As newsrooms shrink, PR firms dominate the market in droves

Pictured above is a recent hearing held by the joint investigation board for the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 4, 2011. At a similar hearing in December, NY Times investigative reporter David Barstow reported there were PR representatives who were there to answer questions than there were reporters who were there to cover the event. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Casey J. Ranel)

After reading a story had had been published on the ProPublica website back in May, I was stunned to find that the void that is being filled by rapidly shrinking newsrooms due to newspaper consolidations and massive layoffs are public relations agencies, whose main job is to push forth an agenda to ultimately affect public opinion. In the story, New York Times investigative reporter David Barstow explained there were more PR people representing the companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster testifying than there were reporters in attendance at a recent hearing that was held by the joint investigation board back in April.

“You would go into these hearings and there would be more PR people representing these big players than there were reporters, sometimes by a factor of two or three,” Barstow said. “There were platoons of PR people. The muscles of journalism are weakening and the muscles of public relations are bulking up — as if they were on steroids.”

According to some academics in the journalism field, there is legitimate cause for concern. In their recent book, “The Death and Life of American Journalism,” Robert McChesney and John Nichols used U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data to track the number of people working in journalism since 1980 and compared it to those numbers for the public relations industry. What they found was shocking; the number of journalists that are working in the field have significantly fallen while the number of public relation workers have usurped those in the journalism field and multiplied at an even faster rate. Nearly three decades ago, there were about .45 public relations workers per 100,000 people in the population compared with .36 journalists, but nearly three years ago, that number increased to .90 PR people per 100,000 people in the population compared to .25 journalists — a ratio that is more than three-to-one.

What’s more is that public relations agencies are more equipped and financed than most individual news companies. According to R. Jamil Jonna, a researcher who worked with McChesney and Nichols, public relations revenues increased from $3.5 billion to $8.75 billion between 1997 and 2007. During that same period of time, public relations firms experienced a 30 percent increase in jobs from 38,735 workers to 50,499 workers, and these figures don’t even include smaller independent public relations agencies that work for large companies, lobbying organizations, advertising agencies, non-profits, or the government.

What’s even more troubling is the fact that the course of traditional journalism has steered in the opposite direction over the same amount of time. A report from the Newspaper Association of America found that newspaper advertising revenue was cut by nearly 55 percent from an all-time high of $49 billion in 2000 to $22 billion in 2009. This same loss in revenue also points to a loss in the amount of active reporters and editors working for publications nationwide. The American Society of News Editors found that the number of newspaper reporters and editors hit a high of 56,900 in 1990, but by this year, that number had decreased by 26.8 percent to 41,600.

For any journalist, including myself, these numbers and facts are extremely troubling. While I have found that public relations agencies that work for companies are often times very helpful in helping me gain access to company representatives or executives, the fact is that public relations agencies exist for one specific reason: to promote an agenda. However, this is not bash the function of public relations workers or the industry in general, but I believe that the job of public relations workers and journalism professionals serves two completely different functions. Although public relations workers need to be skilled in the art of journalistic writing for the purpose of writing press releases and structuring their responses in a way that would fit well in print, the main goal of public relations workers is to provide a fresh face to a company rather than serve the watchdog or investigative function that many journalists must perform as a part of their duties. I believe that it is this watchdog function and zeal to seek the truth — in spite of the damaging consequences that it may have on a company — that separates journalists from public relations workers.

All too often, it is easy for journalists to take the word of a public relations representative as truth, and I can say that I too have been guilty of it. The fact is that it is sometimes the easiest way to get information, especially at times when the deadlines are tight. While contacting public relations representatives may provide the basic context of a story and may some times be the only necessary means to gain access to a certain company, I believe that journalists need to look beyond the low-hanging fruit and seek out the truth by using alternative means, since the view that journalists are getting may not always be the most forthcoming one.

iPad generates new opportunities for media industry

Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs unveils the iPad at an official ceremony in January.

In a society where technology seems to be changing at a rate that is equivalent to the blink of an eye, one piece of technology that has caught the attention of the general public is Apple‘s infamous iPad, which was first introduced to the American public last April. Although the device received a lot of criticism from technology critics for being a costly expense and unnecessary device that could be easily supplemented with an iPhone, iPod, or laptop, American consumers have shrugged such assertions and have been on a iPad buying frenzy. In fact, according to a recently released report from JP Morgan Chase, Apple has sold nearly 7.33 million iPads during its first quarter last year and 4.7 million more during its second. What’s more, this increase in sales contributed to Apple’s recently reported quarterly net profit of $5.99 billion last year, marking the first time in two decades that Apple edged out more profits than its fiercest competitor, Macintosh.

Although many occupational fields have reaped the benefits of this new technology, journalism experts in particular see a promising future for the device that may help the struggling field reinvent itself during a time when print circulation profits are gradually decreasing and online hits are adversely increasing. The New York Times alone reported a 15 percent increase in digital advertisement sales last year, but a $4.3 million net loss in revenue due to declining print advertisement sales and an overall decrease in circulation. Moreover, a gradual movement into mobile media is further strengthened by studies that support the fact that consumers are increasingly turning to mobile media to get their news rather than relying on According to a study conducted by mobile application developer TigerSpike, whose clients include the The Telegraph, The Economist, The Australian, and Mail Online, the average engagement time that a person spends on mobile applications is 30 to 34 minutes, which is five times the average for publications throughout the world.

As a result of this high amount of mobile engagement among readers, many steps are being taken by publications to increase their presence online through the creation of mobile applications that would allow users to the access the same news Found online and in print on their smartphones, such as the one used by The New York Times. In addition, media entrepreneurs are also taking on more ambitious projects, such as the one that is currently being undertaken by the Northern Territory Mobile Journalists Project and the Australian government in which journalism professionals teach young Aboriginal students video journalism skills that they later use to make their own videos of every day life in remote tribal villages on special-tailored iPhones. These videos are then uploaded to Australian government website that is accessible for anyone to view who may be interested in an anthropological documentation of Aboriginal life.

Aboriginal video journalists (above) use specially tailored iPhones to document daily life activities in their villages. These videos are then uploaded to the Australian government website for the public to view.

Another ambitious project that is currently being undertaken by media mogul Rupert Murdock and Apple is the creation of The Daily, a news publication that is specially tailored for the iPad. However, some analysts suggest that interest in the five-month old mobile application may be dwindling due to a declining readership that has been reflected in how often people link stories to their social media accounts. Although the publication has been mum about its subscription rates, an analysis of PostRank data — a company that tracks how often content is shared through social networking websites — by Nieman Lab‘s Joshua Benton revealed that people were posting items from The Daily on their social media accounts gradually less over time, which may hint that interest for this relatively novel concept may be stagnating.

So, in a certain sense, does this gradual shift from print-based media to online media ultimately signify the death of the printed word, which has previously been the primary way in which readers received their news? According to University of Oregon adjunct journalism professor Ed Madison, the answer is: maybe not. Madison explained that the online component serves as a marriage between the two seemingly different worlds, since the printed word can oftentimes supplement videos or other types of multimedia pieces that can be found online. As the popularity of online media continues to increase among readers and news publications alike, Madison predicts that a large amount of printed material will be migrated online for the public to view.

Whether or not this is the foreseeable future of journalism is still not yet certain, but what is certain is that we, as journalists, need to begin to learn how to use these types of technologies in a rapidly changing world that is moving closer and closer to a digital one.

Bin Laden’s death greeted with cheers, concern

Penn State senior Jake Librizzi holds an American flag as he and others fill Beaver Canyon Avenue in downtown State College, Pa. shortly after learning about the death of Osama bin Laden. Andy Colwell/AP

As the world gathered around their television sets — as they had done nearly a decade earlier on that fateful day in September that has become synonymous with radical Islamic terrorism and unwavering patriotism — people where entranced by a different kind of death — the death of the one person who was seen as the face of evil: Osama bin Laden. For many, news of his death brought back a flood of emotions back from that day and resulted in what was depicted on the news as rampant partying in the streets of New York City and Washington D.C. next to symbolic sites that would typically serve as memorials for faithful mourners who would make their reverent pilgrimages there.

At landmarks that were once gathering places for mourners in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, signs of elation and tears of relief and happiness seemingly replaced images of despair and loss. However, not everyone may be outwardly celebrating. Moreover, some experts and critics have concluded that the depiction of such images may do more harm than good.

According some experts who study the psychological effects of retribution, bin Laden’s death may actually reopen mental wounds, increase ongoing mental health problems to those affected by the Sept. 11^th disaster and ultimately ring in decreased sense of satisfaction than previously thought.

“There is a strong assumption that this event will be especially beneficial for the loved ones of people killed or hurt in the events of 9/11, and that they will experience ’closure,’” Kevin Carlsmith, a professor of psychology at Colgate University, said in an interview with the New Haven Register. “But there’s really no evidence one way or the other to suggest this is the case — at least, none that I’ve ever come across.”

However, this is not necessarily to suggest that the want or need to seek revenge is an unnatural feeling. In fact, researchers have pointed out that it is a completely natural — but not necessarily healthy — feeling.  In fact, an elaborate punishment survey conducted by Carlsmith found that “punishers reported feeling worse than the non-punishers, but predicted they would have felt even worse had they not been given the opportunity to punish and that non-punishers said they thought they would feel better if they’d had that opportunity for revenge — even though the survey identified them as the happier group.” In other words, both groups felt that retribution would create some form of catharsis, but instead their own reported feelings aligned more with regretful feelings.

In addition, a recently released Public Religion Research Institute survey found that nearly 62 percent of Americans agree that it is wrong to celebrate the death of another person despite the severity of his or her transgressions.

But, the main question is, “How has the mainstream media treated his death?” Before President Obama officially announced bin Laden’s death, top government officials took to the Web, and immediately began sending out tweets on Twitter about his death. “So I’m told by a reputable person that they have killed Osama bin Laden’s death. Hot damn,” Keith Urbahn, the former chief of staff to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted nearly an hour before President Obama was to hold a late night press conference. Immediately afterward, the word spread like wild fire and publications across the world burned the midnight oil to prepare an obituary for the person who was considered to be one of the most wanted individuals in the world. “WE GOT THE BASTARD! –OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD,” the New York Post tweeted on its Twitter page.

Although there hasn’t been any reports of adverse psychological affects as a result of bin Laden’s death, I still believe his death is one that should be treated with as much sensitivity as any other person’s death. Sure, he committed one of the most flagrant and nefarious acts of terrorism that this generation has ever known, but I’m not necessarily sure it warrants a front page headline in the New York Daily News that reads in bolded font, “ROT IN HELL,” next to his photo. Although I do not condone his actions and I certainly do not think that his obituary should contain elements of praise or reverence for that matter, I think a second thought is needed before we, as journalists, write something that would, under normal circumstances, be considered egregious ethical journalistic violations.

Alteration in Hasidic paper causes uproar

According to some accounts that have appeared around the world, it seems as if Hillary Clinton had almost been removed from history by a Jewish publication that had chosen to cut her out out of a White House photo showing her along with other top administration officials watching the raid in Pakistan that killed the world’s infamous number one terrorist leader Osama bin Laden on May 1.

The Di Tzeitung publication that had cut out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason

In addition to Clinton being removed, the Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung also cut out counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason from the photograph that appeared on the cover of the front page. In its defense, the Di Tzeitung insisted that its religious beliefs prevent them from publishing any photos of women because it may put them in a sexually suggestive light.

“In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status,” the newspaper explained in a prepared statement. “Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention.”

The original White House photo that pictures Hillary Clinton (second from right) and Audrey Tomason (sixth from right)

Although the initial problem arises in the fact that the publication had altered a photo that the White House had specifically forbade anyone from doing so, the issue at hand is much more greater than that. For any journalism ethicist, this incident seems to raise a very fundamental question: To what extent should religious beliefs should decisions be made in reporting the truth. Despite the fact that this particular incident involves the alteration of a photo for public consumption, the issue is still just as relevant. At issue are the protections inherently provided by the First Amendment — the very law that journalists have been staunchly fighting for over the past decade.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Although the law itself does provide for a free press, the issue is whether that same law can allow the exercise of religious practices to override journalistic integrity. In almost any photojournalism class, there will always be that lecture about photo alteration and the ethical repercussions of placing it in the paper. In Dan Morrison’s photojournalism class, he made this point very clear when he explained to us that almost any alternation made, including lightening or darkening a photo to make it more clear to audiences, is ethically wrong to place in a paper for publication, because it manipulates the true image and can therefore significantly damage the publication’s journalistic integrity. For those photojournalists that did manipulate images, the consequences have been severe — many were immediately fired by their respective publication or seemingly placed on a banned list in which they would be unable to find work at any legitimate publication.

What makes this particular incident particularly interesting is the fact that both freedoms have enjoyed a significant amount of protection over the years. So, for many ethicists, the question is whether one freedom should outweigh the other. In either case, there really is no compromise in this matter; there can only be one winner.

One man’s exploration into the heart of war

Photo courtesy of The Oregonian

In Jere Van Dyk‘s talk at the University of Oregon last week, he described his experiences in Iraq and even detailed the events leading up to his capture and his time spent in captivity. For many, it highlighted the real dangers that journalists face abroad when covering conflicts, especially in the wake of numerous kidnappings in Iraq, where a few have been killed. Although it can be easy to dismiss him as another American journalist who blindly went into the heart of a conflict to find a story, Van Dyk’s history with Iraq is a lot more extensive than that.

In fact, Van Dyk was very familiar with the country and had travelled through the country extensively, even before the Taliban became the poster-child of guerilla warfare and terrorism. For Van Dyk, Iraq became a second home for him, and always seemed to be calling him back after the first time that he visited Iraq while he was still in college. However, no matter how comfortable he felt in his surroundings, everything did not go the way he had expected it to.

Although he was aware of the customs, cultural practices, and some of the language, Van Dyk said that he felt nervous to be traveling into the rugged terrain where the Taliban were infamously known to control. In fact, Van Dyk said many of the people that he talked to refused to go with him, because they knew the dangers and risks associated with the journey. However, Van Dyk said he was well acquainted with some key Taliban members and knew that he would be taken care of while he was there.

But, even that did not prevent his capture, which was thrown into the limelight for the next several months following his kidnapping. However, Van Dyk seemed to paint a different picture of Al Qaeda that is different than the ones that are typically portrayed through the media — an image of an incensed group of people who will engage an aggressive form of warfare to eliminate the enemy at all costs. Apart from this image, Van Dyk explained that his cultural background in Iraq allowed him to interact with them on an equal basis to the point at which they would try to protect him and view him as a guest rather than an enemy.

Thus, audiences here are left with this interesting, yet unlikely dichotomous relationship of Al Qaeda members being brutal to their enemies, yet kind to those who respectful to those enemies as well. For example, if you compare Van Dyk’s case with that of former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was tortured and brutally murdered, the outcomes are very different even though the circumstances are similar, to a certain extent. Even Van Dyk does not completely understand why he was chosen to live instead of facing the same fate as Pearl; however, he did credit Pearl for saving the lives of future journalists, since most terrorists are unwilling to kill their hostages.

From what many journalists know now, much of the Middle East is a scary, unpredictable place, where the dangers are extremely high and the terrorist groups are relentless, but beyond that exterior, perhaps there is a certain part of humanity in it all that may be lost in the translation of war. And, perhaps what motivates journalists to take risks and place themselves in dangerous situations is not only the opportunity to advance their career, but a love for a place that may seem undesirable to others.

Online journalism at the crossroads of progress

At a time in the history of journalism, when print publications are sporadically closing, consolidating, cutting back its budgets, or laying off workers, there is perhaps a glimmer of hope in online journalism — the very medium that seeks to undermine the traditional structure of journalism.

For the second year in a row, ProPublica — an independent, non-profit online news organization that was founded in 2008 — has won its second Pulitzer Prize in a row for its investigation of Wall Street bankers who first delayed but then worsened the financial crisis in order to enrich themselves at the expense of their clients and sometimes even their own firms. The prize, which was awarded in the national affairs reporting category, marked a significant milestone for online news organizations that have been struggling to gain a sense of reliability and accountability in an area of journalism that is still in its infancy.

“This was the first Pulitzer Prize ever awarded to an online news organization,” Paul Steiger, ProPublica’s editor-in-chief, CEO and president, said in an article shortly after the award winners were announced. “This year’s Prize is the first for a group of stories not published in print.”

ProPublica's editor-in-chief Paul Steiger (center) raises a glass to toast the publication’s first Pulitzer Prize. ProPublica is one of the success stories in attempts revive journalism in the digital world. Photo courtesy of Dan Nguyen (ProPublica).

Although ProPublica had previously won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for Sheri Fink’s investigation into the misconduct of well-regarded health professionals at New Orleans’ Memorial Medical Center following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the project was done as a collaborative effort between The New York Times Magazine and ProPublica. However, this past year’s award signifies the first time in which an on-line news organization is given sole credit for its work. However, as Steiger mentioned in his article, the work was bolstered by the organization’s partnership with National Public Radio’s “Planet Money” with Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg and “This American Life” hosted by Ira Glass. Thus, these awards to do not only show the professional reputation of on-line based organizations is gradually growing but also accentuates the ability of on-line based reporting to provide in-depth reporting across different types of media platforms in an effort to promote the work of another publication.

Despite the fact that online-based journalism is a rather new development, the number of reputable online-based news organizations has been growing steadily over the several years. According to the Neiman Journalism Lab at Harvard University, nearly 100 of the 1,097 Pulitzer Prize entries that were submitted this past year came from 60 different online-only news organizations. This is a considerable amount of growth from 2009 — the first year that online entries were considered — when only 37 online-only organizations submitted 65 entries. Part of the reason for this move largely stems from the fact that many mainstream print news organizations are unable to support long-term investigative projects that can require months, if not years, of dedicated attention and research. As a result, the aim of many non-profit on-line news organizations is to provide the type of investigative reporting that is often unsustainable in journalism’s current financial model. Without such websites such as ProPublica, I believe that the commodification of journalism would quell, if not eradicate, the type of “muckraking” investigative reporting that the profession has been heralded for.

Chomsky: An analysis of the hegemonic structures of media

Photo by Michael Ciaglo at the Oregon Daily Emerald

Photo by Michael Ciaglo at the Oregon Daily Emerald

Although many people have very polarizing opinions about Noam Chomsky, there is no doubt that one can easily overlook his accomplishments as member of the scientific community. Chomsky is a well-known intellectual in the scientific community, who has been heralded for being “one of the fathers of modern linguistics,” a major figure in analytic philosophy and a political activist for the libertarian socialist movement. In what has become a somewhat controversial move by the University of Oregon, Chomsky was invited to speak about globalized hegemony in which capitalist structures severely undermine the middle and lower classes in favor of agendas and motives that are pushed by the affluent who maintain their power over the political sphere by holding top business positions in powerful industries.

Chomsky has repeatedly declined interviews with various mainstream publications, including the Oregon Daily Emerald, a student publication at the University of Oregon. However, the reason behind that decision may be explained by his lecture speech and through the words of another intellectual, Robert McChesney, who shares similar views about the monopolization of the media industry. Like Chomsky, McChesney asserts that much of the news that was disseminated at the time was highly biased and often in favor of a certain party’s agenda. Although this may seem like a bad characteristic to foster in the preservation of objective values, Chomsky noted that having these biased publications was central to the democratic structure that the country was built on; having bias publications allowed all parties to voice their unfettered opinions and thoughts without having to worry about one side or angle being favored over another.

However, during the Industrial Revolution, marked the advent of the transnational corporation, which in turn, monopolized the industry by consolidating publications and controlling their content while excluding or buying out possible contenders who may seek to undermine their views. Increasingly that monopoly has grown substantially over an extended period of time. According to the Media Reform Information Center, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. in 1983. Only nine years later, American journalist and educator Ben Bagdikian

noted in The Media Monopoly that fewer than two-dozen corporations operate 90 percent of the mass media. In 2004, Bagdikian said in a revised version of his book that only five corporations, including Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany and Viacom (formerly CBS) control most of the media content in the world.

For Chomsky and McChesney, there is a fundamental problem in having the news industry is controlled by a few corporations: Monopolizing the news industry means that the content as well has been monopolized and controlled by those in power. In addition, Chomsky argued that is it not the concern of the news industry to report the truth. Although he was rather vague on this topic during this lecture, McChesney continues by arguing that the creation of objectivity through the process of professional journalism created a system in which journalists are highly reliant upon government officials to provide their news — sources who can easily manipulate and shape news in accordance to the government’s political agenda. In addition, McChesney also notes that the need to create balanced stories have also narrowed the reportage of news down to several difference conflicts, when there may easily be more than two specific sides to a story.

Although these perceptions are rather somber to hear as a journalist, it is refreshing to hear a view that is different than the one that is normally taught in many college classrooms. In addition, it may also be a call for change for some journalists. Students are taught in many of their introductory journalism courses of the media conglomerates that control the news industry, but there really hasn’t been any proposal for action or solution to the problem. As British novelist Arnold Bennett once said, “Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts.”

Award provides lessons in independent ethical reporting

Today, I attended the UO School of Journalism’s Payne Awards luncheon, where about 50 guests and I were introduced to the distinguished award winners, who were recognized for their commitment to ethics in the field, even when facing insurmountable economic, psychological, financial and some times legal challenges.

Concordia Sentinel editor Stanley Nelson (above) worked tirelessly to provide justice for the family of Frank Morris, a shoe store owner who was killed by the Ku Klux Klan when his store was set on fire. Photo courtesy of the Shreveport Times.

The first winner, Stanley Nelson, was lauded by the Payne Awards committee for his excellent reporting skills in helping police solve the cold case death of Frank Morris, who was killed when the shoe store that he owned was torched and burned to the ground by Ku Klux Klan Members. During the course of his three year investigation, Nelson and his employer, The Concordia Sentinel, successfully overcame a significant amount of obstacles in the pursuit of the truth and justice for the victim’s family, including death threats, break-ins, and cancelled newspaper subscriptions. Among one of the biggest challenges that Nelson faced was the opposition raised by his community where KKK violence was rampant during the 1950s and 1960s and in an era where memories of such incidents had been put on the back shelf in hopes of being forgotten.

Photo courtesy of Andrew Cusack (AndrewCusack.com)

The second place recognition went to the staff of the Yale Daily News at Yale University for their coverage of a high-profile public suicide that took place in New York City. At the time, news of the suicide dominated the headlines in throughout the Northeast, especially in New York City. While other news organizations focused on the teen’s suicide itself and often times provided gruesome details of the suicide itself, the Yale Daily News consulted with the Center for Disease Control’s recommendations on how to handle a suicide and focused more on the types services that the university provides for students who are in similar situations and the changes that would be occurring to these programs as a result of the teen’s suicide.

In particular, the predicament that the Yale Daily News faced is one that I can personally relate to. Several days ago, I was assigned a story to report on, which on the surface seemed simple enough — a summary of the University’s Suicide Awareness Week events that officially kicked off on Monday. Unfortunately for me, I question whether I had made the soundest judgment when I decided to correlate the university’s events to a tragedy last week in which a teen’s death attracted national attention to the town of Bend. Retrospectively, I would have certainly took a look at the CDC’s recommendations on reporting suicides in hope of preventing “suicide contagion” or “copy cat” suicides, which may result from the reportage of certain parts of a suicide. Although I was not even aware that such a manual on reporting suicides existed until the luncheon today, ignorance certainly should not have certainly clouded my judgment, which I believe was a tough one to have made at the time.

On one hand, I was trying to bring attention to the effectiveness of the school’s prevention program and methods by highlighting a case in the community, but on the other, I was aware that suicides are rarely ever covered in newspapers, unless it is the death of a well-known person or, in this case, a public suicide. Most of the details in the story could have been found and verified on multiple news sites; however, was it right for me to have done what everyone else was doing and reporting what everyone else had already reported? Maybe not.

For the Yale Daily News, the editorial board made a decision for the publication’s coverage of the tragedy to be vastly different than that of many major news organizations. Instead of focusing in on the tragedy itself, the Yale Daily News went out and highlighted solutions to the problem while maintaining a distance from details of the story in order to protect potentially vulnerable readers. In this sense, I think there is something very significant that I took away from the luncheon — as the well-known maxim reads, “Sometimes the right thing isn’t always the most popular.” Although it is true that journalists have an obligation to report the news and find the truth behind the issue, journalists also have an innate obligation to be sensitive to their readers as well. Some times it is easy to overlook this concept in the pursuit of the truth, but sometimes in order to find the most productive and helpful truth, one must look elsewhere in order to protect the interests of the people that we — as journalists — serve.

Community journalism: a debate of reliability

The rise of blogging has allowed almost anyone who has Internet access and a computer or smart phone to become a published author, whose unadulterated thoughts and opinions are available for the Internet-world to view. However, blogging has begun to make an increasingly pronounced presence in mainstream journalism as print-based publications require some writers to maintain a daily or weekly blog. In addition, “community journalism,” which was created in response to the cutbacks, layoffs, closures, or consolidations of major print-based companies, has risen in prominence. Many community journalism organizations are committed to reporting hyper-local issues, while mostly working on a Web-based level, where reporters file their stories into a blog format.

Thus, as blogging becomes an increasing platform for journalists to conduct their reporting and more blog-based writers begin to call themselves journalists, I believe a fundamental question has to be raised: To what degree are bloggers considered journalists and should they receive the same amount of protection as journalists?

Current CNET blogger Josh Wolf (above) holds the record for the longest jail sentence served by a journalist for contempt of court. Photo by James Martin (CNET News.com).

One particular case that has received a lot of attention over the past few years was the case of Joshua Wolf, an independent activist and video blogger, who was jailed in 2006 after refusing a court order to handover videotape footage that he had taken at an anti-G8 protest rally in San Francisco — a police officer was injured and his cruiser was burned during the protest and there was reason to believe that Wolf’s footage may have documented the event. Wolf maintained in court that he was trying to uphold his journalistic privilege to protect his sources; however, the court disagreed and sentenced him to 226 days in prison — the longest sentence given to any American journalist who was attempting to protect his or her sources.

In a journalism class last year, my classmates and I watched a video that documented his plight, and the subsequent discussion yielded mixed feelings about the matter. Some students lauded Wolf for upholding his journalistic values in protecting his source’s identity, while others believed that he should not be entitled to claim a journalistic privilege since his occupation as a journalist could be considered to be questionable.

In terms of defining what a journalist is, many of the definitions that are offered by seemingly legitimate sources are rather ambiguous. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary currently defines a journalist as being, “a person engaged in journalism; especially: a writer or editor to a news medium” or “a writer who aims at a mass audience.” Here, what constitutes a “news medium” isn’t specifically defined in this context, and it seems that “community journalism” is still considered to be such a relatively new concept since there is no current definition for it in a dictionary.

In an article on the Poynter Institute website titled, “The Ethics of Civic Journalism: Independence as the Guide,” Bob Steele notes that many proponents of community journalism argue that community journalism is essential, because it not only highlights localized issues that need attention but also provides a greater voice to the community that it intrinsically serves. However, opponents argue that community journalism crosses the line of objectivity — a key trait that is emphasized in any introductory journalism course — and is something that good newsrooms have already been doing for some time.

So, when it really comes down to it, the answer isn’t always clear-cut. In many cases, many journalists often have varying opinions on the matter. However, as community journalism beings to evolve, I believe that many of the grey area will be solved, but until then, much of community journalism’s significance and function is up for debate.

Blogs: facilitating the conversation

Nearly a decade ago, blogging began to develop as a way for people to personally express themselves. To a certain point, it became an alternate and more modern version of the journal in which people freely expressed their ideas, feelings and emotions in the world.

However, a lot has changed since then. Today, blogging is no longer restricted to the teenager who wants to detail their every thought into an autobiography. Rather, many professionals have embraced the potential that blogs have to connect writers with their readers on a more intimate basis. Journalism, in particular, is one particular example of this. In many collegiate journalism courses across the nation, instructors are beginning to incorporate the art of blogging into their curriculum as an increasing number of publications are requiring reporters to learn many other skills, including video editing, blogging and photography. In fact, Mark Briggs, the assistant Managing Editor for Interactive News at The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash., suggests that, “every college journalist should have a blog.”

“For professional reporters, blogging helps develop community with readers or viewers so they can test ideas, receive early and direct feedback and publish or broadcast in the timeliest manner possible,” Briggs explains in his book, Journalism 2.0: How to Survive and Thrive. “By blogging professional reporters can publish information beyond the traditional news cycle and in something other than the traditional story format, both of which help enhance their authority on a beat. Blogs also help news organizations establish deeper relationships with readers and leverage the wisdom of the crowd to broaden coverage.”

In other words, blogs is the media industry’s attempt to adapt to the Digital Age at a time when print subscriptions are rapidly decreasing and online news consumption is adversely increasing, especially since getting news online is easy as downloading an application on one’s iPhone or iPad and immediately accessing online content within the combined time span of several minutes.

But, unlike traditional media, some of the rules are different. For example, Briggs says that — unlike traditional model where reporters serve as the authority of information in a written form — bloggers merely serve to act as facilitators of information, since audience participation is the key to a successful blog. In addition, blogging reporters play off of other information that they find online and some times provides links to other web sites that would have been typically viewed as competition only a few years earlier.

In a sense, Briggs says that the advent of blogging rose of out tragedy, since blogs became “an effective way for people to share their responses to events and discuss what they though was happening to the country” immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“The personal connections those early bloggers created with readers, at a time when nerves were still raw and people were still reeling, ushered in a new era of interactivity between writer and reader,” Briggs says. “And the energy created by those post-9/11 blogs morphed into passionate discussion and debate during the run-up to U.S. military action in Iraq, then evolved further in 2004 as election season shifted into high gear.”