Friday, August 2, 2013

Study of print Media and Journalism

What is Journalism?; Journalism is the activity, or product, of journalists or others engaged in the preparation of written, visual, or audio material intended for dissemination through public media with reference to factual, ongoing events of public concern. It is intended to inform society about itself and to make events public that would otherwise remain private.
In modern society, news media are the chief purveyor of information and opinion about public affairs. Journalism, however, is not to be confused with the news media or the news itself. In some nations, the news media is government-controlled and not an independent body that operates within journalistic frameworks. In democratic societies, access to information can play a key role in a system of checks and balances designed to limit the overreach of powers concentrated in governments, businesses and other entities and individuals. Access to verifiable information gathered by independent media sources adhering to journalistic standards can also provide ordinary citizens with the tools they need to participate in the political process.
The role and status of journalism, along with mass media, have undergone profound changes resulting from the publication of news on the Internet. This has created a shift away from print media consumption as people increasingly consume news on e-readers, smart phones, and other electronic devices, challenging news organizations to fully monetize digital news. Notably, in the American media landscape, newsrooms have reduced their staff and coverage as traditional media channels such as television grapple with declining audiences; for instance, at CNN, once known for its global, in-depth coverage, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007 to 2012. This reduced coverage has been linked to broad audience attrition, as one-third of surveyed respondents for "The State of the News Media 2013" study published by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism say they have abandoned a news outlet because it no longer provided the news and information they expected. The digital era has also ushered in a new kind of journalism in which ordinary citizens play a greater role in the capture of news while commanding greater control over its consumption. Using their video camera-equipped smart phones, people are providing news content by recording footage that they post to YouTube, which are then discovered and often used by mainstream news outlets. Meanwhile, easy access to news from a variety of online sources means that consumers can bypass the news agenda of traditional media organizations.
Definition and forms: There are several different forms of journalism, all with different intended audiences. In modern society, "prestige" journalism is said to serve the role of a "fourth estate", acting as watchdogs on the workings of government. Other forms of journalism feature different formats and cater to different intended audiences.
 Some forms include:
Advocacy journalism – writing to advocate particular viewpoints or influence the opinions of the audience.
Broadcast journalism – writing or speaking which is intended to be distributed by radio or television broadcasting, rather than only in written form for readers.
Drone journalism – use of drones to capture journalistic footage.
Gonzo journalism – first championed by journalist Hunter S. Thompson, gonzo journalism is a "highly personal style of reporting".
Investigative journalism – writing which seeks to add extra information to explain, or better describe the people and events of a particular topic.
Photojournalism – storytelling through images.
Tabloid journalism – writing which uses opinionated or wild claims.
Yellow journalism (or sensationalism) – writing which emphasizes exaggerated claims or rumors.
The recent rise of social media has resulted in arguments to reconsider journalism as a process rather than as a particular kind of news product. In this perspective, journalism is participatory, a process distributed among multiple authors and involving journalists as well as the socially mediating public.
Johann Carolus's Relation aller Fürnemmen und gedenckwürdigen Historien, published in 1605 in Strasburg, is often recognized as the first newspaper. The first successful English daily, the Daily Courant, was published from 1702 to 1735. The reform of the Diário Carioca newspaper in the 1950s is usually referred to as the birth of modern journalism in Brazil.
In the 1920s, as modern journalism was just taking form, writer Walter Lippmann and American philosopher John Dewey debated over the role of journalism in a democracy. Their differing philosophies still characterize a debate about the role of journalism in society and the nation-state.
Lippmann understood that journalism's role at the time was to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites. The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for their consumption. His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a position to deconstruct the growing and complex flurry of information present in modern society, and so an intermediary was needed to filter news for the masses. Lippman put it this way The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple. Lippmann believed that the public would affect the decision-making of the elite with their vote. In the meantime, the elite (i.e. politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, scientists, etc.) would keep the business of power running. In Lippman's world, the journalist's role was to inform the public of what the elites were doing. It was also to act as a watchdog over the elites, as the public had the final say with their votes. Effectively that kept the public at the bottom of the power chain, catching the flow of information that is handed down from experts/elites.
Lippmann's elitism has had consequences that he came to deplore. An apostle of historicism and scientism, Lippmann did not merely hold that democratic government was a problematic exercise, but regarded all political communities, of whatever stripe, as needing guidance from a transcendent partisanship for accurate information and dispassionate judgment. In "Liberty and the News" (1919) and "Public Opinion" (1921) Lippmann expressed the hope that liberty could be redefined to take account of the scientific and historical perspective and that public opinion could be managed by a system of intelligence in and out of government. Thus the liberty of the journalist was to be dedicated to gathering verifiable facts while commentators like him would place the news in the broader perspective. Lippmann deplored the influence of powerful newspaper publishers and preferred the judgments of the "patient and fearless men of science." In so doing, he did not merely denigrate the opinion of the majority but also of those who had influence or power as well. In a republican form of government, the representatives are chosen by the people and share with them adherence to the fundamental principles and political institutions of the polity. Lippmann's quarrel was with those very principles and institutions, for they are the product of the pre-scientific and pre-historical viewpoint and what for him was a groundless natural rights political philosophy.
But Lippmann turned against what he called the "collectivism" of the Progressive movement he encouraged with its de-emphasis on the foundations of American politics and government and ultimately wrote a work, "The Public Philosophy" (1955), which came very close to a return to the principles of the American founders.
Dewey, on the other hand, believed the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite; it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate. When issues were thoroughly vetted, then the best ideas would bubble to the surface. Dewey believed journalists should do more than simply pass on information. He believed they should weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted. Over time, his idea has been implemented in various degrees, and is more commonly known as "community journalism".
This concept of community journalism is at the centre of new developments in journalism. In this new paradigm, journalists are able to engage citizens and the experts/elites in the proposition and generation of content. It's important to note that while there is an assumption of equality, Dewey still celebrates expertise. Dewey believes the shared knowledge of many is far superior to a single individual's knowledge. Experts and scholars are welcome in Dewey's framework, but there is not the hierarchical structure present in Lippman's understanding of journalism and society. According to Dewey, conversation, debate, and dialogue lie at the heart of a democracy.
While Lippman's journalistic philosophy might be more acceptable to government leaders, Dewey's approach is a better description of how many journalists see their role in society, and, in turn, how much of society expects journalists to function. Americans, for example, may criticize some of the excesses committed by journalists, but they tend to expect journalists to serve as watchdogs on government, businesses and actors, enabling people to make informed decisions on the issues of the time.
Elements: Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstein propose several guidelines for journalists in their book The Elements of Journalism. Because journalism's first loyalty is to the citizenry, journalists are obliged to tell the truth and must serve as an independent monitor of powerful individuals and institutions within society. The essence of journalism is to provide citizens with reliable information through the discipline of verification.
Professional and ethical standards
While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.
Some journalistic Codes of Ethics, notably the European ones, also include a concern with discriminatory references in news based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and physical or mental disabilities. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved in 1993 Resolution 1003 on the Ethics of Journalism which recommends journalists to respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases that are still sub judice.
In the UK, all newspapers are bound by the Code of Practice of the Commission. This includes points like respecting people's privacy and ensuring accuracy. However, the Media Standards Trust has criticized the PCC, claiming it needs to be radically changed to secure public trust of newspapers.
This is in stark contrast to the media climate prior to the 20th century, where the media market was dominated by smaller newspapers and pamphleteers who usually had an overt and often radical agenda, with no presumption of balance or objectivity.
Objective journalism is the desire and aim of every society and media house. However, such noble aspiration is beclouded and usurped by sycophancy and sycophantic reporting. This development denies the public the right to true information and invariably leads to loss of reputation by the media house. A research study by Nnamdi Azikiwe University discusses the reason for its unbridled spread and its effects on the public.
Failing to uphold standards
Such a code of conduct can, in the real world, be difficult to uphold consistently. Indeed, reporting and editing are not done in a vacuum but always reflect the political context in which journalists, no less than other citizens, operate. Journalists who believe they are being fair or objective may give biased accounts by reporting selectively, trusting too much to anecdote, or giving a partial explanation of actions. Even in routine reporting, bias can creep into a story through a reporter's choice of facts to summarize, or through failure to check enough sources, hear and report dissenting voices, or seek fresh perspectives.
 A study of journalism in online video found that although most news videos adhere to traditional production practices (e.g. editing and audio quality), they tended to use more relaxed standards for content (e.g., use of sources, fairness). Videos using these more relaxed standards received more views. A news organization's budget inevitably reflects decision-making about what news to cover, for what audience, and in what depth. Those decisions may reflect conscious or unconscious bias. When budgets are cut, editors may sacrifice reporters in distant news bureaus; reduce the number of staff assigned to low-income areas, or wipe entire communities from the publication's zone of interest.
Publishers, owners and other corporate executives, especially advertising sales executives, can try to use their powers over journalists to influence how news is reported and published. Journalists usually rely on top management to create and maintain a "firewall" between the news and other departments in a news organization to prevent undue influence on the news department. One journalism magazine, Columbia Journal Review, has made it a practice to reveal examples of executives who try to influence news coverage, of executives who do not abuse their powers over journalists, and of journalists who resist such pressures.
Because of the need to please many different and sometimes powerful audiences, journalists often make a blanket claim to objectivity, even neutrality, which conveniently coincides with the requirements of the market. Although some analysts point to the inherent difficulty of maintaining objectivity, and others practically deny that it is possible, still others point to the requirements of a free press in a democratic society governed by public opinion and a republican government under a limited constitution. According to this latter view, criticism of the government, political parties, corporations, unions, schools and colleges and even churches is both inevitable and desirable, and cannot be done well without clarity regarding fundamental political principles. Hence, objectivity consists in truthful, accurate reporting and well-reasoned and thoughtful commentary based upon a firm commitment to a free society's principles of equality, liberty and government by consent.
Legal status: Governments have widely varying policies and practices towards journalists, which control what they can research and write, and what press organizations can publish. Some governments guarantee the freedom of the press; while other nations severely restrict what journalists can research and/or publish.
Journalists in many nations have some privileges that members of the general public do not; including better access to public events, crime scenes and press conferences, and to extended interviews with public officials, celebrities and others in the public eye.
Journalists who elect to cover conflicts, whether wars between nations or insurgencies within nations, often give up any expectation of protection by government, if not giving up their rights to protection by government, Journalists who are captured or detained during a conflict are expected to be treated as civilians and to be released to their national government. Many governments around the world target journalists for intimidation, harassment, and violence because of the nature of their work.
Right to protect confidentiality of sources
Journalists' interaction with sources sometimes involves confidentiality, an extension of freedom of the press giving journalists a legal protection to keep the identity of a confidential informant private even when demanded by police or prosecutors; withholding sources can land journalists in contempt of court, or in jail.
In the United States, there is no right to protect sources in a federal court. However, federal courts will refuse to force journalists to reveal sources, unless the information the court seeks is highly relevant to the case and there's no other way to get it. State courts provide varying degrees of such protection. Journalists who refuse to testify even when ordered to can be found in contempt of court and fined or jailed.
A Brief History of Journalism: Alongside Side by side history of journalism
Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. That purpose is to provide people with information they need to understand the world. The first challenge is finding the information that people need to live their lives. The second is to make it meaningful, relevant, and engaging.
The journalistic principle of engagement and relevance means exactly that journalists are asked to present the information they find in interesting and meaningful ways, but without being overly sensational.
There are two sides to this principle, however, and they must be balanced for the journalist to be successful. Engagement is what makes the story intriguing and readable. Relevance is what makes it worth the reader’s time, what makes the story important to the reader’s life. The industry has struggled to find that balance throughout its history, but studies, such as those conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, have shown that in the long term journalism that tends more toward the engagement (or entertaining) side without adequately addressing the relevant side will not be as successful.
During the Penny Press era, news consisted of little political debate and much human interest appeal. Stories focused on sex, violence, and features instead; they were sensational and engaging, but not always especially relevant to their readers’ lives. In 1851, however, the New York Times was founded, declaring its commitment to objective and reasoned journalism, and the swing toward the relevant side began. To aid that shift, the inverted pyramid style was developed in response to the strategic destruction of telegraph wires during the Civil War. Journalists had to transmit the most important, or relevant, information first in case the transmission was cut short. This style was then carried through into the post-war era.
During the period known as the era of Yellow Journalism, newspapers became for-profit ventures. Sensationalism still had a hold on the industry, with a focus on high interest stories and attention getting headlines rather than useful information for the public. Stories focused on the mass appeal of death, dishonor, and/or disaster. In the 1890s, however, relevance made more of a comeback. With immigrants moving into the middle classes, news became more of a commodity. Sensationalism began to give way to the sobriety and objectivity of the New York Times. Two story models were in use at that time: the story model of the Penny Press and Yellow Journalism eras, and the informational model of objectivity.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, even Joseph Pulitzer’s notoriously ‘yellow’ New York Sun had become more literary. By the 1920s, though, objective style was beginning to be questioned. Objectivity presented only the facts, the relevance parts, without any commentary or color, and the world was becoming too complex for information alone. Parallel to the rise of radio, interpretive journalism was born to help explain what was happening.
From the Depression through the Cold War, tabloids continued to give way to seriousness in reporting. This trend continued into the 1960s and ‘70s, as the Great Newspaper Wars whittled down the number of papers in each town. The surviving papers were not the tabloids, but the serious papers, and the same was true of television news programs. The news products that people chose in the long term were those that provided them with the more relevant information, rather than entertainment.
During the USA Today era of the 1980s, news was increasingly being produced by companies outside of journalism, and a resurgence of primarily engaging news began. Radio and television had long since replaced newspapers as the dominant news sources, and papers began to add more feature-centered sections. When the industry addressed its readership losses, rather than addressing this substitution of entertainment for content, it focused on cosmetic solutions such as layout, design, and color, thus continuing the decline of relevance in newspapers. To illustrate, a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that news magazines such as Newsweek and Time were seven times more likely in 1997 to share a cover subject with an entertainment magazine like People than they had been in 1977. Whereas in 1977 those covers would have contained a political or international figure 31% of the time and a celebrity or entertainment figure only 15% of the time, in 1997 political figures were down to about 10% of cover stories, and celebrities were up to about 20%.
Infotainment,” or the new version of tabloids’, is still a prevalent format for today’s news, but as a result “avoidance of local news has doubled in the past ten years,” according to data from Insight Research. The public continues to show a preference for relevant information over entertainment-centered coverage. Another study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, conducted between 1998 and 2000, found that stations that produced higher-quality news programs were more likely to have higher ratings, and even rising ratings, than those that produced lower-quality ones. In this Internet era, also, the web has become a vehicle for up to the minute updates on news and information, providing the public with a venue for relevant and engaging information 24 hours a day, allowing for public and civic journalism to get a foothold among the many other choices the public has to choose from.
Over the decades, the journalism industry has swung like a pendulum between a focus on the entertaining and on the significant sides of the news. Whenever it reaches one extreme or the other, the pendulum begins its swing in the opposite direction. Always, the optimal position for the industry and for the public is somewhere in the middle.
In the context of journalism, objectivity may be understood as synonymous with neutrality.[ This must be distinguished from the goal of objectivity in philosophy, which would describe mind-independent facts which are true irrespective of human feelings, beliefs, or judgments.
Sociologist Michael Schussing argues that "the belief in objectivity is a faith in 'facts, distrust in 'values,' and a commitment to their segregation."[1] It does not refer to the prevailing ideology of newsgathering and reporting that emphasizes eyewitness accounts of events, corroboration of facts with multiple sources and balance of viewpoints. It also implies an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate, a body that exists apart from government and large interest groups
Advocacy journalists and civic journalists criticize the understanding of objectivity as neutrality or nonpartisanship, arguing that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find truth. They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in practice newspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources they quote. Media critics such as Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) have described a propaganda model that they use to show how in practice such a notion of objectivity ends up heavily favoring the viewpoint of government and powerful corporations.
Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to communication scholar David Mindich, was the coverage that the major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and mutilation of people by mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury. Mindich argues that this may have had the effect of normalizing the practice of lynching.
Historical (including social and cultural) factors have also shaped objectivity in journalism, as acknowledged and addressed in peace journalism. These are particularly relevant with regard to the large proportion of journalism about conflict. As noted below, with the growth of mass media, especially from the nineteenth century, news advertising became the most important source of media revenue. Whole audiences needed to be engaged across communities and regions to maximize advertising revenue. This led to "Journalistic Objectivity as an industry standard…a set of conventions allowing the news to be presented as all things to all people”, and in modern journalism, especially with the emergence of 24-hour news cycles, speed is of the essence in responding to breaking stories. It is not possible for reporters to decide "from first principles" every time how they will report each and every story that presents itself. So convention governs much of journalism
Brent Cunningham, the managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review, argues that objectivity excuses lazy reporting. Objectivity makes us passive recipients of news, rather than aggressive analyzers and explainers of it. If a journalist is on a deadline and all he or she has is “both sides of the story”, that is often good enough, failing to push the story, incrementally, toward a deeper understanding of what is true and what is false. According to Cunningham, the nut of the tortured relationship with “objectivity” lies within a number of conflicting diktats that the press operated under; be neutral yet investigative; be disengaged but have an impact; be fair-minded but have an edge. Objectivity is not possible because we all have our biases, including journalists. No individual embodies all perspectives of a society. In 1996 the Society of Professional Journalists acknowledged this dilemma and dropped “objectivity” from its ethics code.
James Carey, a communications theorist, points out that we are entering a new age of partisanship.
Cunningham, however, argues that reporters by and large are not ideological warriors. They are imperfect people performing a difficult job that is crucial to society. “Despite all our important and necessary attempts to minimize our humanity, it can’t be any other way,” Cunningham concludes.
The debate about objectivity is lit also within the photojournalism field. In 2011, Italian photographer Ruben Salvadori has challenged the expectation of objective truth that the general public associates to photojournalism with his project "Photojournalism behind the Scenes”. By breaking the taboo of the invisible photographer and including him in the frame, Salvador has ignited a discussion about the ethics of the profession and the need of the audience to be an active viewer by acknowledging the inevitable subjectivity of the photographic medium.
Online journalism enables highly accelerated news reporting and delivery, which sometimes is at tension with standards of objectivity. On the other hand, online journalism as an easy access for the journalistic practice can propound challenges to certain reports with claimed objectivity by the mainstream media.
Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness.
One example is Brent Cunningham, who believes that reporters must understand their inevitable biases, so they can understand what the accepted narratives are, and to work against them as much as possible. “We need deep reporting and real understanding, but we also need reporters to acknowledge all that they don’t know, and not try to mask that shortcoming behind a gloss of attitude, or drown it in a roar of oversimplified assertions,” he points out.
Cunningham suggests the following to solve the inherent controversy of “objectivity “Journalists must acknowledge, humbly and publicly, that what they do is far more subjective and far less detached than the aura of “objectivity” implies. This will not end the charges of bias, but will allow journalists to defend what they do from a more realistic, less hypocritical position.
Journalists need to be freed and encouraged to develop expertise and to use it to sort through competing claims, identify and explain the underlying assumptions of those claims, and make judgments about what readers and viewers need to know to understand what is happening. In short, journalists need to be more willing to judge factual disputes.
Notable departures from objective news work also include the muckraking of Ida Tarbell and Lincoln Steffens, the New Journalism of Tom and Hunter S. Thompson, the underground press of the 1960s, and public journalism.
For news related to conflict, peace Journalism provides the alternative of "anchoring" in journalism through the insights of social science, specifically through disciplines such as conflict analysisconflict resolutionpeace research and social psychology. The application of empirical research to the reporting of conflict can then replace the unacknowledged conventions (see above) which govern the non-scientific "objectivity" of journalism, and offset political and commercial interests influencing gate keeping decisions.
The term objectivity was not applied to journalistic work until the 20th century, but it had fully emerged as a guiding principle by the 1890s.
A number of communication scholars and historians, Michael Schussing among others, agree that the idea of "objectivity," if not the term, has prevailed as a dominant discourse among journalists in the United States since the appearance of modern newspapers in the Jackson an Era of the 1830s, which transformed the press in relation to the democratization of politics, the expansion of a market economy, and the growing authority of an entrepreneurial, urban middle class. Before then, objectivity was not an issue. American newspapers were expected to present a partisan viewpoint, not a neutral one.
But into the first decade of the twentieth century, even at The New York Times, it was uncommon for to see a sharp divide between facts and values. Before World War I, journalists did not think much about the subjectivity of perception. They believed that facts are not human statements about the world but aspects of the world itself. After the war, however, this changed. Journalists, like others, lost faith in verities a democratic market society had taken for granted. The experience of propaganda during the war convinced them that the world they reported was one that interested parties had constructed for them to report. In the twenties and thirties, many journalists observed that facts themselves, or what they had taken to be facts, could not be trusted. One response to this discomfiting view was “objectivity”. Facts were no longer understood as aspects of the world, but consensually validated statements about it. Thus, from the 1920s on, the idea that human beings individually and collectively construct the reality they deal with has held a central position to social thought and encouraged a more sophisticated ideal of “objectivity” among journalists.
Some historians, like Gerald Baldest, have observed that "objectivity" went hand in hand with the need to make profits in the newspaper business by selling advertising. In this economic analysis, publishers did not want to offend any potential advertising customers and therefore encouraged news editors and reporters to strive to present all sides of an issue and more of the bright side of life advertisers was reminding the press that partisanship hurts circulation, and, consequently, advertising revenues.
Others have proposed a political explanation for the rise of objectivity, which occurred earlier in the United States than most other countries; scholars like Richard Kaplan have argued that political parties needed to lose their hold over the loyalties of voters and the institutions of government before the press could feel free to offer a nonpartisan, "impartial" account of news events. This change occurred following the critical election of 1896 and the subsequent Progressive reform era.
Reporters are biased toward conflict because it is more interesting than stories without conflict; we are biased toward sticking with the pack because it is safe; we are biased toward event-driven coverage because it is easier; we are biased toward existing narratives because they are safe and easy. Mostly, though, we are biased in favor of getting the story, regardless of whose ox is being gored.
A good reporter who is well-steeped in his subject matter and who isn’t out to prove his cleverness, but rather is sweating out a detailed understanding of a topic worth exploring, will probably develop intelligent opinions that will inform and perhaps be expressed in his journalism.
Balanced" coverage that plagues American journalism and which leads to utterly spineless reporting with no edge. The idea seems to be that journalists are allowed to go out to report, but when it comes time to write, we are expected to turn our brains off and repeat the spin from both sides. God forbid we should attempt fairly assess what we see with our own eyes. "Balanced" is not fair, it's just an easy way of avoiding real reporting and shirking our responsibility to inform readers.
Responsibility Of Journalist: A journalist writes what for the society that he observes. He presents whatever, is consumed by the society people who may consist of different classes, religions, categories and characterizes so, while presenting any report of news, a journalist should be very careful and aware of his responsibilities towards the present sensible society. He must deliver such news as it serves a common purpose and fulfill major’s interests as well any presentation or writing of a journalist, should never inflict any part or group of our society regarding its belief, ideals, religion and rituals anyway. The writing of journalist should be inspiring not only in keeping ‘social harmony’ but also in achieving social development at the same time.
There are basic responsibilities of any journalist. They are social, legal and professional. Social Responsibility:- Press reflects the social images or pictures of our society. The whole activities of the press impart many events of our society with a view to present them later on, in decent manner to the society people. The intention behind such approach and activities is to make the society people to well-informed as well as well-aware of round about happenings. So, every presentation of any journalist should be fair, balance, truthful, inspiring and meeting the needs of common. A journalist can highlight so many unsolved areas of the society by seeking solution for the same through the activity of journalism and must not overlook or avoid this great part of responsibility towards the society. The presentation of journalist should, initiate an environment of understanding within the society and continue the same in sustained manner to uphold it satisfactorily. Development of any society mostly depending upon the imparting of creative and object full journalistic activities.
Legal Responsibility: - While working as a journalist, one should be well conversant with all legal clutches those may generate complicacy or bring trouble any way. For this reason, a journalist must not intervene or inflict to someone’s privacy or confidential matter until it is required to be brought to the notice of public. Any libelous or defamatory presentation taking with someone, any organization or group is not permit table and should strictly be avoided by the journalist. Libelous and defamatory writings or pictures may instantly resound or remark among the public with larger acceptance, but it is not pertinent as well as not complying with the standard of professionalism.
Professional Responsibility: - A journalist should have sincerity and commitment towards its profession. The news of any event that is going to be published for the audience, should be delineated very clearly and fairly. A very good homework in this regard for every event, should be done by the journalist with a view to present to the audience confidently and satisfactorily.. The presentation must be truthful and unbiased above all and shall never bring any embarrassment or complicacy to the organization anyway in future. The objective of any journalist is to disseminate the correct and fair report in undistorted manner, to the audience rather than crowding them intestinally or allegedly to meet the present challenging situation. in the news world.. A news report should be created with greater care and responsibility as to maintain its degree of standard at higher level by avoiding any kinds of inclusion of undesirable and provocative part or portion. A journalist definitely, would require a high degree of professionalism in presenting any performances to the audience on behalf of any organization, and could be achieved so. by dint of die-hard efforts and searching ability, and being respectful to the works ,understanding with the surroundings and accountability towards the society as well. A journalist must follow the newspaper editor’s deadlines.
Experience, knowledge, writing ability and a keen mind are requirements for journalists. However, in addition to these qualities, journalists must be responsible too. Responsibilities for journalists fall into several categories, but they must always be concerned with serving their audience well and ensuring they are providing a service that is beneficial and ethical.
Independence: Independence is an essential part of being a journalist. A true journalist has an obligation to be an outsider to any group about which he is writing. He should never be "one of them" or have any devotion or association with a group, organization or subject he is covering. The press functions as the watchdog of society; a free press is unable to function properly unless journalists live up to their responsibilities to be independent and refrain from covering subjects to which they have close ties.
Accuracy: Journalists must be accurate in every instance. Their stories and reports must relay the truth in a transparent manner that shows reliability and objectivity. Journalists are expected to verify their sources and reports to ensure they are informing their audience about events as they happened. Interviewing multiple witnesses, researching their sources and ensuring they have sources representing all sides of a story help a journalist to ensure objectivity, which is an essential part of providing an accurate account of an event or issue.
Interest Factor: The job of a journalist is to produce information that is interesting. She has a responsibility to ensure her work is relevant and pertinent to society, or the segment of society who is her targeted audience. Journalists must have their fingers on the pulse of society to know the types of stories or pieces people are interested in and wish to learn more about. Journalists must strike a balance between what their audience needs to know and what they want to know, so they can provide a complete news story. Not only should a journalist strive to engage the reader or listener, but she should also hope to enlarge his world to an extent as a result of her work Ethics: The journalist code of ethics is a significant part of being a journalist. From their early years in journalism school to the period before their retirement, journalists adhere to a strict code of ethics that keep them walking a fine line. One of the strongest parts of the code names plagiarism as the worst offense a journalist can commit. Taking another's work as his own is the lowest form of degradation a journalist can attempt. Journalists must also avoid stereotypes, always staying true to the objective truth of a story. Tampering with photographs or rephrasing quotes for a story is unacceptable. Also, journalists are forbidden to use sneaky methods of gaining research or information, unless traditional methods fail miserably. Misrepresentation, either in front of or behind the camera, is highly frowned upon by the code of ethics.
The Media's Definition of News: The definition of news writing is reporting events that have taken place either in print or for TV. The way that print journalists and TV journalist write is very different. Print reporters can go into much more detail while TV reporters usually only have a short amount of time to air their story.
Charles Dana, who ran the New York Sun from 1869-1897, said news is: "anything that interests a large part of the community and has never been brought to its attention before." One of his editors provided the classic comment, "If a dog bites a man, it's not news. If a man bites a dog, it's news." That is still true today. Definitions of news vary somewhat depending on the time period, but basically, news is Information about a break from the normal flow of events, an interruption in the expected Information people need in order to make rational decisions about their lives. To help determine whether your topic/issue will be of media interest, test it with these
seven factors that determine newsworthiness.
Impact: events or activities that is likely to affect many people.
Timeliness: events that is immediate and recent. (no matter how important
the event, news value diminishes over time.)
Prominence: events involving well-known people or institutions.
Proximity: events in the circulation or broadcast area.
Conflict: events that reflect clashes between people and/or institutions.
The bizarre: events that stray from the normal experiences of everyday life.
Currency: Events and situations that are being talked about "around the
Water cooler."
Most newsworthy events/ideas are a combination of these guidelines. I'm not saying it's
always the best thing for society, but this is what many journalists are taught.
Art of news formation: Art historian Kathleen Wyma talks animatedly about the birth of the Radicals, a reactionary group, in the Indian art scene. That a majority of them were from Kerala drew her deeper into the art world here. Today, as she prepares to organize ‘The Material Point; Reconsidering the Medium in Post Modern Moment’ - opening at OED Gallery in Mattancherry, on July 20, she is simultaneously working on a major work that surveys the contemporary art scene in Kerala starting from the seminal setting up of the College of Fine Arts Trivandrum (1970s) to the present times, when the State hosted the country’s first art Biennale (2013). Kathleen’s major contribution to Kerala art history is that she is the first Western critic to position the Radicals in their due perspective.
As a historian I am interested in who gets included in history and who doesn’t. I found a gap about the position of the Radicals and the part they played. I did not get a proper answer then. It is still a question that needs to be asked,” says Kathleen who began her India visits for her Master’s and Doctorate in 1999. Presently Kathleen teaches art history at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. She’s back here after a six year hiatus.
Her interest in the Radicals was sparked after she read an essay by art historian Shivaji Panikkar and went to MS University, Baroda, for research. Baroda was the hub of the movement, and even when Kathleen visited in the late nineties it was still pulsating in its aftermath.
Giving a background to the entry of the reactionary group on to the Indian art scene, Kathleen says: “In the 60s Indian art was facing a bit of an identity crisis. Abstract art was supposedly too Western, it faced opposition. Clement Greenberg, renowned American art critic and an advocate of the abstract form visited India. But there was struggle for a more home-grown idiom. ‘Place for People’, a landmark exhibition of works by some of the top Indian artists made a strong demand to reject the avant-garde and revert to the figurative. ‘Place for People’ was an all figurative show. It was then that the Radicals came up with a counter exhibition, ‘Questions and Dialogues’ (1987), at the MS University. They rejected the principles of ‘Place for People’. Keep in mind that this was post-Emergency and hence politically it was a very volatile time.”
Kathleen’s ears were pricked by the first sounds of terms like ‘neo-colonists’ used by the Radicals, and at the emergence of a voice against the treatment of art as commodity. “In a sense they were political, questioning the reduction of art into a commodity. But why did no one listen to them? In 1989, they showed tremendous foresight about the commercialization of art and it has come so true.”
Kathleen specifically speaks of the late K.P.Krishnakumar’s work ‘Boatman’, which clearly depicts a laboring body at work. “The body of the boatman has become the boat. This is the moment where visual representation takes on political shades. It was an interesting comment.” Kathleen, an authority on the changes in the art world, has penned several essays on the vagaries of the art market, of how art auctions work, on bidding procedures and market supplies. She realizes the pressures on younger artists from Kerala to be swept by market demands but that she says is true of artists anywhere in the world.
“I am re-acquainting myself with the current art interventions in Kerala. I am excited about dialogue, generating ideas and cross fertilization,” says Kathleen who has worked with young, talented artists like Zakkir Hussain and Rajan Krishnan from Kerala. The post Radical scenario was marked by a lull, a period of wilderness when many from the State chose to move out and almost all came under the sweep of market demands. “But one thing is clear, art in Kerala remains very dynamic,” she says.
Journalistic review / analysis: Shifting Journalistic Capital? Transparency and objectivity in the 21st century Lea C. Hellmueller, Tim P. Vos and Mark A. PoepselThis study examines a normative shift from objectivity toward a transparency-oriented journalistic field. US newspaper journalists (N=228) whose work is published online were surveyed to ascertain their adherence to truth-telling strategies of objectivity and transparency. The results suggest that forces unleashed by the online network might be creating pre-paradigmatic conflicts. Moreover, secondary principles divisions (e.g., gender and years of professional experience) indicate potential lines of division in how journalists embrace truth-telling strategies.
Subjectivity and Storytelling In Journalism: Examining expressions of affect, judgment and appreciation in Pulitzer Prize-winning stories Karin Wahl-Jorgensen This paper studies the role of subjectivity in the language of award-winning journalism. The paper draws on a content analysis of Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in a range of news categories between 1995 and 2011.The analysis indicates that despite the continued prominence of the ideal of objectivity in scholarly and journalistic debates, award-winning journalistic stories are in fact pervaded by subjective language in the form of what linguists refer to as “appraisals,” as well as the narrative construction of emotive appeals. The subjective language use of award-winning stories, however, does not straightforwardly or consistently undermine claims to objectivity. On that basis, the paper concludes that any binary oppositions between objectivity and subjectivity and, relatedlly, emotionality and rationality, may be overly simplistic and obscure the complexities of journalistic story-telling: Journalists in the German Democratic Republic (GDR): A collective biographyMichael Meyen and Anke FiedlerThe study explores the social background, career stations, working conditions and role-perceptions of journalists in East Germany before the wall came down. Drawing on Bourdieu’s field theory as well as on interviews and memoirs, it uses 121 career paths to construct a collective biography of journalists. The findings show that journalism was, indeed, closely tied to the centre of power. The dominance of the first two generations of journalists within the field even intensified its political significance. While both the founding and the “Aufbau” generation developed a political role perception, the young could quickly switch to Western standards after 1989.Counterrevolutionary Icons: The Representation of the 1956 ‘Counterrevolution’ in the Hungarian Communist Press Julia Sonnevend This article unites theories of framing, collective memory and a sociological concept of icons in order to examine how icons can represent a frame of a historic event over time in journalism. Focusing on the central Hungarian communist daily Népszabadság’s thirty years of coverage of the 1956 Hungarian revolution against the Soviet Union, the article argues that the newspaper - in alliance with the party constructed iconic persons, iconic objects, and iconic places of what the regime called a ‘counterrevolution.’ These icons as symbolic condensations served as powerful journalistic tools that represented the framing of the event as counterrevolutionary and furthered the regime’s desire to erase the vernacular memory of the revolution. From November 1956 until February 1957 the coverage was inchoate. Thereafter until November 1960 Népszabadság engaged in active icon construction. Népszabadság focused on a few hours of October 30, when protesters murdered several defenders of the Budapest party headquarters. Journalists constructed iconic personalities of this event: the martyrs, their mourning families, the few survivors and also the heroes, who saved lives. Republic Square, where the murders occurred, became the iconic place of the counterrevolution and the victims’ bodies were presented as iconic objects. Thereafter until September 1981 Népszabadság restricted the memory of the event to the already established icons providing only rote coverage of official commemorations. Finally, until November 1986 Népszabadság stressed factual achievements of the government’s victory over the counterrevolution, while the power of icons was fading.’ Very Shocking News’: Journalism and reporting on a politician’s illnesses Kevin Rafter & Steve Knowlton.
How the media should deal with information about the health of public figures remains a contentious issue in many countries. Many news outlets subscribe to the view that private lives should remain private unless public trust is broken or when private actions conflict with public positions. Controversy emerges over the exposure of marital infidelities, but it is in the area of health that agreement is hardest to achieve on where the dividing line should be between the public’s right to know and a public figure’s right to privacy. This article deals with the experience in Ireland in late 2009 when the broadcast of information about the health of the country’s Finance Minister became a matter of controversy. The discussion examines this specific case before exploring the wider ethical issues, which have universal applicability.
The Fading Public Voice: The polarizing effect of commercialization on political and other beats and its democratic consequences.
Morten Skovsgaard and Arjen van Dalen The increasing commercialization of media markets in Denmark and abroad have led to concerns about journalism’s role in democracy. In discussions about the influence of budget cuts and increased competition on the way journalists work, the difference between political journalists and other journalists is often disregarded. This paper argues that commercialization has a polarizing effect. It strengthens the political beat at the expense of other beats, as political reporters are cost effective and a way for outlets to brand themselves. Representative surveys among parliamentary reporters and other Danish journalists confirm that commercial pressures affect political journalists less than other journalists, even those working in other prestigious beats. This has negative implications from the viewpoint of participatory democracy; while other journalists emphasize a role as promoters of a citizen perspective, parliamentary journalists see it as their main role to demand accountability rather than responsiveness of politicians.
International TV news, foreign affairs interest and public knowledge: A comparative study of foreign news coverage and public opinion in 11 countries (provisional)
Toril Aalberg, Stylianos Papathanassopoulos, James Curran, Kaori Hayashi, Shanto Iyengar, Paul Jones, Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Hernando Rojas, David Rowe, Stuart Soroka and Rodney Tiffen
This article investigates the volume of foreign news provided by public-service and commercial TV channels in countries with different media systems, and how this corresponds to the public’s interest in and knowledge of foreign affairs. We use content analyses of television newscasts and public opinion surveys in 11 countries across five continents to provide new insight into the supply and demand for international television news. We find that (a) more market-oriented media systems and broadcasters are less devoted to international news, and (b) the international news offered by these commercial broadcasters more often focuses on soft rather than hard news. Furthermore, our results suggest that the foreign news offered by the main TV channels is quite limited in scope, and mainly driven by a combination of national interest and geographic proximity. In sum, our study demonstrates some limitations of foreign news coverage, but results also point to its importance: there is a positive relationship between the amount of hard international news coverage and citizens’ level of foreign affairs knowledge.
Is language a news value in Belgium? A case study of the use of Dutch-language quotes in the French-language TV news Geert Jacobs and Els Tobback.
In today’s globalized and multilingual medias cape the practicalities of inter-language translation have become increasingly relevant in the newsroom and the question has been raised how multilingualism affects journalistic practice. This question seems particularly relevant in Belgium, where the political tension between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities has recently dominated the news agenda. In this paper we report on team fieldwork conducted in the TV newsroom of Belgium's French-language public broadcasting corporation RTBF in the spring of 2009. In particular, we will present a case study in which a journalist struggles with the integration of a number of Dutch-language quotes in a news report on the demise of the fashion industry. Our behind-the-scenes analysis, from the storyboard meeting until broadcasting, leads us to question whether the language in which source materials are available can be considered a news value in Belgium. In line with recent calls in media linguistics, our approach is a linguistic ethnographic one, demonstrating the added value of a fine-grained analysis of the discursive processes at the heart of news making routines, one that allows us to revisit news values as decision-making parameters not just in gate keeping but throughout the news production process.
Biased Interrogations? A multi-methodological approach on bias in election campaign interviews
Mats Ekström, Göran Eriksson, Bengt Johansson and Patrik Wikström.
This study, based on Swedish data from three elections (2002, 2006 and 2010) and on a revised version of Clayman’s and Heritage’s (2002b; Clayman et al 2006) conceptualization of aggressive questioning, examines bias in election campaign interviews with leading political figures. In the first part of the study, the prevalence of partisan bias is explored, and this analysis confirms that such bias does not exist. Informed by Conversation Analysis, a limited number of interviews from the 2006 election are investigated in the second part. This analysis also involves questions scripted by journalists, and it compares both quantitatively and qualitatively the differences between the manuscripts and live interaction. The results question the assumption that bias is solely related to journalistic values and actions. The level of aggressiveness in the interviews is also dependent on how the politicians manage the interview questions.
Two sides of the same coin: The role of boundary work and isomorphism in the emergence of financial journalism in Israel (Provisional)Roei Davidson.
This study examines the appearance of a journalistic genre, that of Israeli business journalism, as a means of considering the relationship between the appearance of journalistic genres and the emergence of non-journalistic fields. It does so through two complementary theoretical prisms. On the institutional front, it considers the extent to which isomorphism, the tendency in capitalist systems for organizations and individuals to create similar structures and practices, existed. On the discursive front, the newspapers' founding statements and initial editorials were analyzed to identify the ways in which they attempted to construct boundaries that demarcated a legitimate space for finance. The study finds that isomorphism within journalism twinned with boundary work directed outside at its object of reporting contributed to the emergence of financial journalism. The study also expands the conceptual understanding of boundary work's role not only within the journalistic field but also across institutions.
Editorial writing; Start with the title. Make sure that it speaks to the audience Literally Be obvious and stick your topic right up in that sucker. You don’t want people not knowing what your editorial is about. Writing about corruption? Call it “Corruption.” Want to rant about school politics? Name as many student politicos as you can within your word limit. Why bother with creativity and poetic license when all you need is the cold, hard truth? Wit and subtlety were so 2010.
If clarity isn’t exactly your thing, go the other way around! Be as vague as humanly possible. If you can’t be obvious about what you’re writing about, you might as well be cryptic. The less sense your title makes, the better.
Don’t be afraid to use obscure media references. Malign the reputation of a fruit while you’re at it. You know you’re in a good place when your readers have to Google something when they see your title.
Throw straightforward language out the window the minute you even attempt to write an editorial.
You’re writing an editorial. You’re in the big leagues now. Roget is your new best friend, and when in doubt, make up your own words! We believe that the longer the word, the better the writer.
Why say, “I think that the Cybercrime Law is useless and undemocratic,” when you can say, “I am of the indubitable conviction that the edict outlawing criminal activity on the World Wide Web is wholly asinine and is nothing but an unjustifiable incursion on the very tenets our sovereign motherland was inaugurated upon,” instead? Now, doesn’t that sound so much more hardcore?
Not only will your use of highfalutin words convince people of your superior intellect and authority to publish such opinions, but you will also be doing them a favor by introducing them to new terms. Talk about striking two feathered creatures with one mineral!
Inflate your ego every chance you get.
Don’t forget that you are the most righteous, most eloquent and most cultured person to ever walk the face of the earth. Why else would you be writing for your school paper in the first place?
Your readers are but mere mortals compared to you and your brilliant intellect. You are Achilles without the heel. Everything you like is infinitely better than the pang-masa garbage your peers prefer.
Your writing must reflect this superiority in all ways possible. Shoot down everything that is not to your liking. Spit on anything you find unintellectual, uncouth or just plain unpleasant. Nothing is off-limits.
You should also never forget that your opinion is a beacon of scholarly light and should serve as a reference point for the betterment of your country. Nothing that the schools or the government ever does is right and you shouldn’t be afraid to point out their jesuitry. With all this enlightened thinking you’re doing, what you say is bound to be right at some point, right?
When in doubt, get mad! Nothing says, “I am a journalist you must take very, very seriously,” like a rant against anything and everything.
From the way 9GAG is brainwashing the youth into snubbing high art to how society’s penchant for instant coffee and instant noodles can be linked to greater promiscuity among the youth, nothing should be impervious to your wrath. (See what we mean about using big words?)
Linking the popularity of trashy reality television to a decline of moral values? Nope, not a slippery slope at all. Spare no one as you summon every single ounce of anger you have flowing through your veins. Harold Camping isn’t got anything’ on you. The world is a terrible place, and everyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.(Insert dramatic pause for effect.)
Remember when we said spare no one? By that, we mean attack everyone.
When you’re a beacon of scholarly light, it is only natural that some people don’t shine as brightly as you do. You must embrace this fact with all your journalistic soul. Not even someone who earned a perfect score defending his thesis in Latin at one of the world’s foremost theological universities can intimidate you. Heck, why not condemn him to an eternity burning in hell.
You mustn’t forget, however, that you are also a righteous saint. You can’t be seen dropping any actual names. That would be so unkind of you, uncivilized even. In fact, why waste time dropping one name after another when you can just condemn whole institutions instead? You should even cite their addresses, in case they’re not smart enough to take a hint. You have the right to say this stuff. You are a student journalist, after all.
Column writing: Writing a newspaper column is the bread and butter of many journalists. While it may seem straightforward, there are a lot of important things to remember when producing a column that isn't all just about the writing itself. Maintaining journalistic integrity requires the ability to present balanced, bias-free, objective, and fair reporting. Being a columnist carries the responsibility of being supportive of your sources, getting the facts straight, and not embroiling yourself in conflicts of interest. Naturally, all of these challenges are relished by a good columnist and if you're a keen writer plus a lover of communication, then being a columnist may be just the right career for you.
Know how to write and communicate well. You will need a good understanding of using the English language and not just grammatically. It's important to be comfortable with using the language to convey emotions, to persuade, to engender trust, to enlighten people, to clarify issues, and to make what you write interesting. Learn how to write the "inverted pyramid" style so that the reader gets the point straight up and then dives into the supporting story. Moreover, be comfortable with communicating with others as you'll need to spend a lot of time interviewing other people and knowing how to put people at their ease will be of great benefit to you.
Know the basics expected behind a column. Columns are meant to provide enough information for a reader without drawing them in to too much reading. On average, a short article for a column will be about 500 words or less, while few columns go beyond 1200 words. Brevity and getting to the point quickly are skills that you need to hone to be a good columnist. It is important to check with the specific paper you're writing for especially when you're freelance writing and you're not aware of each paper's requirements. Most of them will be able to clarify the word limits, and any other requirements such as format, delivery times, etc. upon asking.
Be prepared to thoroughly analyze the topics you write about. You will also need to have top rate analytical skills and a willingness to present both sides of a story (or more if needed) rather than simply remaining captured by your own perspective of an issue. Good journalism is objective and doesn't seek to take sides (leave your opinions for the editorial section) but it also offers balance to ensure that not only one side of the story is presented. Put your devil's advocate glasses on when examining any issues and see how you fare viewing situations from all sides!
Find interesting topics or angles to draw in the reader. Even if you have the freedom to write a column of your choosing, you are still reined in by having to provide what people want to read. Be conscious of what is fashionable, topical, current, and likely to interest readers. It isn't always the sensational stories either; anything can be made interesting with the right angle and careful writing. Most columnists find themselves being asked by their editors to write on specified topics. In this case, you need to find the interest hook in the topic, even if you aren't particularly enjoying it yourself! When you feel stuck and you're not particularly fond of the topic, focus more on getting your writing to come across well and to humanize a story that might otherwise be bland, boring, or even distasteful if it weren't for the expert way in which you write it. Then, try to distance yourself and read it as a reader – did you succeed in making the column interesting.
Put accuracy at the top of your list. Be prepared to do research and to learn as much as you can while preparing it, and draw heavily on speaking to experts in that field so that you get your information correct prior to writing it up. Remember that it is writing, "curiosity", and "communicating" that forms your skills, expertise and passion, not necessarily the topic (indeed, rarely will the topic be in your field of expertise!). Nobody expects you to know the minutiae of cardboard box production but the reader does expect you to report the expert's explanation of the process with total accuracy. Realize that there will be times when you will be under pressure to get a column prepared in time for printing that day. This doesn't mean tossing in sloppily analyzed, unsubstantiated information. If you don't have the facts straight or cleared, if you don't have the missing piece that draws all the threads together, then don't publish until you do. You may have to produce a shorter story focused only on those facts you are certain are accurate and then come back to it when you have the entire facts clarified; waiting is far better than having to retract your story, take a huge dent to your reputation and reliability, and then feel your journalistic integrity questioned from that point on.
Avoid conflicts of interest. Sometimes a columnist may write about someone they have close ties to, or something they're affiliated with or have a connection to, such as a company in which the columnist is a shareholder, or an organization that the columnist is a frequent customer of, etc. In any case where there is a real or even a perceived conflict of interest, either don't write the story, or make it extremely clear that you have a link of some sort. Be totally aware of the newspaper's policies with regard to gifts and the fine line between been sent items for "testing" and being sent items as "gifts". Most importantly, remember that your journalistic integrity rests on readers knowing that you've been open with them and that you're not trying to fool them or hide anything from them. Think of it like this: "How would my readers feel if they found out that I had a connection with this story but didn't reveal it?" And if you're in doubt, always talk to fellow journalists and your editors, who will be able to help you reach an objective decision.
Make it clear who the sources are in your stories. When writing a newspaper column, nobody wants to read a tennis match of "he said, she said". Be clear as to whom you're speaking about, including their expertise to speak to the matter. For example, "Expert psychiatrist Ray Bawdlin said", "Mother of two Rachel An win said", "Farmer of 25 years Gretel Bobo said", and so forth. By announcing to the reader the reason why the person you're quoting has authority to speak on the matter, the reader is immediately able to assess the reliability or trustworthiness of that person's statement.
Use original writing. Plagiarizing is a sad indictment for a person who writes for a living. If you don't feel you can produce what needs to be produced because of time pressures, disinterest in the topic, other pressing matters, etc., then be honest with your editors and ask for a different topic or take that break you need to pull yourself together. Plagiarizing is never the answer and it will out, eventually, no matter how cleverly you think you're covering your tracks. It's too easy to discover plagiarism with current technology, and the keen eyes of many readers poring over lots of work both in printed and online form. Resist the urge, and do things that restore your originality if you're beginning to feel jaded or over-pressured. Moreover, see being original as your mark or voice. If you develop your own distinctive writing style (something you should be striving for at all times), then plagiarism won't enter your head because you will know innately that only your own voice can be used in the column for it to be an effective piece.
Every writer has a unique style. Do not try to copy the style of any writer. You should define your own unique style.
If you're freelancing, you'll need to get into the swing of finding papers to write columns for. In this case, the following is suggested:
Do your research; come up with a list of newspapers you're interested in working with. Contact those papers and ask if they would be willing to print your article, or are looking for other articles on topics you might be able to write. Most first contacts are never made when sent through e-mail or fax. Editors get many faxes and e-mails and most will disregard the ones from people they do not know.
Prepare a cover letter and a sample of your writing. Send this letter and sample of writing to editor for first contact via snail mail (unless otherwise requested by the editor).
Be prepared for rejection. You may try to get into 100 papers and not get accepted by one, but it's also possible the first one may be your jackpot. In all, rejection is a very common part of writing. If you don't get accepted, don't give up. Keep on writing!
Becoming a columnist is something you can learn to do on amateur paper productions at school, for a club or association, or even just for fun making a newspaper for your family and friends to begin with. And if you want to extend your abilities, you can start sending your efforts in to real newspapers to see if they will print your work.
Think outside the square when looking for unique angles to stories – your love of words should actually be a great help in enabling you to think laterally, so use this skill to your advantage!
The role and responsibility of newspaper and journals in the disturbance of partition and perfidy

ource: wikipedia: The Partition of India led to the creation on 14 August 1947 and 15 August 1947, respectively, of two sovereign states, upon the granting of independence to British India by the United Kingdom: the Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan); and the Union of India (later Republic of India). 'Partition' here refers also to the division of the Bengal province of British India into the Pakistani state of East Bengal (later East Pakistan, now Bangladesh) and the Indian state of West Bengal, as well as the similar partition of the Punjab region of British India into the Punjab province of West Pakistan and the Indian state of Punjab, in addition to the division of the British Indian Army, the Indian Civil Service and other administrative services, the railways, and the central treasury, and other assets.
The secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War is not covered by the term Partition of India, nor are the earlier separations of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Burma (Myanmar) from the administration of British India. Ceylon, part of the Madras Presidency of British India from 1795 until 1798, became a separate Crown Colony in 1798. Burma, gradually annexed by the British during 1826 – 86 and governed as a part of the British Indian administration until 1937, was directly administered thereafter. Burma was granted independence on January 4, 1948 and Ceylon on February 4, 1948. (See History of Sri Lanka andHistoryofBurma.)The remaining countries of present-day South Asia include: Nepal; Bhutan; and the Maldives. The first two, Nepal and Bhutan, having signed treaties with the British designating them as independent states, were never a part of British India, and therefore their borders were not affected by the partition. The Maldives, which became a protectorate of the British crown in 1887 and gained its independence in 1965, was also unaffected by the partition.

No comments:

Post a Comment