2008 Woodie Awards
Citizens would be well advised to understand journalistic practices
Meredith Thorn
Issue date: 4/30/07 Section: Opinions
I shudder at what possibly has been kept out of the news media because of sources.
I understand there is media skepticism. I understand that a few notable journalists have caused sources and audiences to mistrust those who bring us the news. But I can tell you, most journalists have ethics, credibility and objectivity at the top of the list when they take out their notebooks or begin typing on their computers.
And sometimes, those ethics collide with our stories, making the journalist look the fool when they really are taking the high road.
I had an unfortunate experience recently, which makes me believe journalists aren't at the heart of this mistrust. Rather, increased media literacy by the public and an understanding of what journalists do would be a great service to the community and the news business in general.
Journalists are just trying to do their jobs the best way they can, just like anyone else. Let them.
I had my harshest brush with media skepticism lately. But upon reflection, I don't think it had as much to do with skepticism as it does with media illiteracy.
I'm working on an independent study, and part of my assignment was to do an in-depth article. I decided to do an article on college students and gambling.
I set to work. I interviewed students, faculty on campus and others involved in the business of recreational gambling. But one piece was missing.
I looked up some gambling addiction specialists and made my calls. I waited weeks to see them, hoping they would shed some light on the medical aspect of addictive gambling and how to get help. I was cutting it close to deadline, but figured it wouldn't be a problem.
I was wrong.
The entire interview went well. We discussed how gambling was the "silent" addiction and how college students can get caught up in gambling, sacrificing their money and education in the meantime.
Then it ended. The interviewees thanked me, and then asked for a copy of the article. They wanted to "preview" the article before it went into print, to "check" for errors.
I understand there is media skepticism. I understand that a few notable journalists have caused sources and audiences to mistrust those who bring us the news. But I can tell you, most journalists have ethics, credibility and objectivity at the top of the list when they take out their notebooks or begin typing on their computers.
And sometimes, those ethics collide with our stories, making the journalist look the fool when they really are taking the high road.
I had an unfortunate experience recently, which makes me believe journalists aren't at the heart of this mistrust. Rather, increased media literacy by the public and an understanding of what journalists do would be a great service to the community and the news business in general.
Journalists are just trying to do their jobs the best way they can, just like anyone else. Let them.
I had my harshest brush with media skepticism lately. But upon reflection, I don't think it had as much to do with skepticism as it does with media illiteracy.
I'm working on an independent study, and part of my assignment was to do an in-depth article. I decided to do an article on college students and gambling.
I set to work. I interviewed students, faculty on campus and others involved in the business of recreational gambling. But one piece was missing.
I looked up some gambling addiction specialists and made my calls. I waited weeks to see them, hoping they would shed some light on the medical aspect of addictive gambling and how to get help. I was cutting it close to deadline, but figured it wouldn't be a problem.
I was wrong.
The entire interview went well. We discussed how gambling was the "silent" addiction and how college students can get caught up in gambling, sacrificing their money and education in the meantime.
Then it ended. The interviewees thanked me, and then asked for a copy of the article. They wanted to "preview" the article before it went into print, to "check" for errors.