http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/160277/false-paterno-death-reports-highlight-journalists-hunger-for-glory/

When I was in j-school, we were drilled repeatedly on the idea that is better to "get it right" than to "get it first." I worry about whether this is still true...

Obviously, it's a rule that many organizations ignore. It's nothing new, though. I'm sure that you're familiar with the name of Richard Harding Davis, although most of today's readers probably never heard of him. He was the star reporter for one of the yellowest journalism organizations in our history, and he got that way by getting it fast and not being very concerned about getting it right. One of his crowning achievements was to precipitate the Spanish-American War as a result. For today's example, how about Rupert Murdoch's empire? While he publishes the Wall Street Journal, his fortune was made by operations such as the one in the UK that had to shut down completely because of public opinion and loss of advertisers, induced by their effort to get it fast...

I'm also sure that by now you've learned that the J-School is a bit of an ivory tower situation, attempting to inculcate into us students the ideals to be followed, but in many ways failing to prepare us for the very real world, of which we see so much of the dirty underside! At least it was at Norman from 1948 to 1952 and I see no sign that it's changed all that much...

My sister was a journalism major at OU in the mid-90's, after a year and a half she changed to elementary education giving up her journalism scholarships (she was a regents scholarship recipient which covered the bulk of the cost). She disliked the direction that journalism was headed and what was taught and knew that it wasn't for her. One year removed from graduation at UCO she got the job of journalism teacher at the middle school that we went to (when it was a jr. high) until budget cuts ended that curriculum.

I think the ivory tower idealism has left many college campuses in many fields of study (especially business), not so much in my field of architecture at many campuses though. I know in between architecture stints I was a finance major (mid-80's), it didn't take me long to realize just what type of person was going into that field and that I didn't have the same makeup as those that are now driving the business world. The journalism world has been greatly affected by those business people who have no background in journalism. I think the media conglomerates run by the finance people in some ways created much of the mess that media is in now. The taking over of journalism by the entertainment companies run by those business people has further eroded the line between real journalism and entertainment. I still remember a time when there seemed to be a very clear separation between the new and entertainment sides of the media.

Realize, I've been out of J-school and in the real world for 22 years. I know very well there's college and reality. But at least back then, there was an effort to teach the ideal. I worry even that isn't happening any more...

Based on what little that I have read of The Oklahoma Daily and the UT student paper over the years it seems that sensationalize is being rewarded anymore over what most people consider "real" journalism.

I knew journalism was going downhill when journalists started typing with their thumbs.

Steve, did the gentleman from Denver ever close with the Gaylords on the newspaper and their other assets? I never saw an announcement on it's finalization.

When did they start teaching that journalism was supposed to be independent and objective?

At OU, it started in 1913. And as recently as 1952, a course in "Ethics of Journalism" was still required for graduation.

Had an "ethics in journalism" at my college as well. Also did "media law" - another very helpful bit of curriculum.

So in thousands of years Journalism history I guess it is safe to say that "independence and objectivity" is new to the game, even if it only merits one class.

This is my favorite books on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Journalistic-Fraud-Distorts-Longer-Trusted/dp/B000685KVK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327380483&sr=8-1

I guess the moral is, as consumers of news it is our job to pick who we consider trustworthy and who we don't. For a news organization that would rather break the story first vs. getting it right, they need consumers that prefer incorrect information fast. Sadly, there is a market for that.

First day of class, OU Journalism 101: There is no such thing as objective journalism. As long as people are involved in the process, try as hard as you may to prevent it, bias will happen.

Unfortunately, TMZ style journalism has taken over the journalism community. It's no longer about telling the story based on the facts.

Unfortunately, TMZ style journalism has taken over the journalism community. It's no longer about telling the story based on the facts.

I don't think it was EVER about "telling the story based on the facts". It appears to me that the illusion of independence started in the late 20th century and died probably around 1970. Are there individual journalist that live by a personal code of conduct? Yep. Do they maybe work for companies that have an agenda? Yep. As consumers it is our job to decide where the fast/credible line is drawn and it is different for every one. Personally, I don't like the "bad information faster" route.

Part of the blame also lies in the 24/7 news cycle. It wasn't so very long ago that news came once a day so there was time to gather the facts, write it, proof read it, and send it out. Now news is delivered at the exact moment it happens. It isn't even news anymore - it is current events. Fox has a program called Happening Now. That pretty much sums it up.

First day of class, OU Journalism 101: There is no such thing as objective journalism. As long as people are involved in the process, try as hard as you may to prevent it, bias will happen.


That's probably true. So we need to keep in mind that those who are crying the loudest about bias in the media are doing so from a subjective point of view on the subject.

Definitely. Way back when, the New York Times used a nice trick to reduce the amount of bias when covering any event that might involve controversy: they sent not one but two reporters to cover it, each picked BECAUSE of his/her bias toward one side or the other, but the two were always chosen from opposing sides. The paper then ran both accounts side by side, and the idea was that the writers' biases would cancel out, giving the reader both sides of the story.

Unfortunately, economic reality has forced even the Times to abandon that philosophy.

By the way, the idea of "objective reporting" took hold in the 30s, I believe. Hearst, Pulitzer, and Col. Patterson in Chicago kept the strident one-sided tradition alive well into the 50s, though, and by the 70s objectivity had begun to fade from sight. It's still alive in individual cases, but agendas of the publishers seem to be aimed at becoming (or staying) profitable, and this requires keeping the eyeball count as high as possible without regard for anything else...

Definitely. Way back when, the New York Times used a nice trick to reduce the amount of bias when covering any event that might involve controversy: they sent not one but two reporters to cover it, each picked BECAUSE of his/her bias toward one side or the other, but the two were always chosen from opposing sides. The paper then ran both accounts side by side, and the idea was that the writers' biases would cancel out, giving the reader both sides of the story.

I guess they pretty much concluded that all their journalist were biased and incapable of reporting the facts. I wonder how they ensure accuracy now with only one reporter per story. I remember back when Newt was Speaker of the House and CBS news would run stories about Newt cutting spending to certain programs when in reality he was suggesting cuts in the growth. Spending went up, but not as fast. When quized about the inaccurate reporting CBS responded that some times they used Democrat numbers and sometimes they used Republican numbers. I don't know why CBS had to use anyone's numbers - just tell the truth.

I don't know why CBS had to use anyone's numbers - just tell the truth.But this brings up Pilate's Question: "What is truth?" CBS had to get the numbers from somewhere. Are you suggesting they should just make them up? Or that they should just quote the figures turned out by some bureaucratic agency with its own agenda? No matter where they get them, the question remains as to just how true they are...

Jim,
I am fairly ignorant about journalism but in my opinion, report facts or don't report it. Just the facts comment "cutting spending to certain programs when in reality he was suggesting cuts in the growth" should have been a verifiable fact that anybody, especially a major news organization could research by going to the source. I would say that this specific item would have been readily available (am I naive?) at the OMB and rather than report the republican or democratic spokesman, compare the previous budget to the proposed and if the DOD budget was $1 last year and its $1.20 this year but less than the $1.30 the DOD wanted, it's still not cutting the budget. If this years budget is $.99 or less, it is cutting the budget. I'm out of my league here, but enjoying the thread. I appreciate Steve for starting it and all of the good responses.
C. T.

That is it ctchandler. If the media is incapable of determining "truth" then we can close this thread because the mystery is solved.

I guess they pretty much concluded that all their journalist were biased and incapable of reporting the facts. I wonder how they ensure accuracy now with only one reporter per story.No, they were just recognizing the truth that all humans are biased and incapable of reporting all of the pertinent facts.

Nowadays nobody seems to worry about ensuring accuracy. Being accurate has always been a goal, similar to perfection, but it's almost as difficult a goal to reach as is perfection itself.

Jim,
In a perfect world... I have to agree with you, my simplistic comment about the budget was the old "painting with a broad brush" comment and not all reporting of the facts is easy, or even possible. I guess my desire is for journalists to quit giving opinions (unless that is their role Ie; The Oped page), tell us what they know and there will be times it might be wrong or at least not exactly the whole story. I was not perfect and I certainly don't expect anyone else to be either. When my day was done, I liked to think I had done a good job and that's what I would expect from a reporter, or any other professional for that matter.
C. T.

No, they were just recognizing the truth that all humans are biased and incapable of reporting all of the pertinent facts.

Nowadays nobody seems to worry about ensuring accuracy. Being accurate has always been a goal, similar to perfection, but it's almost as difficult a goal to reach as is perfection itself.

First day of class, OU Journalism 101: There is no such thing as objective journalism. As long as people are involved in the process, try as hard as you may to prevent it, bias will happen.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't try to rise above it. Just makes it harder and more important to work at it. At this point, "news" is more about entertainment than providing factual information.

Based on what little that I have read of The Oklahoma Daily and the UT student paper over the years it seems that sensationalize is being rewarded anymore over what most people consider "real" journalism.

Yeah, OSU's O'Colly recently got criticized for sensationalizing on the front page the story of a strip bar opening in the area, headlining it with '"Diamond in the Muff".