Betsy's Page

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Moaning about journalistic ethics

The story of what Obama said at a San Francisco fundraiser has become yet another opportunity for journalists to bend over and examine their own navels to determine what exactly "journalistic ethics" say about a blogger who goes to a fundraiser and tapes it and then writes a story that is damaging to a candidate. As Katherine Seelye writes in the New York Times, Mayhill Fowler, who wrote the original story, is a writer for the Huffington Post. She has contributed the maximum to the Obama campaign which is why she was able to get into the fundraiser to begin with. She's been covering Obama for the Huffpo already and has written mostly positive stories so far.

The Obama campaign is saying now that the event was closed to the press,
“This was never conveyed to me,” Ms. Fowler said. “I was invited to the event, I had written on fund-raisers in the past, why wouldn’t I this time?” She said the Obama campaign had never objected before to her having written about fund-raisers (though admittedly, nothing much of interest had happened). And the invitations said nothing about being closed to the press. Besides, she said, several guests brought people and children and who had not been invited.

“We had a fundamental misunderstanding of my priorities,” Ms. Fowler told me. “Mine were as a reporter, not as a supporter. They thought I would put the role of supporter first.”
So, they knew she was a blogger , but just didn't worry about her writing anything bad since they've gotten such glowing reports from reporters, including her, before.

And it wasn't as if she was surreptitiously taping him. She was quite open about it.
Ms. Fowler said she held her digital recorder openly. The place was jammed with others using video cams and cell phone cameras. Among them, Ms. Fowler said, was a professor who was recording the event for his students. In fact, snippets of the speech have been posted on YouTube by others who were there.
The Obama campaign is reportedly furious that what they regarded as a private affair should have been made public. As Rich Lowry starts his column on the whole affair,
Barack Obama was caught saying something he believes.
Since Obama hasn't backed away from what he said, just from what he regrets as his clumsy phrasing, why should the campaign be upset? She was openly taping his words as were other people. They just expected to get a positive report, perhaps especially because she is from the Huffington Post which has been a conduit for positive Obama comments and negative Clinton stories.

But now journalists have to debate whether there is something distasteful about a "citizen journalist" who has donated money to a campaign then writing about the campaign. In her original story, Fowler placed the damaging quote in the middle of her thoughts about Pennsylvanians and her advice to Obama not to try to explain Pennsylvanians to Californians in such terms. She struggled over whether or not she should write the story in the first place because she supports Obama, but was convinced by her editor that she needed to put aside her biases and write the news from what she observed.

Seeyle notes this supposed difference between the mainstream media and bloggers.
For one thing, some Internet enterprises, unlike the mainstream media, do allow their writers to actively support the people they cover
So MSM journalists just need to make sure that they haven't donated money to a candidate. Journalists might pretend not to be actively supporting a candidate, but they still have their own favorites or candidates that they disdain. Everyone does. They wouldn't be human if they didn't. Just giving the money isn't what determines the level of support.

I think that having a blogger write such a story is perfectly fine. The fact that she has donated money to the campaign is also fine, though should have been included in the original story, especially since it was written from such a personal point of view in the first place. Lots of journalists have their own biases, but pretend that they can be perfectly neutral. They might brag of never having given money to a campaign and some even go so far as to say that they don't vote just so that they can maintain their mask of objectivity. I just don't believe that people who spend their lives thinking and writing about politics are ever unbiased. The only unbiased people are those who just don't care. Those biases come through all the time in what they choose to write about, how they frame the story, and what words they choose. Even when they try to be even-handed by quoting from a conservative and then a liberal can be biased by implying that the arguments of each are equal and that there is no objective reality to discriminate between those arguments. I'd much prefer a writer who is up front about his or her biases and lets readers provide their own filters.
Labels: Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:24 AM 0 comments

Comments:

The story of what Obama said at a San Francisco fundraiser has become yet another opportunity for journalists to bend over and examine their own navels to determine what exactly "journalistic ethics" say about a blogger who goes to a fundraiser and tapes it and then writes a story that is damaging to a candidate. As Katherine Seelye writes in the New York Times, Mayhill Fowler, who wrote the original story, is a writer for the Huffington Post. She has contributed the maximum to the Obama campaign which is why she was able to get into the fundraiser to begin with. She's been covering Obama for the Huffpo already and has written mostly positive stories so far.

The Obama campaign is saying now that the event was closed to the press,

“This was never conveyed to me,” Ms. Fowler said. “I was invited to the event, I had written on fund-raisers in the past, why wouldn’t I this time?” She said the Obama campaign had never objected before to her having written about fund-raisers (though admittedly, nothing much of interest had happened). And the invitations said nothing about being closed to the press. Besides, she said, several guests brought people and children and who had not been invited.

“We had a fundamental misunderstanding of my priorities,” Ms. Fowler told me. “Mine were as a reporter, not as a supporter. They thought I would put the role of supporter first.”

So, they knew she was a blogger , but just didn't worry about her writing anything bad since they've gotten such glowing reports from reporters, including her, before.

And it wasn't as if she was surreptitiously taping him. She was quite open about it.

Ms. Fowler said she held her digital recorder openly. The place was jammed with others using video cams and cell phone cameras. Among them, Ms. Fowler said, was a professor who was recording the event for his students. In fact, snippets of the speech have been posted on YouTube by others who were there.

The Obama campaign is reportedly furious that what they regarded as a private affair should have been made public. As Rich Lowry starts his column on the whole affair,

Barack Obama was caught saying something he believes.

Since Obama hasn't backed away from what he said, just from what he regrets as his clumsy phrasing, why should the campaign be upset? She was openly taping his words as were other people. They just expected to get a positive report, perhaps especially because she is from the Huffington Post which has been a conduit for positive Obama comments and negative Clinton stories.

But now journalists have to debate whether there is something distasteful about a "citizen journalist" who has donated money to a campaign then writing about the campaign. In her original story, Fowler placed the damaging quote in the middle of her thoughts about Pennsylvanians and her advice to Obama not to try to explain Pennsylvanians to Californians in such terms. She struggled over whether or not she should write the story in the first place because she supports Obama, but was convinced by her editor that she needed to put aside her biases and write the news from what she observed.

Seeyle notes this supposed difference between the mainstream media and bloggers.

For one thing, some Internet enterprises, unlike the mainstream media, do allow their writers to actively support the people they cover

So MSM journalists just need to make sure that they haven't donated money to a candidate. Journalists might pretend not to be actively supporting a candidate, but they still have their own favorites or candidates that they disdain. Everyone does. They wouldn't be human if they didn't. Just giving the money isn't what determines the level of support.

I think that having a blogger write such a story is perfectly fine. The fact that she has donated money to the campaign is also fine, though should have been included in the original story, especially since it was written from such a personal point of view in the first place. Lots of journalists have their own biases, but pretend that they can be perfectly neutral. They might brag of never having given money to a campaign and some even go so far as to say that they don't vote just so that they can maintain their mask of objectivity. I just don't believe that people who spend their lives thinking and writing about politics are ever unbiased. The only unbiased people are those who just don't care. Those biases come through all the time in what they choose to write about, how they frame the story, and what words they choose. Even when they try to be even-handed by quoting from a conservative and then a liberal can be biased by implying that the arguments of each are equal and that there is no objective reality to discriminate between those arguments. I'd much prefer a writer who is up front about his or her biases and lets readers provide their own filters.

Labels: Media

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:24 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Moaning about journalistic ethics

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Moaning about journalistic ethics The story of what Obama said at a San Francisco fundraiser has become yet another opportunity for journalists to bend over and examine their own navels to determine what exactly "journalistic ethics" say about a blogger who goes to a fundraiser and tapes it and then writes a story that is damaging to a candidate. As Katherine Seelye writes in the New York Times, Mayhill Fowler, who wrote the original story, is a writer for the Huffington Post. She has contributed the maximum to the Obama campaign which is why she was able to get into the fundraiser to begin with. She's been covering Obama for the Huffpo already and has written mostly positive stories so far. The Obama campaign is saying now that the event was closed to the press, “This was never conveyed to me,” Ms. Fowler said. “I was invited to the event, I had written on fund-raisers in the past, why wouldn’t I this time?” She said the Obama campaign had never objected before to her having written about fund-raisers (though admittedly, nothing much of interest had happened). And the invitations said nothing about being closed to the press. Besides, she said, several guests brought people and children and who had not been invited. “We had a fundamental misunderstanding of my priorities,” Ms. Fowler told me. “Mine were as a reporter, not as a supporter. They thought I would put the role of supporter first.” So, they knew she was a blogger , but just didn't worry about her writing anything bad since they've gotten such glowing reports from reporters, including her, before. And it wasn't as if she was surreptitiously taping him. She was quite open about it. Ms. Fowler said she held her digital recorder openly. The place was jammed with others using video cams and cell phone cameras. Among them, Ms. Fowler said, was a professor who was recording the event for his students. In fact, snippets of the speech have been posted on YouTube by others who were there. The Obama campaign is reportedly furious that what they regarded as a private affair should have been made public. As Rich Lowry starts his column on the whole affair, Barack Obama was caught saying something he believes. Since Obama hasn't backed away from what he said, just from what he regrets as his clumsy phrasing, why should the campaign be upset? She was openly taping his words as were other people. They just expected to get a positive report, perhaps especially because she is from the Huffington Post which has been a conduit for positive Obama comments and negative Clinton stories. But now journalists have to debate whether there is something distasteful about a "citizen journalist" who has donated money to a campaign then writing about the campaign. In her original story, Fowler placed the damaging quote in the middle of her thoughts about Pennsylvanians and her advice to Obama not to try to explain Pennsylvanians to Californians in such terms. She struggled over whether or not she should write the story in the first place because she supports Obama, but was convinced by her editor that she needed to put aside her biases and write the news from what she observed. Seeyle notes this supposed difference between the mainstream media and bloggers. For one thing, some Internet enterprises, unlike the mainstream media, do allow their writers to actively support the people they cover So MSM journalists just need to make sure that they haven't donated money to a candidate. Journalists might pretend not to be actively supporting a candidate, but they still have their own favorites or candidates that they disdain. Everyone does. They wouldn't be human if they didn't. Just giving the money isn't what determines the level of support. I think that having a blogger write such a story is perfectly fine. The fact that she has donated money to the campaign is also fine, though should have been included in the original story, especially since it was written from such a personal point of view in the first place. Lots of journalists have their own biases, but pretend that they can be perfectly neutral. They might brag of never having given money to a campaign and some even go so far as to say that they don't vote just so that they can maintain their mask of objectivity. I just don't believe that people who spend their lives thinking and writing about politics are ever unbiased. The only unbiased people are those who just don't care. Those biases come through all the time in what they choose to write about, how they frame the story, and what words they choose. Even when they try to be even-handed by quoting from a conservative and then a liberal can be biased by implying that the arguments of each are equal and that there is no objective reality to discriminate between those arguments. I'd much prefer a writer who is up front about his or her biases and lets readers provide their own filters. Labels: Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:24 AM 0 comments Comments: The story of what Obama said at a San Francisco fundraiser has become yet another opportunity for journalists to bend over and examine their own navels to determine what exactly "journalistic ethics" say about a blogger who goes to a fundraiser and tapes it and then writes a story that is damaging to a candidate. As Katherine Seelye writes in the New York Times, Mayhill Fowler, who wrote the original story, is a writer for the Huffington Post. She has contributed the maximum to the Obama campaign which is why she was able to get into the fundraiser to begin with. She's been covering Obama for the Huffpo already and has written mostly positive stories so far. The Obama campaign is saying now that the event was closed to the press, “This was never conveyed to me,” Ms. Fowler said. “I was invited to the event, I had written on fund-raisers in the past, why wouldn’t I this time?” She said the Obama campaign had never objected before to her having written about fund-raisers (though admittedly, nothing much of interest had happened). And the invitations said nothing about being closed to the press. Besides, she said, several guests brought people and children and who had not been invited. “We had a fundamental misunderstanding of my priorities,” Ms. Fowler told me. “Mine were as a reporter, not as a supporter. They thought I would put the role of supporter first.” So, they knew she was a blogger , but just didn't worry about her writing anything bad since they've gotten such glowing reports from reporters, including her, before. And it wasn't as if she was surreptitiously taping him. She was quite open about it. Ms. Fowler said she held her digital recorder openly. The place was jammed with others using video cams and cell phone cameras. Among them, Ms. Fowler said, was a professor who was recording the event for his students. In fact, snippets of the speech have been posted on YouTube by others who were there. The Obama campaign is reportedly furious that what they regarded as a private affair should have been made public. As Rich Lowry starts his column on the whole affair, Barack Obama was caught saying something he believes. Since Obama hasn't backed away from what he said, just from what he regrets as his clumsy phrasing, why should the campaign be upset? She was openly taping his words as were other people. They just expected to get a positive report, perhaps especially because she is from the Huffington Post which has been a conduit for positive Obama comments and negative Clinton stories. But now journalists have to debate whether there is something distasteful about a "citizen journalist" who has donated money to a campaign then writing about the campaign. In her original story, Fowler placed the damaging quote in the middle of her thoughts about Pennsylvanians and her advice to Obama not to try to explain Pennsylvanians to Californians in such terms. She struggled over whether or not she should write the story in the first place because she supports Obama, but was convinced by her editor that she needed to put aside her biases and write the news from what she observed. Seeyle notes this supposed difference between the mainstream media and bloggers. For one thing, some Internet enterprises, unlike the mainstream media, do allow their writers to actively support the people they cover So MSM journalists just need to make sure that they haven't donated money to a candidate. Journalists might pretend not to be actively supporting a candidate, but they still have their own favorites or candidates that they disdain. Everyone does. They wouldn't be human if they didn't. Just giving the money isn't what determines the level of support. I think that having a blogger write such a story is perfectly fine. The fact that she has donated money to the campaign is also fine, though should have been included in the original story, especially since it was written from such a personal point of view in the first place. Lots of journalists have their own biases, but pretend that they can be perfectly neutral. They might brag of never having given money to a campaign and some even go so far as to say that they don't vote just so that they can maintain their mask of objectivity. I just don't believe that people who spend their lives thinking and writing about politics are ever unbiased. The only unbiased people are those who just don't care. Those biases come through all the time in what they choose to write about, how they frame the story, and what words they choose. Even when they try to be even-handed by quoting from a conservative and then a liberal can be biased by implying that the arguments of each are equal and that there is no objective reality to discriminate between those arguments. I'd much prefer a writer who is up front about his or her biases and lets readers provide their own filters. Labels: Media posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:24 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment