Thursday, May 25, 2006
To print, or not to print
An interesting aspect of journalism is that its only manual is used almost solely for writing mechanics. Every other facet of a journalist’s job is completely discretionary. Consider the fact that we have tabloid publications that choose to fabricate news. And, most magazines showcase the daily happenings of the insanely rich from Hollywood. These are obviously the most dismal of news providers, but they do tell stories and they do inform people...but with nothing useful. So, the question follows: What's useful news? What should people know...or better, what do they need to know? In Spokane, Wash., two news reporters and the editorial staff of The Spokesman-Review deeply struggled with the possibility of completely destroying the mayor of the city by publically outing him. Mayor Jim West was a former Senate Majority Leader and an outspoken conservative, anti-gay politician for more than 30 years. The reporters' source was an 18-year-old local who said that West had come onto him in a chatroom run by the Web site Gay.com. Whoa. It's enough to make your head spin.
The newspaper decided to hire a forensic investigator, “an expert,” who would take an alias and verify whether two usernames, RightByGuy and Cobra86, indeed belonged to West. They were indeed, and it turns out West would often "reward" those who
would agree to meet him. This fact - that West exploited his position for sex - was the basis for their decision to ultimately publish. And many stories later, the paper earned a Payne award, which honors “the journalist of integrity and character who reports with insight and clarity in the face of political or economic pressures and to reward performance that inspires public trust in the media."
It’s a story onto itself. But the question of when, and why, a newspaper should start snooping around is fundamental. In the case above, the paper decided that only an abuse of power legitimized the story. Morlin, in a U of O class Wednesday, said that the hidden sexual orientation of the mayor was not print-worthy; it was his intention to use his position to essentially elicit sex that was important for the people to hear. I agree with their choice, and I believe their reason why. Only people out for blood would choose to out a man who, I believe, had deep issues about his sexuality. It might be a worthless aside, but Karen Dorn-Steele, the reporter who investigated his politicaly history, said that West had sponsored legislation banned gay men and lesbians from seeking employment in public agencies, such as schools. When Dorn-Steele pressed him on his political decision-making, West said, "If I am gay, it's not wrong for a gay person to be a conservative." It's also not nice.
But that's really not the point. The real issue here is that jouralists must be judicious, always. We possess the power of information, and how we use it affects the community at large profoundly. Even the glut of those ridiculous magazines crowding the grocery aisles influence people. I never feel worse about myself more than when I'm leafing through an "In Touch" magazine while I wait for check out.
Bottom line, news that serves solely entertainment purposes will never fill its audience with power. It just creates victims.
The newspaper decided to hire a forensic investigator, “an expert,” who would take an alias and verify whether two usernames, RightByGuy and Cobra86, indeed belonged to West. They were indeed, and it turns out West would often "reward" those who
would agree to meet him. This fact - that West exploited his position for sex - was the basis for their decision to ultimately publish. And many stories later, the paper earned a Payne award, which honors “the journalist of integrity and character who reports with insight and clarity in the face of political or economic pressures and to reward performance that inspires public trust in the media."
It’s a story onto itself. But the question of when, and why, a newspaper should start snooping around is fundamental. In the case above, the paper decided that only an abuse of power legitimized the story. Morlin, in a U of O class Wednesday, said that the hidden sexual orientation of the mayor was not print-worthy; it was his intention to use his position to essentially elicit sex that was important for the people to hear. I agree with their choice, and I believe their reason why. Only people out for blood would choose to out a man who, I believe, had deep issues about his sexuality. It might be a worthless aside, but Karen Dorn-Steele, the reporter who investigated his politicaly history, said that West had sponsored legislation banned gay men and lesbians from seeking employment in public agencies, such as schools. When Dorn-Steele pressed him on his political decision-making, West said, "If I am gay, it's not wrong for a gay person to be a conservative." It's also not nice.
But that's really not the point. The real issue here is that jouralists must be judicious, always. We possess the power of information, and how we use it affects the community at large profoundly. Even the glut of those ridiculous magazines crowding the grocery aisles influence people. I never feel worse about myself more than when I'm leafing through an "In Touch" magazine while I wait for check out.
Bottom line, news that serves solely entertainment purposes will never fill its audience with power. It just creates victims.
# posted by Mia @ 7:13 PM 
