Notson was quoted. Notson is right. I breached confidence. I was forced to breach confidence. I was told things, in secrecy, about drug users on my campus, an issue that I feel is quite prevalent, and I did not want to break the trust of those that I interviewed.
This has been a rough ride. I have been poked and prodded out of and into things that I did and didn’t want to do. I have paid the fine, I should be left alone. This is unethical for myself as a young journalist. I should not have to give personal information away if it is not harming anyone. These students chose to make terrible decisions, and I chose to report on that. If that means I should be interrogated, what is journalism becoming?
Monday, 5 October 2009
Whats too much?
The first obvious difference in the freedoms of medias is that a British operation, such as Telegraph, is that it is more apt to shed a light on American wrong doings than, say, New York Times would be. In America, fortunately, many journalists are allowed to write what they want and get away with quite a bit.
To Telegraph, celebrities constantly make news, even more so than in America. The royal family, although just figureheads now, make the covers of their magazines weekly.
The Kanye West stories bombarded the news. The story of his interrupting Taylor Swift at an award show was a hot topic all over newspapers, television stations, and Twitter. Quickly after, President Obama was recorded calling West a “jackass.” The President quickly corrects himself, saying that he has a lot on his plate, and should be cut some slack. Of course, TMZ – Americas most embarrassing news source – put out the recording on their website. Britain’s Telegraph newspaper brought up the ethics of reporting this quote and whether or not it was journalistic of TMZ. The New York times weighed in on the incident in an article by Mike Hale about Taylor Swift on the View. Hale shared a fairly satirical look on the whole thing. He included the remarks by President Obama, but also included that the remarks stayed off of the official interview transcripts. The NY Times added a lot more information than Telegraph did, proving that the US needs more information to be satisfied.
There were two articles about the killing of eight U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, one in Telegraph, and one in The New York Times. The story in the Telegraph was very to the point. It explained exactly the five w’s – What happened, where it happened, when it happened, why it happened and who it happened to. This article was much easier to read than the story in the NY Times, which outlined the story in its entirety. Britain needs much less explanation when it comes to American soldiers dying. They want to know what happened, and be done with it. Americans need more, since it was their men. The Times even tells some things that Telegraph says have not yet been confirmed. The Times is trying to cover its bases, and tell a lot. Too much isn’t a thing when it comes to the Times and this report. Telegraph wanted to tell the truth and tell it well. The Times wanted to tell the truth, and every ensuing detail so that Americans would be satisfied.
Telegraph has new developments on the story about Obama refusing to met with the Dalai Lama that the New York Times does not. NY Times has a report from earlier last month. It seems as though the NY Times does not want to shed a bad light on the president.
What’s too much? I have yet to find out. But it is obvious that countries report very differently according to what matters most to them.
To Telegraph, celebrities constantly make news, even more so than in America. The royal family, although just figureheads now, make the covers of their magazines weekly.
The Kanye West stories bombarded the news. The story of his interrupting Taylor Swift at an award show was a hot topic all over newspapers, television stations, and Twitter. Quickly after, President Obama was recorded calling West a “jackass.” The President quickly corrects himself, saying that he has a lot on his plate, and should be cut some slack. Of course, TMZ – Americas most embarrassing news source – put out the recording on their website. Britain’s Telegraph newspaper brought up the ethics of reporting this quote and whether or not it was journalistic of TMZ. The New York times weighed in on the incident in an article by Mike Hale about Taylor Swift on the View. Hale shared a fairly satirical look on the whole thing. He included the remarks by President Obama, but also included that the remarks stayed off of the official interview transcripts. The NY Times added a lot more information than Telegraph did, proving that the US needs more information to be satisfied.
There were two articles about the killing of eight U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, one in Telegraph, and one in The New York Times. The story in the Telegraph was very to the point. It explained exactly the five w’s – What happened, where it happened, when it happened, why it happened and who it happened to. This article was much easier to read than the story in the NY Times, which outlined the story in its entirety. Britain needs much less explanation when it comes to American soldiers dying. They want to know what happened, and be done with it. Americans need more, since it was their men. The Times even tells some things that Telegraph says have not yet been confirmed. The Times is trying to cover its bases, and tell a lot. Too much isn’t a thing when it comes to the Times and this report. Telegraph wanted to tell the truth and tell it well. The Times wanted to tell the truth, and every ensuing detail so that Americans would be satisfied.
Telegraph has new developments on the story about Obama refusing to met with the Dalai Lama that the New York Times does not. NY Times has a report from earlier last month. It seems as though the NY Times does not want to shed a bad light on the president.
What’s too much? I have yet to find out. But it is obvious that countries report very differently according to what matters most to them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
