Case Study 8: Stories should present readers with the whole picture

These two stories obviously had an agenda. They both received their information from the same source and poll but interpreted it very differently. Actually, it is quite fascinating how two stories written from the same basic facts can end up being such polar opposites. It is obvious that both writers used for certain information from the study to prove their point. The first story wanted to show that the Afghan people are optimistic about everything, so the writer looked for information in the study to back that notion up. The second story, however, did not think that Afghans were truly happy with the direction of their country, so the writer pulled outside information that would discredit the notion in the first story.

Personally, I preferred the second story. While I am not too informed about Afghanistan, I do know that the second story was much easier to read and understand. It also showed me the bigger picture. As I reader, I felt like I understood more from the second story. I like that the second story gave me context on the issue. I thought that was something that the first story was definitely lacking. Also, there were a lot of statistics from the poll. Instead of listing them in bullet points like the first story, the second story tried to summarize main ideas and included a visual graphic. That was also extremely helpful as a reader trying to understand the situation in Afghanistan.

Compiled Story:

Poll reveals Afghan’s true feelings on their country

A new extensive nationwide survey released Wednesday polls the Afghan people concerning their feelings about their country. While the numbers from this year seem to reveal that the people of Afghanistan are optimistic about the future of their country, numbers are actually down. When compared to the 2004 survey, Afghans actually have less confidence that the country is heading in the right direction.

While the national mood remains positive on the whole, the number of people with negative or mixed views on the trajectory of the country has grown significantly since a similar survey in 2004, according to the Asia Foundation, which conducted both surveys.

“The number of Afghans who feel optimistic is lower than on the eve of the 2004 presidential elections,” the survey found.

It was the largest opinion survey conducted in Afghanistan. In it, 44 percent of Afghans interviewed said the country was headed in the right direction, compared with 64 percent in 2004 on the eve of the first democratic presidential elections in Afghanistan. Twenty-one percent said the country was headed in the wrong direction — compared with 11 percent in 2004 — and 29 percent had mixed feelings. Four percent were unsure. Security was the main reason for the increased concern, the survey said.

Financed by the United States Agency for International Development, the survey was conducted by the Asia Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, and by local partners, who interviewed more than 6,000 people from June through August this year in rural and urban areas of all but two of Afghanistan’s provinces.

The main goal of the survey was to determine the attitudes of Afghans toward the political process, public policy and development progress. The national mood was almost identical across the different ethnic groups, but varied according to region.

Security was the main source for optimism among those who said the country was headed in the right direction. But among those who expressed pessimism, more than half said the biggest problem was a lack of security, the Taliban threat and warlords. Indeed, two southern provinces were excluded from the survey due to extreme security problems.

Respondents listed the economy and unemployment as other big issues. Fifty-four percent said they felt more prosperous than they had under the Taliban, but 26 percent said they felt less well off.

Case Study 7.1: How much can the media rely on citizen accounts?

Both BBC News and RTE News take different approaches to reporting breaking news. When reporting on the grenade attack in Belgium, the differences were highlighted. BBC News tweeted more to readers to update them on the event, including a tweet asking witnesses of the attack to send in their comments. They also had an information sheet where people in Liege who witnessed the attacks could submit their experiences, pictures and videos. Their reporting for this event was much more interactive and relied heavily on their readers for input and information. The story BBC published contained second-hand accounts. For instance, the story contained facts attributed to witnesses, described images that were shown on television, and gave accounts from a journalist at another newspaper.

RTE News, on the other hand, only had one tweet regarding the event. The RTE news did not rely on information from their readers and did not ask for readers to contribute. The RTE story contained statements that were attributed to police. Their approach to reporting on the event was much more mainstream and traditional.

While the BBC is innovative in their approach to try and include their readers in reporting on the event, their actions do raise some issues. For instance, how trust worthy are the accounts readers are submitting? How can the BBC be sure the information is reliable and accurate? What is preventing readers from providing false information to the publication? As we have seen with the story about Jimmy’s world, people can easily fabricate things and pass them off as fact. And in instances like the story where the eagle snatched the dog, how can we be sure the event actually happened that way? If only the one person was there reporting, it can be hard to trust their account.

Sure, it is great for publications to be able to rely on readers for help on reporting a story, but caution must be taken. As long as the publication remains skeptical and checks the information they use, the arrangement should work out well. As a publication, they should still be sending their own reporters to the scene. Some citizens may submit things that their own reporters did not get, but their reporters should be able to confirm certain basic facts. Checks such as these are necessary to protect the publication. This kind of interactive reporting is a nice way to get readers more involved. In the end, though, it is important to remember the paper is responsible for what it publishes, not the citizen contributors. As long a publications like the BBC keep a skeptical mindset when using this reporting approach, all should be fine.

The more tweets there are the better

Unexpected events occur every day. All of a sudden, there is a crash or an earthquake that no one saw coming. Journalists have no way of knowing what will happen and where. When something does happen, journalists make the effort to get to the scene as quickly as possibly. But, sometimes they are not the first people on the scene. Normal, everyday citizens can just happen to be in the right place at the right time and witness events. These citizens who are in the heart of the action have more information that the journalists on their way to the scene. So, why can’t citizens use their resources to update the masses? Well, with the innovations of Twitter and citizen journalism, now they can.

Twitter is a great and innovative resource that allows anyone to share information. For instance, before reporters and camera crews could get to the scene, Twitter broke the story of the Discovery Channel gunman. Regular citizens can now pass along information that they witness, instead of waiting for an official media outlet to release something. Twitter gives citizens the tools to use their own voice. The more more people contributing to the information pile, the better.

If a normal citizen witnesses the eruption of a massive volcano and is right there, why shouldn’t they chronicle the event on their Twitter. This is a great way to disseminate information quickly, so people know what is going on. However, one thing to keep in my mind is to only write what you know and what you are sure is correct. It is unethical to purposely mislead people and make up events. People who do this sully the information sharing system that Twitter enables. When reading Tweets, always consider the source. Do not simply discount something because it does not come from a media outlet, but use good judgment. Be skeptical, but trust your fellow citizen journalists until they give you a reason not to. If a citizen journalist abuses Twitter and fools their followers, people will eventually realize. Then, that citizen journalist will lose their credibility and the trust of their followers.

Twitter is also an extremely useful tool for journalists. Journalists can start conversations with readers, tell them about the reporting process, and even give live updates from events. For example, some news organizations live tweeted from inside the courtroom at the Casey Anthony trial and still tweet updates on the case. This allows readers to follow the raw information as it occurs, before the actual story is published.

Twitter story: #hardlife

Case Study 7: Live tweeting emotional breakup lacks taste and ethics

When I read this story, sure I was intrigued. This is compelling, unusual stuff. A young couple pours their hearts out in the middle of a Burger King? Yes, I want to keep reading. But, next I wondered to myself how someone could have the audacity to write this. How could someone record every word of this personal, intense conversation? It is private. Anyone can tell they did not mean for others to hear or publish their words. So, why publish this?

Well, I’m not sure why Andy Boyle decided to chronicle this on his Twitter, except to provide shock value to his followers. This definitely is not news worthy. It does not have any news value. Therefore, it does not fall under the umbrella of journalism. It does appeal to people’s human interest because it tells a compelling and true story. But, that doesn’t constitute journalism. The way he went about it was unethical and tasteless. These people are in a public place, but that does not mean that their words are automatically free for people to record. It does not mean that just because they are sitting in a Burger King, Boyle has free reign to spy on them and publish what they say. Yes, as journalists we want to do whatever to get the compelling story. But, there is a line. You have to respect others and their privacy. This crossed the line. There was no pressing need for his to eavesdrop on this couple, except for his own selfish, nosy reasons. In doing this, he lacked a great deal of class and taste. Yes, he got a story to publish on his Twitter page, but at what expense?

I think that using Twitter to tell stories is a fantastic idea, as long as you uphold certain principles. Some Twitter stories are just as popular with readers, and yet they do not violate ethics to become popular. I think the key is to look for compelling stories that do not make you cross that line to get them. Publish stories while keeping your integrity in tact. Don’t sacrifice your ethical standards for a sensational story. It’s not worth it.

Poligraft as a resource for journalists

Poligraft makes fact checking simple. It literally takes two seconds to copy the url of a story you are reading on the web and run it through Poligraft to generate a report. It is a great resource because in a matter of seconds, it delivers background research and underlying connections you might have otherwise not known about. The site brings to light possible hidden connections that could highlight biases in a story that seems unbiased on the surface. This is a useful tool for anyone, but especially journalists. Journalists could use it to expose biases in a series of stories, to run their own stories through before publication, and even to check stories they are using as sources for their own work. This tool unmasks stories and strips them down to the real facts. With the extra information, readers can make a more informed conclusion from the story.

I ran a story from Yahoo! News through Poligraft to see if there were any underlying connections. The story was about whether President Obama should accept Sarah Palin’s invitation to a debate. Palin challenged Obama to a debate after the Obama campaign posted an online fundraising video portraying Palin in a negative light. The video accused her of “race-baiting” by criticizing Obama’s relationship with Derrick Bell, Harvard’s first black law professor. Basically, the article addresses both views and includes sources defending each side of the issue.

The Poligraft report is helpful because it uncovers deeper connections and motives that the people or organizations referenced in the story might posses. This helps readers to understand the broader picture. The report for this story showed points of influence for Sarah Palin, Yahoo! Inc, Charles W Johnson, Facebook Inc, and Harvard University. The report shows that Sarah Palin mainly receives contributions from individuals instead of PACs. This tells us that she doesn’t seem to receive money from one dominating company that could influence her views.  Charles W Johnson, who is interviewed in the story and defends Obama, is an Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. With this information, gained from reading the Poligraft report, we can see a bigger picture. Perhaps he feels a sense of loyalty to Obama because he currently works under him. Also, in looking deeper into the report, we learn most of his campaign finances are received from lawyers. Palin was attacking Obama and his relationship with a prominent law professor. The fact that he seems to have a good relationship with lawyers and receives substantial money from them could weigh into Johnson’s opinion on the whole situation. The report just gives us more food for thought. Also, in reading this story, it is helpful that the report lets us know that Yahoo! Inc, Facebook Inc, and Harvard University are all mostly Democrat and not Republican. This helps us realize the political connections and detect potential biases. While the article is not biased because it shows both sides, it gives more space to the side that defends Obama, a Democrat. And Yahoo! is mostly Democrat. Is there a connection? Is this article actually unbiased? That is why Poligraft is such a great tool. It allows readers to unveil stories and decide for themselves if they are true and unbiased.

Aggregation and curation makes us more informed

Linking and curation is one of the strongest tools journalists posses today. It is a way to give readers all of the information they could possibly want to know. It also allows readers the freedom to choose what they look at and click on. If they already know the background on the information, they can simply skip over that link and keep reading the story. If they want to look at specific graphics that prove the point, though, they can choose to utilize the link conveniently placed in the story. This saves readers time in a hectic world and helps them sort through the vast amount of information on the expansive Web.

Linking and curation are also good practices because they require the writer to have comprehensive knowledge of the subject. While it sounds relatively simple to throw links into a story, there is an art to linking. In order to link to other web pages related to the topic, you have to be well-read on the topic. This makes for better stories.

Even large media outlets, like the New York Times and the Washington Post now regularly link to other sites. They are committed to offering great content to readers. Today, that means including aggregation and curation in stories.

I am more of a visual person, and I enjoy reading stories that are not in just plain linear form. Sometimes using aggregation can make a story shorter but at the same time more clear. It can help readers to better understand concepts, like this post does when it comes to aggregation.

CNN normally does a nice job of linking their stories. This story on Santorum does a nice job of linking and helping me understand the full picture. I haven’t been keeping up with the election recently, so I missed what this story is regarding. The story conveniently links me to background information, so I can catch up. I don’t have to waste any of my time searching aimlessly around the Internet looking for answers. They have been placed right in front of me.

By providing information right at people’s fingertips, I feel like the public will be more informed. I feel like a large part of being uninformed comes from lack of time, knowledge of where to look and initiative. People are lazy, so they will just forget taking the extra steps to learn about current events and their history. But, aggregation and curation cut out those middle steps for the reader. The information they want is presented right to them on a silver platter, making it much easier to access.

Google Search:

Dossier on my team members:

John Boothe:

Male

University of Florida Student, Class of 2012

Earning his B.S. , Journalism

Went to St. John Lutheran School

From Ocala, FL

Assistant Sports Editor at the Independent Florida Alligator

Currently lives in Gainesville, FL

Been a sports editor at the Patriot Press

Twitter name is @JJBoothe

Written articles for Alligator, like this one with the headline: “Hlaselo formally charged with first-degree felony sexual battery”

Email: jboothe@alligator.org

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/jjboothe

Has Google Plus, Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook

Amber Thibodaux:

Gender: Female

University of Florida student

Couldn’t find her twitter or Facebook

Has a Quora account, MySpace, Google Plus

 

I had much more trouble finding things out about Amber than John. Many things instantly popped up regarding John when I simply typed in his name. Then, I found even more when I narrowed the search by putting his name in quotes and adding Gainesville, FL after it. I tried both strategies with Amber, but I still didn’t find a lot about her.

Objectivity is always key

Here is my Case study. 

Vampire compile

Here is my compiled story.

Simplifying today’s information overload with topic pages

In today’s world, it is news overload. My phone constantly buzzes giving me new notifications. I’m constantly checking email, my social networks and my google reader to stay up to date. But, then add in daily activities, school work, socializing and so on and I can barely keep up with life let alone the day’s headlines. I know I am a journalism student, so I do try my best to stay informed. There is just so much information. Topic pages are an innovation, making new and old information on one specific topic readily available to readers. Instead of having to search all over the internet for every aspect pertaining to one topic, topic pages give it to you all at once. Why did no one think of this sooner? In this crazy information age, it simplifies the news overload and makes news easier to process.

While this is a relatively new practice, many sites have started creating topic pages and seen success. According to a post on the Content Strategies Blog, the New York Times is where topic pages began, and it has some of the best. Some say topic pages are similar to the concept of Wikipedia. The main idea is to present readers with comprehensive information, as well as context. Topic pages can and should include a summary, time line, important articles, multimedia and a list of related topics. Providing all of these resources in one space makes it much more convenient for the reader to attain knowledge on the topic. It provides a way for readers to catch up on past information they missed and also know what’s currently happening in regard to a certain topic.

Topic pages are beneficial in the fact that they have a longer shelf life than typical news stories and blasts. Since topic pages are made to be fully comprehensive, they will be a resource for readers for a long time. Topic pages are more easily searchable through search engines, so they will continue to pop up. Topic pages aren’t as timely as breaking news stories because they look at the big picture.

The idea really hit home when I thought about it like this. Think years ahead to some student who hears people talking about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He wasn’t alive for them. He doesn’t know as much as other people who were. But, he is upset in hearing about the terrible event and wants to know more. Well, lucky for him he lives in the information age where topic pages exist. He could simply go to the New York Times topic page, the Reckoning, and get an expansive view. He could learn about the events leading to the attacks, the actual day, and even the aftermath. Everything he could want to know is there. Instead of scouring search engines for hours trying to sort through everything, he has all of the answers to his questions tied up in a neat little package.

To me this is a priceless resource. It could help people with school projects, research, creating arguments, studying, writing or simply just being informed. For example, I am interested in ballet but only recently. I have developed this intense passion for the art, and I am particularly fascinated with the New York City Ballet. I want to educate myself to deepen my appreciation. Instead of simply going to the New York City Ballet’s website and poking around, I can instead go to the New York Times’ topic page on the New York City Ballet. This instantly gives me so much more information right at my fingertips. I can see highlights from the archives, articles, the list of dancers, the company’s history and even videos. It would take me so much longer to research that all on my own.

I’m glad someone thought of topic pages. As a journalist and person, I know this will simplify my life. Topic pages bring a sense of order to an online world that can sometimes seem like chaos.

Here is my Delicious bookmark. Journalists could use this tool to sort through and keep up with online information. Delicious is a tool that could help weed through all of the irrelevant information and just keep track of what they want to know about. Then, if they have to write a story on a specific topic and need to do more background or general research, they could simply search in their Delicious. This would save journalists a lot of time when working on stories.

Brees’ record isn’t tainted by how he earned it but by reporters’ accounts

The NFL article on Drew Brees breaking the single-season passing yards record exemplifies the fact that editors cannot simply edit for grammar and spelling errors. Editors must also edit for content, clarity, accuracy and bias.

The NFL story is poor journalism. The story headline and main point are based on a CBS sports online article they link to. The CBS article is not a good concrete basis for a story. It basically takes the opinion of one unnamed Falcons player and assumes that his opinion is the consensus of the entire team. The article bases its whole argument on that one point. It is also full of speculation. The CBS story reports that the Falcons coach did congratulate Brees and quotes the coach’s congratulatory words. But, the writer then goes on to speculate and says, “Smith wouldn’t say anything negative about the decision to go for it, but his body language during the drive said it all.” How does he know that the coach didn’t actually mean it when he congratulated Brees? This is not responsible journalism. Perhaps if this was a blog, the writer could assume, brainstorm ideas, express his opinions and complain. But, this was a news story. His comments and speculation undermine his credit as an objective journalist. It was as if the writer already knew what he thought before he wrote or interviewed anyone. Then, he found one anonymous player whose quote would support his opinion and ignored all of the other information. This doesn’t make for very credible and reliable journalism.

The NFL story was then written using the unreliable, biased story written by CBS as a source. It links to the CBS story to back it up. But, if the editors of the NFL story had taken the time to actually read the CBS story, they would have realized it was not a good story to use as a base and reference. Both stories should have focused more on the actual news event, which was Brees breaking the record. An objective account of the game with more information on statistics would have been a reputable story to publish. The Washington Post does a nice job of reporting on the event.

I am not a huge sports fan, but I do know what running up the score means. There has been debate over whether it is alright or unsportsmanlike to score as many points as you can by the end of the game, even if your team is already winning by a large margin. There is disagreement on the issue, as illustrated perfectly in a perfectpractice.net article on running up the score. On the one hand there is the opinion that it is only a game, and the players should play their hearts out. On the other hand, some believe that running up the score is unnecessary and disrespectful to the other team.

I tend to have the mindset that it is just a game. A team should try to score as many points possible. After all, it isn’t hurting anyone. But no matter where one lands on the issue, one thing is for sure. If you are writing a news article on the matter, report on the news and save your opinion for heated debates with your sports buddies. Those opinions have no place in the news room or in the news article, unless you’re working in the opinion section of course.