Week 6 Abstracts
UNC’s Frank Fee offers a compilation of some of the most useful tips on preserving accuracy. According to Fee, objective errors are the easiest to control of the six types of news errors. I’m curious to find out what the other five errors are and which he believes to be the hardest to control as a journalist. It’s ironic (and telling) that Fee begins the list of tips with “Always do the math,” being that was the topic of last week’s abstracts. Just as Fee stresses, it’s crucial to make sure the numbers are not only correct but also that they add up. Another insightful point Fee makes is that just because you get some of these numbers from lauded “officials” or “experts” doesn’t mean you should give them the benefit of the doubt. Scientists and doctors are just as capable of human error as reporters and editors, and we shouldn’t treat everything sources say as the gospel truth. Another thing we often take for granted is that a date of birth and a given age are mathematically compatible. Only rarely have I remembered to compare the two in stories that I’ve written or edited.
I can’t agree more with Fee on how crucial it is that one of the first thing a copy editor should do when reading a story is to double check the first reference of people to make sure something in his or her name hasn’t been rearranged or accidentally deleted. I’ve seen how common it is for editors and production staff to hastily cut, copy and paste portions of text while forgetting to double check these types of things. Similarly, accidentally cutting the “S” from “She” can result in a lot of embarrassment for you and your female source. No matter how new to the scene, a reporter or editor should also never be embarrassed or self-conscious in immediately pointing out a mechanical/objective editor to a supervisor. While working at the Gainesville Sun, I’ve seen several mechanical errors in stories I filed that weren’t there prior to being sent to production and copy edited. However, I’ve always been too embarrassed to mention anything to my editors for fear of sounding nit-picky or bitchy. Like Fee explains, this is just acting as an accomplice to the error and freely cooperating in lowering the standards of the newspaper.
What it all boils down to is despite how swamped you might be, taking the time to really concentrate on the copy (everything from spacing to spelling to tone) to make sure nothing is mistakenly dropped into what Fee calls the “funnel” of the editing assembly line. The farther it makes it down the line, the less likely it is to be caught and corrected. Of course, no list of accuracy tips would be complete without the journalistic adage, “Never assume.” I would bet that more than 75 percent of objective and mechanical errors that have made it to the presses were the result of a hasty assumption. We all know that assuming makes … well, you get the point.
WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA CAN LEARN FROM JON STEWART
The American Journalism Review’s in-depth analysis of the snarky Jon Stewarts’s “The Daily Show” is full of interesting insights into the growing business of fake news and what it can teach us about the ever-evolving world of journalism. I think the most telling thing about shows like Stewart’s is truly how little they need to do to be effective and engaging. Of course, Stewart has a talented staff of writers to help him think up the majority of the show’s comedic quips, but for the most part, the video clips of the politicians he parodies speak for themselves. AJR’s Rachel Smolkin makes a wonderful point by explaining the untapped fact-checking qualities of shows like “The Daily Show.” By giving audiences first-hand evidence of the blatant contradictions that our politicians are guilty of (much like Tim Russert does on “Meet the Press” but without the biting humor), Stewart offers a no-frills and damn-funny brand of watchdog journalism.
What Stewart and his colleagues is something akin to a funny, cable television version of reputable Web sites such as FactCheck,org and PolitiFact.com, and who can argue that there isn’t a demand for such a niche? Why can’t the people who have sites like these bookmarked also subsidize their information with a little sarcasm on the side?s
Of course, there are numerous limitations that come with trying to make the news “funny,” namely presenting your readers with just-the-facts-ma’m coverage. While I do think that today’s journalists shouldn’t be afraid of sticking their necks out and putting a sense of humor into their stories, I also think much of this depends on the type of story and what kind of tone is appropriate. But any journalist that can’t laugh at Stewarts’s mockery of the media simply shouldn’t be in the business. Journalists should be able to laugh at themselves regardless of who’s doing the criticizing. Even though much of the “The Daily Show’s” mockery is done with an admittedly liberal flair, it still can teach us a lot about what NOT to do or say as a member of the press.
Dean Powers’ article in The Nation is an interesting look at the far-reaching influence of the English language on political coverage in the mainstream media. While I sort of question the motivations of an admittedly liberal magazine like The Nation when considering how big a phenomenon of choosing words that favor Republicans, it is an important insight to realize how often the media characterize both liberals and conservatives with language that seems only to describe their lifestyles and personal preferences, not their political ideology. It does seem that our political coverage is slowly becoming one devoid of real substance and instead the careful choosing of particular buzzwords and codewords that either scream liberal or conservative – “fundamentalist Christians,” “the Christian base,” “red state,” “blue state,” “elites,” and of course as Nunberg points out, the discussion of “values,” which is essentially a discussion of how, when it comes to social issues, liberal ideology and thought has left us morally bankrupt.
I agree with people like Sydney Schanberg who believe that these words – while they may be punchy and fun to use in your writing – are examples of loaded language and lazy imprecision. Why say “red state” when you can be cover all the bases and be much more concrete and – most importantly – less misleading? Words like “liberal” and “right-wing” really do carry negative connotations and only make unproductive partisan bickering worse. Any of journalism’s lauded political reporters, David Broder for example, would advise being you can’t be too concrete when it comes to writing about anything in the political arena. I think one of the most important words of advice for a political reporter is to not, as Bob Moore explains, let sources set the standard for the language you use in a story to describe the other side of a particular issue. Loaded words like “illegals” to describe immigrants working in the United States should have no place in journalism, but sadly enough, I’m sure there are more than a handful of reporters who would have no qualms about using the term.
While I have been guilty of this on more than a few occasions, it does no good to look at America’s political landscape strictly in terms of conservative or liberal, especially when most research shows that a number of Americans simply don’t fit in these neat little molds of ideological thought. Let’s face it – most of us are moderates. I think we’d see a much different, more informative political coverage if we gave up the use of “color-coded imagery” and focus on clear, concise and informative writing. Any editor could tell you that he or she prefers writing that is overly concrete over that which relies on connotative generalizations about people and their beliefs.
STORY IDEA
The Gainesville Police Department has been talking with five private companies that install video cameras at intersections to catch red-light runners. Cameras would capture video and still images of intersections, allowing police officers to review the tapes and issue tickets to the owners of vehicles that blow through red lights. According to the attorney general, these tickets would only be admissible as violations of city ordinance, NOT as a moving traffic violation. The Gainesville City Commission will be considering an ordinance that has been drafted that would allow the city to partner with a private company. The fines will range anywhere from $175-$250.
I propose doing a more in-depth article about this proposal. There are eight cities in Florida that have similar ordinances. I’d find out which cities these are, how much they charge in fines and how effective the ordinance has been in reducing accidents. I think it’s also important to talk to someone with GPD and the Gainesville City Commission to see where SPECIFICALLY the money collected from these fines would go. Would they increase with additional infractions? I’d talk to some residents (students and non-students) to get some insight into what people think about the possibility of these cameras being installed. Are the city’s motivations more to do with money than reducing traffic accidents? What statistics and figures can they produce to show that red-light running is the main cause of Gainesville’s major traffic accidents?
Story would run at 20 inches with photo of Archer/34th Street intersection. Online story could have infographic of Florida map with the cities that already have a red-light ordinance. When you click on the different cities, the map could compare them in terms of fines, number of traffic accidents prevented, etc. Online story could also have a reader poll, video interviews with residents, and maybe a forum where readers could give feedback and keep track of when/where they’ve witnessed someone running a red light.
