Gotcha Journalism?

Before you read this post, please watch the brief video here. It shows Sarah Palin picking up a meal for her and her daughter a Philadelphia cheesesteak restuarant. Listen to the dialogue that goes on between her and a voter.

During the video, he asks her about Pakistan, and she tells him that if they needed to invade Pakistan in order to stop terrorists and protect our people, she would do it, "absolutely."

The problem? McCain's policy is not in agreement with that statement for the most part. Obama had a position similar to Palin on this issue, and McCain criticized him for it. He said that we shouldn't tell countries we're going to invade them. We should do what we have to if needed, but we should not talk about it.

The real issue was not so much what was said - but how it was presented: as "gotcha" journalism.

This term was used by McCain and Palin to describe what they thought the media did in this instance. In a Katie Couric interview, they talk about the Pakistan incident as a "gotcha" soundbite meant to hurt their campaign.

"Couric asked: Is that [going into Pakistan to fight terrorists] something you shouldn't say out loud, Sen. McCain?

John McCain: Of course not. But, look, I understand this day and age of "gotcha" journalism. Is that a pizza place? In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear … the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation, grab a phrase. Gov. Palin and I agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country … "

Couric later said:

It wasn't a "gotcha." She was talking to a voter.

McCain: No, she was in a conversation with a group of people and talking back and forth.

Sarah Palin, when asked what she learned from the ordeal, replied: That this is all about "gotcha" journalism. A lot of it is. But that's okay, too.

The media storm (see here, here, and here, to name just a few) instantly jumped on this accusation.

But Palin isn't the only one being attacked - Joe Biden also had his struggles with the media in recent days. There is a video of him apparently saying that his ticket would not support coal - which is something BarackObama.com clearly rejects. The McCain camp ran an ad highlighting the gaffe.

This is another case of what could be called "gotcha journalism." Someone was videotaping the senator, put it up on YouTube, and caught him saying something that contradicted his presidential candidate.

So what do I think of these events? I don't like that they refer to is as "gotcha journalism." I think its journalism - plain and simple. As a journalist, I want to see everything represented - in a truthful AND complete way. If someone says something ... I want it reported. In our society, things shouldn't necessarily be "off-limits" just because they are said to a voter rather than in a televised debate. However, I do think that certain issues can be exaggerated. When the media constantly harps on issues that are of minimal importance, I think they have taken it too far. The objective has to be balance.

Any opinions on this?

Loss of jobs in the newspaper industry

As I was browsing the web, I came across this MediaWeek article about jobs in the newspaper industry. It gave some statistics regarding the mounting lay-offs that have been taking place.

Rick Edmonds, an analyst with the Poynter Institute, estimated that 5,000 newsroom jobs will be eliminated. This number is more than twice the amount of news jobs that were lost last year.

The Dallas Morning News, the Providence Journal, and the Houston Chronicle are among the many papers cutting jobs in order to weather financial storms. The struggling economy, along with the recent shift to new media over print papers, has been causing some hardships at publications across the country.

Another article, this time from the Jacksonville Business Journal, highlights these declining trends in the industry.

The Florida Times-Union is published by the Morris Publishing Group, a company that operates 26 other newspapers. This year, they reported earnings that were only half of what they made last year!

"We continue to operate in a declining advertising environment, particularly in Jacksonville, our largest market," said CEO William S. Morris IV. "The downturn in the Florida real estate market has adversely impacted not only our classified real estate category, but also many of our other advertising categories dependent on the housing industry."

Veteran reporter Richard Hendrickson said this about the future of journalism in a shaky economic world:

"We'll always need journalists - people to gather, write and present information," says Hendrickson, who now teaches at John Carroll University. "I'm a little concerned that we won't always be able to pay for it. I'm telling kids to learn all [they] can, because you might not be able to get a job as a beat reporter on the local paper. But people will retire and move on. There will be openings here and there. The smart publishers will find a way to bring new blood and keep the veteran mentors. The others will lose."

Despite the hard times that the industry is currently going through, I know for a fact that journalism will always be around. As long as people are living, things are going to happening around the world. And as humans, we have inquisitive, curious minds. We want to know what's going on. We want to be informed.

That is why the world will always need journalists -people to inform them, educate them, show them what is happening around the world. However, I do think that the style and manner in which news is presented will definitely change.

When I transfer to journalism school to complete my degree, I plan to take as many digital media/Internet electives as I can. Aspiring journalists need to be well-versed in every aspect of communication, because that is the way we can help ourselves be competitive in an ever-shrinking job market.

Economics & Mathematics - Journalism essentials?

As a journalism major, I'm always interested in stories that have to do with journalists, their education, and their schools. Where is the major going? And what do experts have to say about it?

I recently read a blog that brought a large error to my attention. In the New York Times, there was an article about corporations not paying taxes. Go follow the link and head to the bottom of the page. You'll find a correction there - apparently their journalists (or editors, for this case) didn't know the difference between revenue and profit.

More in-depth information about the "why" behind this huge mistake can be found here . Here is an excerpt, offering background information on their mistake:

"Yesterday the New York Times ran a story on a study by the Government Accountability Office that was commissioned by Democratic Senators Carl Levin and Byron Dorgan. The study found that from 1998 to 2005, two out of three American corporations didn't pay any corporate income taxes. Levin and Dorgan trumpeted this finding as though it meant something.
As usual, the Democrats were preying on ignorance. As Levin and Dorgan undoubtedly know, most small businesses, and many large ones, don't pay federal income taxes because they don't make any money. Most companies, especially small ones, pay their employees, after which there is nothing left to report as profit. Those salaries, of course, are taxed as ordinary income. If the corporations are Subchapter S, any earnings are passed through to the owner(s) and taxed at that level. The idea that "corporations" represent some kind of magical money pot for the government to steal from is just one more Democratic Party fantasy. On the contrary, the United States has the second-highest corporate income tax rates in the world, a fact that hurts our economy badly. As dumb as the Levin-Dorgan press release was, however, it wasn't dumb enough for the New York Times. The paper got out its calculator, multiplied the gross revenues of the companies in the GAO study by 35%, and came up with this classic of economic ignorance: 'At a basic corporate tax rate of 35 percent, all the corporations covered in the study in theory owed $875 billion in federal income taxes.' In theory, a company pays 35% of its net income to the feds, not its gross receipts. That reporters and editors at the New York Times should be ignorant of this basic fact is shocking. How in the world can these people purport to instruct the rest of us on economic matters, when they lack the most fundamental understanding of how our tax system works?"

This whole ordeal really took me by surprise. I guess that as a journalism major, we tend to focus solely on the aspects of writing and reporting, as well as ethics. But how ethical is it to make such broad, hasty assumptions, like the ones made in the NY Times article? To state that corporations owed $875 billion in federal income taxes, when corporations are typically taxed on their profit (net income) rather than their revenue, is a major ethical issue.

I personally dislike mathematics and things that have to do with numbers. Many journalism majors probably do, considering the fact that they have chosen to devote their careers to the written word rather than number crunching. But I am convicted about my responsibility to stay educated in all matters that I may need to report on in the future - this includes history, political science, international affairs, and yes, economics.

Right now, the University of Florida School of Journalism requires an economics class of every student who wishes to graduate with a journalism degree. I think that is an awesome idea. I plan to take a basic economics class in the spring, but then if I have room in my schedule, I would definitely take more of them. Learning about the math behind our nation's economy is both beneficial and imperative for today's journalists.

For those interested, NewsUniversity offers an online class entitled "Math for Journalists." If you have some spare time, go through the course and let me know what you think. Hopefully I can join in on this class and use it as a mathematical refresher.

The Newspapers of the Future

While browsing the NY Times website tonight, I stumbled across a rather interesting article that adds a new dynamic to the ever-raging debate over the future of newspapers.


It has long been accepted that with the emergence of new technologies (like the Internet and cell phones) comes an inevitable decline in the "traditional newspaper's" role.


This article, however, showed a new idea that just might work. The Plastic Logic company is trying to develop an "e-newspaper" - a device (the size of a paper) that would allow readers to pay for a subscription to their favorite newspaper and receive updated versions on their device. It would have wireless capabilities, enabling it to download any breaking news stories throughout the day.

Yes, people can already access news stories from their cell phones or PDA's. But the goal of this new invention is to retain the actual "look" of a newspaper page on a larger device. "We are hopeful that we will be able to distribute our newspaper content on a new generation of larger devices sometime next year," said Kenneth Bronfin, president of Hearst Interactive Media.

Not surprisingly, Europe is already ahead of the game on this one. The iLiad is an electronic reader that lets users access newspapers from France and the Netherlands. The technology works for them.

The only problem that's keeping this trend from going huge?

Money.

In Holland the iLiad costs $855, and after a year, it costs $270 annually to subscribe to the newspaper. This is obviously not wildly popular among a generation that is so accustomed to getting free information. We merely log onto any computer, type in a news website, and instantly we have access to everything we want. The sticker shock of this new device poses a real problem.

But what's new? Computers certainly were not affordable when they first came out. Neither were cell phones or DVD players. I remember, as a kid, when my dad first bought a strange new novelty called a "laptop". The prices back then were enormous, thanks to the newness of the technology.

So maybe, just maybe, if these "e-newspapers" can be made cheaply... they might stand a chance.

I know that I personally would have to warm up to the idea. I'm used to getting my news online, for free, whenever I'm at a computer. It seems to me like much of my generation has grown up with this "free information" mentality as well. That's why I think it would be exceptionally hard to market this product.

However, I'm not saying it can't be done. If its created in a user-friendly way, and if it establishes some "perks" that online news sites can't offer (like personalized news stories, absence of ads, etc.), then it may stand a chance as the next huge thing to hit our market.

What do you think?