Alhamdulilah!

it almost makes me nervous to write baout this topic...bc it is such a sensitive topic amongst the fragile framework of students at this precious school.  so apparently the big question is whether we can accurately report on a religion if we are a part of it.  here is my absolute simple answer.  yes. HOWEVER...i feel like something like this needs to be "peer reviewed'.  i believe that this is essential because if not, then it will undoubtedly have an unequal weight towards one side or the other.
even moreso i feel like it needs to be "peer reviewed" if a member of one religion is to write about another religion.  the book that BYU uses for it's Survey of World Religions class is an exceptional literary piece.  i love how they present the information, and then, before publishing the book, they gave those chapters to someone of said religion to be reviewed...and just to make sure that they were accurate in their writings.
anyway...what a deep topic...covering religion...
it is actually interesting to see this "A Study Showed" that they have up in class...it's so true.  it's talking about the coverage of religions and what the majority of coverage is.  For example, "Roman Catholicism is more often linked with bad deeds and criminality than with Catholic beliefs and values"
so interesting...because it's SO true!  i actually enjoy CNN's page on religion, because...it's people's blogs. it's their take.  it's the people defending themselves.  i like how it shows the different viewpoints on all the subjects from people in the actual religion.  what does the Catholic church think about the war...how about Islam?  it's so different when you ask the people that actually belong.
can i just say...http://www.cbn.com/   <------------that guy is a moron.
in the name of Jimmer, Amen.

Stuff about being a journalist...in the public...hidden.

Journalists Roles (according to howard owens)

• report with details of scheduled events-not everyone can go to what they want.  so i expect someone to be there.  and i want to be able to find it. easily.  it drives me nuts when i cant find some kind of information on the interent...it drives me absolutely ballistic.  somebody has got to be there.  and people definitely lose credibility until they get there.
• disclose wrongdoing
• outline developing trends
• analyze issues and events
• provide context
• editorial comment

Forum Open to all (i.e. radio call-in shows, tv talk shows, editorial pages, blogs, chat rooms, public polling)-  it also gets people thinking!  instead of just listening and letting others do the thinking for us. sometimes we just need something to spur on our brains.  when we hear a differing opinion, we are able to explode with great stuff! in theory, we all think. in practice...well...what was i saying again?

good question...am i more likely to believe a qualified journalist or an eye witness?  hmmm...i think it depends on the eyewitness.  for example...Antoine Dodson! hahahaha  if someone is a legitimate source, then great. if not, then poo.  anyway...there is a reason we plug our computers in...so they dont die.

i hate that BYU doesnt have more outlets in the classroom.

good day.

Depends on Who You Ask...

Ethics in Journalism

1. Seek Truth and Report It- seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but only report on what you know (or assume at that point) to be truth.  it's so true, we don't have to add a whole bunch of nonsense to the story.  i think people appreciate simplicity.  i think that people will respect that we aren't adding silly stuff in just to have a "longer story".  
2. Minimize Harm- Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.  this automatically makes me think of Julian Assange.  he DOES have "noble" aspirations...however it just blows my mind that he doesnt see that sometimes there are consequences to reporting on everything.  you know...let's take Brandon Davies for example.  if someone would have busted out and gave a whole bunch of details about his personal life and made him look like a scumbag and a horrible person for letting us down.  but instead, some people decided to report and be optimistic and positive about it all.  i think that totally changed peoples opinions.  it wasnt necessary to know exactly what he did (interesting, yes, but necessary--no)
   same thing about the Daniel Pearl....absolutely nuts. but you know what? it's necessary.  people were beginning to doubt why we were in the war...and here was more motivation.  this showed the type of people that we were fighting against.  the checklist includes "what are my motivations in doing this story?"  i think that is the key.
3. Act Independently- Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.  hmmm...definitely.  but at the same time, you have to be ethically straight.  Julian Assange is such a good example, bc he is absolutely ridiculous.  Yes, the public has the right to know...but i think there is a line...however...all this talk of lines..bleh.  i think people dont really bother with lines.  we just wanna get the new facts out.
4. Be Accountable- Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and EACH OTHER <---i like that one =D this is something that bothers me...mostly because i suck at it.  i have what some people call "dhiarrea" of the mouth (i.e. i can't control what comes out sometimes).  i have a friend that has always told me that my mouth will dig my grave.  we do have to answer to someone. all of us say stupid stuff.  blarg.  so some guy said he is scared of muslims...maybe he is.  i like that he said everything that he was thinking.   gosh...i just dont know.

when it comes down to it...ethics.  it just depends on who you ask.

Tik Bark Tik Bark <--get it? it's a watch dog noise

Watchdogs are dangerous animals.  but like all pit bull trainers say, "It all depends on how you raise them."  Some are absolutely vicious and will do anything to kill their prey and will kill any and every one.  some are just big and scary, just there to alert.  and some are those tiny ones that are just so annoying that you want to kick them into a bus stop!

you know, if we have a wheel, and one spoke is longer than all the rest, it wont be a pleasant ride.  so with these journalists, as with everything else in journalism, there has to be a balance.   for example, Julian Assange is that type that will do anything and everything to report any and everything that the government does, including classified documents.  you just cant do that!  that's taking it a step (or 12231809 steps) too far.  sometimes the government needs to protect the public from certain things.  and we can't kno EVERYTHING! there is a reason we have classfied documents. 

and then as far as those little tiny dogs go...gosh they are annoying.  they are the type that just bark and bark and bark.  can't we get rid of them please?  these types of watchdogs dont really DO anything...i would consider them more of the tabloid journalists.  they just want to be heard.  they dont really have any bite, they just want to make noise.  annoying.

Watchdog journalism  is important. without it, government and associations would be able to get away with anything. and we can't have that!! but we have to have discretion.  is it absolutely necessary for the public to know such information?  are we going to make a positive difference.

i think back to my mission...you can't change everyone and everything about your companions, but if it makes them more christ-like then it's worth telling them.  know what i mean, vern?

in-DEPEND-ence

I'm a Mormon.  He's a Catholic. I am in the military.  She is an elementary school teacher.  I love sports.  He loves hunting.  I'm independent.  She's a liberal.  Everyone has their own background and things that influence their beliefs.  The trick is how can you use your ideology to stimulate your journalism, but not take control and puppet your stories.

               Politics is probably the most pressing issue when discussing ideologies and journalism. A journalism student posed the question in regard to covering politics in the United States to the Washington Post, here is the discussion that followed.

                The opinion journalist replies basically, that many news organizations in the United States are simply giving up the guise of objectivity and are moving towards a new form of “opinionated news coverage,” naming Fox News and MSNBC as his main examples.

               There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, and opinion editorials are an important part of journalism.  They help provide people with alternating views of important topics.  Here is an opinion editorial from the New York Times about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on hurtful speech and the First Amendment.  It is not breaking new information, but it is giving the public a specific take on it, perhaps a different take than the one that you have.  It is thought provoking, and helps us make sense of the news we ingest.

                In class we did an activity where we got into groups and acted as a news editing board.  We had several lists of stories, ranging in different topics and qualities.  We had to cut them down and pick which two out of each group we would run, based on their importance, newsworthiness, and interest.  I think that most of us chose the same stories to present because we were all acting as the same news organization.  We were reporting based on our audience, therefore we were trying to report stories that seemed clear of opinions.

                In the end, it's the consumer, ONCE AGAIN, that chooses whatever they are going to watch and ingest.  So if you don't like it, read something else!

By-Us

what am i gonna talk about?  i'm gonna talk about whatever i damn well please!  i talk about the things that i care about.  if i am gonna report on sports, i wanna talk about soccer as much as possible. why? because we know that nobody else will do it!  you know...we can't ALL talk about Jimmer...because you can find anything and everything about him.  but while that is going on, how is anyone going to know the outcome of the biggest soccer game of the year?  CHELSEA VS. MANCHESTER UNITED?!?!?!  (chelsea wins 2-1)
in a book that i have been reading,  Republic.com 2.0, he mentions how we censor our own media and news.  but the best way to approach the news, is by having the open gate.  we allow all kinds of news to pass by us, and then we will select the things that interest us AT THAT MOMENT....this as opposed to, for example, google news that only sends you exactly what you want.
i find it quite simple, really.  journalists do what they do. they report on what they report on.  if they are passionate about it, more power to them! that means they will put more effort into it!  the key is being HUMBLE enough to change your opinion, or modify it, based on the research that you passionately do in reporting your case. it is the job of the citizens to see both sides.  you cannot solely watch Fox News and expect to be well informed. nor can you solely watch CNN.  it is imperative for the CONSUMER to do their part and research both sides of it.  it's pretty dang simple.

Same Girl

I want to keep this simple and understandable, so think about this.  If you had been dating a girl for a significant amount of time, and then someone came up to you and said they saw her with another guy.  Would you believe it immediately?  Or would you need to verify with her and possibly other sources?
I would hope that you would see the need to verify what happened.  This is the same principle in journalism.  Deciphering between the "hearsay" and irrefutable facts.  It was quite an interesting conversation that we did have in class...with the 5 points that the book presented:

1. Never add anything that was not there

2. Never deceive the audience

3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives

4. Rely on your own original reporting

5. Exercise humility

The book also discusses the fact that because of the availability of information in today’s world, not a lot of investigative work is done. Journalists find stories to write about right there on the Internet or via social networking sites. Because of this widespread information, many journalists forget to verify their facts, but that can cause the downfall of any good journalist. No matter where you got the information, if you don’t verify it and it turns out to be wrong, you’re the one that takes the fall.

in this short video...there is a very interesting situation...both men are friends.  they find out that they are indeed "sleeping with the same girl."  so they plan a big way to get back at her and show her that they have found out...
watch and see what happens =)  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFnKgIptbq0 

now go back to that first question...answer again.