Today, anyone can break a story and publish it to the world instantly. That doesn't mean they should nor does it mean their methods or their content mean anything. For those that still try to "practice" journalism and do so responsibly and ethically, this blog if for them.
Follow me on Twitter: DavidRNorton
Journalethix
It’s a question not of money but what Americans value, and these days it seems it’s fluff. Americans pay gobs for cable and access to a lot of base programing, but when you ask them to pay for news content online, many scoff with outrage. But Bill Mitchell, in an article for The Poynter Institute makes a valid point considering The New York Times recently conducted a poll asking readers whether or not they would be willing to pay $5 a month for access to online content.
It’s about time reputable news organizations get paid for their work again. $5 a month is nothing for daily access to some of the best journalism in the world. And even if only $2.50 were charged, the subscriber would still save 50% compared to a print subscription, according to Mitchell’s report.
I hope the Times is successful, and I hope other papers follow soon. Good journalism is too vital to a democracy to continue to flounder financially.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
Guidelines for Covering Michael Jackson’s Death, Other Celebrity StoriesPosted by Al Tompkins at 7:39 PM on Jun. 25, 2009My, how times have changed. When Elvis Presley died in 1977, “The CBS Evening News” didn’t even lead with the story. The first mention of Elvis’ death was not until six and a half minutes into the newscast that night. ……FULL STORY from Poynter.org.
http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/1051/does-america-need-a-news-corps
Does American Need a News Corps?
I’ll be the first to admit it. I occasionally read trash. Gossipy, base, plain old mean trash. I’ll read it in the line at the grocery store, when I log into MSN, or when I see a feed on Twitter. I’m human; I’m curious; and I’m confirming the fact that gossip sells. I won’t deny that.
However, as a journalist and someone who values serious news and journalistic ethics, I have problems with tabloidesque news. I wouldn’t want to cover it. I don’t think it’s relevant, and I don’t think it falls under four key pillars of journalism’s purpose:
- Pursue and tell truth
- Minimize harm
- Act independently
- Be accountable.
A recent blog post from blog “Mixmysalad” (a blog I don’t follow but found on Twitter) alleges that Internet singing sensation Susan Boyle went on a jealous rampage when a judge responded favorably to another contestant on the British talent show Britain’s Got Talent. Perhaps this does satisfy the idea or “pursuing and telling truth”, but does it minimize harm? Is the blogger who is anonymous being accountable for his words (are any posters with screen names being accountable)?
Why is this newsworthy? Why is this added to the sea of information we have to sift through? If newspapers were still alive and cyberspace didn’t exist (and I’m hoping newspapers come back and I’m endlessly thankful for the Internet), would this be worth paying for space? Probably not.
Unlike Michael Phelp’s drug bust, which has serious implications for athletes and the integrity of the Olympic games and swimming in particular, why are we wasting space talking about a tantrum? Does the public need to know this? I would say not. That’s not to say I still won’t peek now and again, but I hope that real publications will shy away from gossip and stick to issues that have real implications.
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
