Proportion

                We are surrounded by examples of news blown out of proportion (and reactions equally out of proportion).  Much if this so-called ‘news’ spawns from the rumor mill.  Once a slightly interesting yet basic topic comes about, our immediate reaction is to couple the information we have with our imaginations.  As discussed on page 208 of The Elements of Journalism, people’s imaginations were left open to fill the void of the Western side of the country, which produced irrational depictions of Indians, unimaginable amounts of gold and disproportional maps of what was supposedly out there.

                Countless examples of “newsworthy” stories are somewhat sensationalized and blown out of proportion from what the real issue or story is all about or how important it really is (or rather, isn’t).  The following website demonstrates various examples of pointless and out-of-proportion news: http://mjodonnell.webs.com/

                It is extremely important, as a journalist, to get the details of a situation and verify what really happened before semi-sensationalizing the subject.  Otherwise, something so simple could blow up, such as in the following Julian Smith video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty62YzGryU4

                Having said this, we as citizens have a sort of Bill of Rights (page 252 of The Elements of Journalism is where the issue I will be discussing is located).  One such right of the citizen is to proportionality and engagement.  Our “basic dilemma as citizens” is as follows: “we have a need for timely and deep knowledge of important issues and trends in our community, but we lack both the time and the means to access most of this crucial information.”

                As citizens spend less and less time reading the news, what they do receive greatly defines their view of what is happening in the world.  The news that does make it into the limelight needs to be worth a citizen’s valuable time, important, and newsworthy.  While scrolling through my newsfeed on Yahoo!, I do not want to read headlines such as the following: “Taylor Swift’s Adorable PDA Moments”, “Odd Architecture Just for Dogs”, “Giant Tree Even Bigger Than First Thought”, “MLB Star, New Bride Play ‘Trash the Dress’”, and others (http://www.yahoo.com/).  I know these are personal interest stories, but why do they need to take up space on my newsfeed? Are they really newsworthy?

                Responsible journalists must consider what is newsworthy and what is not.  Though many people do seek special interest stories, much of the news that makes its way into the headlines takes up the space that could be occupied by more important news regarding the economy, foreign affairs, and national issues.  Citizens simply do not have enough time to read in depth stories, so the news they do receive should be important and newsworthy. 

Covering the LDS Church in the Media

How is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints covered in the media?  Often the Church is painted as a bizarre, impersonal religion in the journalism world.  Often journalists find themselves side-stepping certain vernacular when mentioning the LDS Church in the news to avoid offending the growing population of Church members throughout the world. 

 

In an article written by religionwriters.com (1), several suggestions for covering the LDS Church are listed. For example:

 

1. Labeling Mormons as Christians in the news: “Whether or not Mormons are Christian is a contentious matter. Journalists should always be clear that the Mormons regard themselves as Christian but that Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians say Mormon beliefs do not agree with Christianity and its creeds. When this distinction is not important to a news report, journalists use phrases such as “Catholic, Protestant and Mormon churches are involved …” to avoid the issue. Journalists should avoid phrases such as “Christian churches, including Catholics, Protestants and Mormons,” which make a theological judgment about the church’s beliefs.”

 

2. Using accurate information to explain the Church’s beliefs: “Journalists should take care to describe Mormon beliefs and practices in accurate and nonjudgmental ways. When teachings are controversial, journalists can state as fact or quote scholars explaining how they differ from traditional Christian teaching.”

 

3. Calling Church members by their correct titles: “The LDS church has changed its position on the term Mormon. Most recently, the church asked not to be referred to as the Mormon church, but it does not object to adherents being referred to as Mormons. For journalists, the Mormon church is acceptable in references to the LDS church, though the church’s full name should be used on first reference.”

 

4. Distinguishing between church service meetings and the temple. “Mormons welcome visitors in churches, but visitors are not allowed to enter Mormon temples. (Churches, or meeting houses, are used for Sunday worship, while temples, which serve numerous churches, are used only on weekdays for special rituals.) Even family members who are not Mormon cannot enter a temple for weddings and funerals. For that matter, only Mormons who are deemed sufficiently “worthy”— by paying their tithe and being active in their ward — are allowed in.”

 

5. How the LDS Church works as far as leadership goes: “The LDS church has an unusual structure. The top authority is the First Presidency, made up of a president and two counselors. When the president dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the Council of the Twelve Apostles selects a new president. Under the First Presidency is the three-member Presiding Bishopric, which governs in temporal affairs. There is also the First Quorum of Seventy, which oversees missionary work. The church is divided into territorial groups called stakes, and each stake is headed by a president, two counselors and a stake high council. Individual congregations are called wards. The pastor of a ward holds the title of bishop but is not salaried or a professional religious leader. The terms minister or the Rev. are not used.”

 

Often readers find contrasting articles about the LDS Church—all contrasted by the words the author chooses to use.  It is easy to understand when an article is biased toward the particular topic all based on the connotation of the words.  One session of the Mormon Media Studies Symposium entitled “Comparing Two Moments: Changes in Media Coverage of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Between the Campaigns of 2008 and 2012” compared the usage of certain words in description of the LDS faith between 2008 and 2012 while Mitt Romney was running for president.  Following are some of the statistics: (2)

 

                                                                                2008                       2012

Polygamy                                                            25.71%                  18.01%

“Book of Mormon”                                         22.86%                  17.39%

Welfare                                                               .71%                      2.48%

Service                                                                 0%                          .62%

Tithes/Tithing                                                    2.86%                    8.07%

Secretive                                                             6.43%                    3.11%

Cult                                                                        27.14%                  21.74%

Joseph Smith                                                     29.29%                  18.63%

Temple                                                                 31.43%                  12.42%

Racist                                                                    5.71%                    1.24%

Baptisms for Dead                                           7.86%                    3.73%

Family                                                                   7.14%                    10.56%

 

As we can observe, words that usually have a negative connotation to the world went down in use in 2012 compared to the 2008 campaign of Mitt Romney.  His campaigns helped bring the Church into the limelight, and as journalists faced the often challenging and sensitive topic of covering the LDS Church in the media, they seem to understand more about what words are allowable to use and which are unacceptable in description of the Church. 

 

As the LDS Church gains prominence in the media world, journalists are going to have to learn how to cover the peculiar subject in their articles and broadcasts.

 

Sources:

(1) http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/reporting-on-religion-a-primer-on-journalisms-best-beat/a-roundup-of-religions/beyond-the-big-three/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

(2) Mormon Media Studies Symposium, BYU Campus, November 8-9, 2012. “Comparing Two Moments: Changes in Media Coverage of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Between the Campaigns of 2008 and 2012”

Mormon Media Studies Symposium

                I attended three sessions of the Mormon Media Studies Symposium held November 8th and 9th:   “Perceptions of Mitt Romney within the Mormon Community” by Clark Callahan, Christina Chatfield, Derek Johanson, and Kate Zeller; this session was combined with “Comparing Two Moments: Changes in Media Coverage of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism between the Campaigns of 2008 and 2012” by Lane Williams; and finally “Baptism of Fire: A Comparative Analysis of Media Coverage of the LDS Church’s Practice of Proxy Baptisms” by Joel Campbell and Kris Boyle.  Each of these sessions had their positives and negatives, but the two I found I enjoyed the most were “Perceptions of Mitt Romney in the Mormon Community” and “Baptism of Fire.”  There was also one section of “Comparing Two Moments” that interested me that I will include in this description.

                In the session “Perceptions of Mitt Romney in the Mormon Community”, I found it interesting that the researcher found four different ‘types of Mormons’, if you will, within the LDS world.  Each of these types had different perceptions of Mitt Romney and his campaign while being an LDS figure himself.  The researcher divided them into the following four sections: Primary Mormons (who were “particularly favorable toward Romney’s values,” “believe Romney represents the Church well to media and the public,” who are “defensive about media or public critiques of faith,” and often use the phrase “I think every Mormon should vote for Mitt Romney”); Sovereign Mormons (usually democratic in their political views, these Mormons are “more discontented with ‘mainstream’ Mormon culture that they are opposed to the candidate,” “actively exclude faith from politics,” and often “feel isolated from the body of the Church”); Aesthetic Mormons (who are “more concerned with how Mitt Romney reflects on the Church than his actual candidacy” and “believe that faith should play an important role in politics”; they are often worried about reputation rather than the campaign); and finally, the Doubty Zealots (who don’t particularly “favor Mitt Romney’s politics,” “wish the public would be more aware of the church’s values,” but who are nonetheless more likely to vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon; they often use phrases such as “I couldn’t care less about politics, but I know my religion” and “Anyone can be evil, never mind religion.”).  I find myself relating to mostly the Primary and Aesthetic Mormon groups.  The researcher explained that most individuals he surveyed fell into the first two categories far more than the latter two. 

                In another session, “Comparing Two Moments”, the researcher pointed out the word usage in articles, etc., that are common to Mormon culture varied between the 2008 and 2012 elections.  For example:

                                                                2008                                       2012

Polygamy                                            25.71%                                  18.01%

“Book of Mormon”                         22.86%                                  17.39%

Welfare                                              .71%                                      2.48%

Service                                                 0%                                          .62%

Tithes/Tithing                                    2.86%                                    8.07%

Secretive/Secret                              6.43%                                    3.11%

Cult                                                        27.14%                                  21.74%

Joseph Smith                                     29.29%                                  18.63%

Temple                                                 31.43%                                  12.42%

Racist                                                    5.71%                                    1.24%

Baptisms for Dead                           7.86%                                    3.73%

Family                                                   7.14%                                    10.56%

The researcher further explained these findings, that most of the negatively connoted words such as ‘polygamy’ and ‘cult’ and ‘secret’ went down in mention from the 2008 campaign, whereas words such as ‘welfare’ and ‘family’ went up in mention.  I found this interesting to see a visual of how mention of certain words in media has changed between the 2008 and 2012 Mitt Romney campaigns.

                Overall, each session was unique and informative in their own ways.  I’m grateful I had the chance to attend a few sessions (less than I would have liked) and learn more about the church in the media.  It was an enlightening experience, one that I will definitely keep my notes from. 

Hurricane Sandy and Journalism Coverage

With Hurricane Sandy wreaking havoc on the east coast of the United States, two areas of ‘Watchdog Journalism’ that intrigued me were the American value of reestablishing order and the journalism and politics question whether or not journalist should advocate or help the victims of tragedies.  Media are swimming with examples of how journalists are either standing by or taking part in restoring order back to the decimated Atlantic Coast.

                The headline for Tuesday, October 30, 2012’s issue of The New York Times reads “STORM PICKS UP SPEED AND DISRUPTS MILLIONS OF LIVES” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/hurricane-sandy-churns-up-east-coast.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ).  The use of the word “disrupts” especially illustrates their point of order being disrupted.  The next day the headline read “AFTER THE DEVASTATION, A DAUNTING RECOVERY” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/hurricane-sandy-barrels-region-leaving-battered-path.html?pagewanted=all ).  Already many headlines on websites such as Yahoo! are focusing on restoring order in the east.  One headline reads “Storm-hit region faces daunting road ahead” with a ‘heartbreaking’ hotlink to the following article telling of New Jersey’s devastation among other east coast cities (http://news.yahoo.com/airports-stock-exchange-reopen-nj-devastated-142715604--finance.html ).  The article also focuses on the fact that airports and the stock exchange are once again reopened—a sign of order amidst the devastation of Hurricane Sandy.  Another article focuses on officials restoring the transportation systems back to order (http://www.ibtimes.com/hurricane-sandy-nyc-workers-assess-damage-begin-restoring-subway-bus-services-856342 ).  Indeed, Americans are intent on restoring order after disaster, illustrating a more optimistic view of the future.

                This relates to another area of question: should journalists get involved?  Or rather, “Is it possible to be an objective journalist?”  As all this devastation takes place, sometimes in local journalists’ own home towns or states, is it always possible to remain completely objective?

                The following images (links provided) were taken following the wake of the storm.  It is quite possible that perhaps the photojournalists could have helped the victim within the picture, but by taking the picture they are remaining more objective than anything: just acting as a stander-by, snapping photos and moving onto the next affected area. 

 

(http://news.yahoo.com/photos/hurricane-sandy-1351517288-slideshow/#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fhurricane-sandy-1351517288-slideshow%252Fbrian-hajeski-41-brick-n-j-reacts-looking-photo-215942458.html )

(http://news.yahoo.com/photos/hurricane-sandy-1351517288-slideshow/#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fhurricane-sandy-1351517288-slideshow%252Frobert-connolly-left-embraces-wife-laura-survey-remains-photo-202122721.html )

(http://news.yahoo.com/photos/hurricane-sandy-1351517288-slideshow/#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fhurricane-sandy-1351517288-slideshow%252Fnasce-inspects-flood-damage-inside-her-home-morning-photo-150002632.html )

                We do not know what these journalists were thinking, doing or experiencing at the time these photos were taken.  From this viewpoint, however, they appear rather objective—silently snapping pictures of people surveying the damage of their own homes.  Perhaps, however, these photojournalists were witnessing their own neighbors, real people, crying over the remains of their own homes, memories, and ruined lives.  These are current examples of journalists dancing around the difficult question of whether or not to remain objective among such emotionally difficult situations like Hurricane Sandy—and if so, how exactly do they do it? 

The News of the World Phone-Hacking Scandal

                One of the biggest scandals to ever hit the journalism world recently occurred within Rupert Murdoch’s own News Corp world.  The News of the World, the 168-year-old tabloid, officially closed its doors after a phone-hacking scandal rocked the newsroom.  With nowhere to hide, the figures in charge (including chief executive Rebekah Brooks and Rupert’s own son James) admitted to phone-hacking hundreds of celebrities, individuals (including victims of the London bombings and Milly Dowler’s voicemail, a young girl who was kidnapped on her way to school, politicians, and even the British royal family; bribing the police; and also to covering up other unethical practices in the newsroom.  Over 200 people were fired from the company as a result and recompense was made to every individual victim of the scandal.

 

                This is a perfect example of what not to do in the newsroom.  Reporters at The News of the World completely bypassed Poynter’s 10 questions – all ten of them.  There was no justification, no thought as to what the consequences would be for them and the individuals, no attempt to “maximize…truth telling…[or] minimize harm” (1), nor considered what company policies to abide by (although the tabloid already had a less-than-stellar reputation as it was).  James Murdoch himself said, “These actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world, and it is our determination to both put things right, make sure these things don’t happen again, and to be the company that I know we’ve always aspired to be” (2). The following court session is rather odd, actually; Rupert Murdoch himself states what a humbling time in his life this is and wants to make sure the correct individuals are put in place next time to run the company right.  Why, then, were they not placed there in the first place?  Why did this happen for the duration of time that it did and on such a large scale?  Why were guards not put in place to prevent these things from happening?

 

                The phone-hacking scandal under News Corp is through-and-through the perfect example of what not to do.  Even though it was a trashy tabloid, The News of the World did not even stop to think about their actions and their consequences, nonetheless never felt sorry for what they had done.  The response was unanimous throughout the world, as portrayed in the following newscast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqtcwr6WN9g ).  Rupert continues to claim he knew nothing about the phone-hacking going on in his newsroom, and the News Corp world continues turning as if the News of the World never happened.   

 

 

(1) http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/everyday-ethics/talk-about-ethics/1750/ask-these-10-questions-to-make-good-ethical-decisions/

(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSGzHoOUrDA

(3) http://cakeordeathcartoon.wordpress.com/tag/news-of-the-world/

His Girl Friday

                In the film His Girl Friday, news reporters test the edge of ethics in (and out of) the newsroom to get the scoop they need for the story.  Hildy Johnson, the ex-wife of the paper’s managing editor of Walter Burns, is often referred to as “the best newspaper man we’ve got” by Walter himself.  After being reeled back into the newspaper business by a series of planned yet unforeseeable events, Hildy determines she really is meant to lead the life of a newspaper woman—essentially finding it is in her blood.  What is interesting, however, is how hectic and news-centered the life of a journalist is, especially during the era of Pulitzer and Hearst.  Ethics are discarded, harm is hardly considered, and the journalists ultimately get what they want – only to turn around and do it all over again. 

                His Girl Friday is an excellent example of ethical violations in the journalism world during the era of Pulitzer and Hearst.  Characters throughout the story try payoffs for stories, bribe the editors and subjects, hand out counterfeit money, and on more than one occasion have run-ins with the police.  The characters frequently face compromising situations solved in ways that result in the most gain for the newspaper.  The journalists rarely show apathy for anybody, even if someone jumps to their death from the newsroom window itself.  They work in a very sensationalist, individualistic world focused on getting the story no matter what—and making it as dramatized and appealing as possible.  And how does any paper succeed in this era of sensationalistic practices?  Find the worst news and print it on the front page, of course.  Especially in the United States, we are more focused on the bad news (while vice versa in other nations, as pointed out in The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel) because it stirs up the adrenaline and concern, resulting in the need to know more about what happened and how we can restore order to the situation.  This mindset is especially prevalent in His Girl Friday with the murder case causing all sorts of havoc and controversy.  “Where is the murderer?  Did he do it?  What is his alibi?  How does the public weigh in?  Oh, the murderer escaped from jail?  And he is in our newsroom?   Perfect!  Never mind he has a gun pointed right at you, Hildy.  Let’s get this story written!”  This seems to be the basic dialogue encompassing the true theme of the story and the era of Yellow journalism: disregard all ethics and safety in the newsroom for the good of the story.

                Journalism in this era was highly exciting as all ethics were thrown out the window and the story came as is went.  However, the excitement was not always a positive thing, although the characters may try to disagree with this.  In order to get the story, they had to overcome any sort of safety precautions (having the murderer himself in the newsroom) and forfeit all ethics (payoffs, bribes, death, counterfeit money) in order to sensationalize the story as much as possible.  The newsroom seemed to be run as a business rather than a public service—at least behind the scenes.  Although their end seemed to be good (acquitting the murderer from his execution because he “didn’t mean to kill the man”), their means and intentions were anything but good.  The way they went about getting the story and then writing it for the public was purely dramatized and for their sales benefit.  This was displayed in the apathy they showed toward anyone and everyone, even their own employees, fiancés (Hildy’s fiancé Bruce) and the ones they supposedly love (Walter towards Hildy).  Overall, His Girl Friday reflects perfectly the ethics – or lack thereof – during the era of Pulitzer and Hearst’s Yellow journalism. 

Risk of Involvement

Many journalists relate to and agree with the idea that immersing or involving yourself in a story can be both an advantage and disadvantage.  Immersion takes mental, physical, and emotion tolls on a journalist. 

                One perspective of a journalist who immersed herself in the world of psychiatric hospital patients, Nellie Bly, put it this way: “I took upon myself to enact the part of a poor, unfortunate crazy girl, and felt it my duty not to shirk any of the disagreeable results that should follow” (1).  She knew beforehand she would be affected by the experience but not positive just how profoundly.  After the experience, she quotes, “I had looked forward so eagerly to leaving the horrible place, yet when my release came and I knew that God's sunlight was to be free for me again, there was a certain pain in leaving.“ (2).  Her experience and research into the situation did bring some change, however; “I hardly expected the grand jury to sustain me, after they saw everything different from what it had been while I was there. Yet they did, and their report to the court advises all the changes made that I had proposed” (3). 

                The question posed, then, is: Is it worth it? Is it worth getting involved in? What will be the consequences? In what ways will you never be the same? We can look to Nellie Bly’s example and many other journalists’ in situations such as these, but we must also consider the peculiarity about a specific situation if one ever arises. Journalists must consider the consequences of getting involved and must be prepared to report a story with a considerable bias toward the situation.

 

 

(1) (2) (3) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/nellie_bly.html