After a long, hot summer, it is back-to-school time.
I open my year Monday in my new capacity as visiting assistant professor of journalism at the University of Idaho. In the spring, I taught only one course, mass media ethics. It was a blast.
This fall, I will teach a full course load – ethics, mass media management and media writing. I’ll have roughly 85 students total in the three courses which means an enormous number of papers to read and grade every week.
One of my colleagues here told me last spring that I will work harder as a professor than I ever did as a news professional, and for a lot less money. True enough.
But having just about exhausted my patience with the professional world, I find that working with enthusiastic young people more than compensates for the loss of a bit of time and income. Looking back, I only wish I had made the transition to the academic environment a bit sooner.
In this blog, I’ll resume regular posts dealing with major ethical issues in the media world. Much of the material posted here will connect with the course work in my ethics class. I hope some of my students will join the conversation, although I won’t require participation.
As someone who worked nearly 40 years in the newspaper business (20 in senior management positions) I believe I have the street cred to teach ethics. But I don’t suggest for a moment that I have earned this opportunity because of an unblemished ethical track record.
Like most professionals, I tried to operate ethically and mostly succeeded, I think. But there were times when the decisions were more gray than black and white. And there were missteps, decisions that are ethically suspect now as I examine them in the rear-view mirror.
Some mistakes can be attributed to the heat of battle. In the professional world, ethical problems come at you in bunches every day and too often there is no time to really think through a problem. A gut reaction in the moment may feel right in that moment. But our gut – my student’s valued common sense – can be wrong.
I think that real-world record of good decisions and bad is what qualifies me to teach ethics.
If there is one lesson I can leave with my students, it is this: Being consistently ethical in the professional world requires preparation and, often enough, some real work. Professionals need a process for ethical decision making. Eventually, application of that process can become so internalized that most day-to-day problems can be resolved without breaking stride. But often enough to make us wary, problems arise that are too complex for simple resolution. That’s when an education in ethical decision making can kick in, producing a more thoughtful -- and ethically defensible -- result.
steve
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Last class of semester
Good afternoon,
Today is the last regular spring semester meeting of my mass media ethics class at the University of Idaho.
I won't speak for the students, but this has been a wonderful experience for me. I have taught before, but never on a semester calendar and never a conceptual (as opposed to skills) class. So this has been a bit of an experiment with 40-some students serving as my guinea pigs. They have been incredibly patient.
I built the class on a case study model, analyzing ethics problems drawn from the headlines meaning we could focus on the most significant ethical dilemmas media practitioners face at the moment.
Mostly, that worked, I think. The current media landscape is strewn with ethical land mines so it wasn't hard to find cases each week that related to our general areas of study such as conflict of interest, plagiarism, invasion of privacy and so on.
At the end of class Monday, one of my students said something that caught my attention.
He has enjoyed the class, he said, mostly because the discussions have been lively or relatively so.
But he doubted the value of the case-study model, he said. Solutions to most of the case studies could be had simply using common sense, he said. And "anyone on the street could answer these questions," he said.
If that is so, what is the value of the class, he asked?
I agree that many of the problems media practitioners face daily can be avoided/solved with a bit of common sense. But there is more to it than that.
There is a way of thinking about an ethical problem that can lead to a defensible, ethical, even moral resolution.
I want the students to understand that conflicting values are at the core of most ethical issues. The public's right to know vs. a media subject's right to privacy is a classic values conflict.
We resolve such a conflict applying our own personal values, our experience addressing similar problems in the past and through the modest application of classic moral theories, though many of us could not name or define them. Most important, media practitioners apply their craft values, as well. There are some rules, some widely held standards and a variety of ethical codes that are the foundation of the craft and that must be addressed when dealing with any ethical problem.
Working journalists have so internalized the process that most issues can be addressed quickly, in the field or on deadline. But the knotty problems, the Gordian knot problems, require a more thoughtful approach. And that is where a media ethics class can provide some guidance for the long haul. At least that is my hope.
Yes, as my student said, people on the street can certainly resolve the ethical dilemmas we addressed in class. But they won't bring craft values, standards and codes of conduct to the process and putting those before students and helping them understand their application seems important to me.
For any number of reasons, many J-school programs do not require ethics education of all majors in all disciplines. I understand the barriers. But I am grateful the University of Idaho understands the need and requires this class of all majors before they can graduate.
I will teach the course next fall and spring, more effectively, I hope. If the class is better, this semester's students can take the credit. As guinea pigs, they have all earned A's.
steve
Today is the last regular spring semester meeting of my mass media ethics class at the University of Idaho.
I won't speak for the students, but this has been a wonderful experience for me. I have taught before, but never on a semester calendar and never a conceptual (as opposed to skills) class. So this has been a bit of an experiment with 40-some students serving as my guinea pigs. They have been incredibly patient.
I built the class on a case study model, analyzing ethics problems drawn from the headlines meaning we could focus on the most significant ethical dilemmas media practitioners face at the moment.
Mostly, that worked, I think. The current media landscape is strewn with ethical land mines so it wasn't hard to find cases each week that related to our general areas of study such as conflict of interest, plagiarism, invasion of privacy and so on.
At the end of class Monday, one of my students said something that caught my attention.
He has enjoyed the class, he said, mostly because the discussions have been lively or relatively so.
But he doubted the value of the case-study model, he said. Solutions to most of the case studies could be had simply using common sense, he said. And "anyone on the street could answer these questions," he said.
If that is so, what is the value of the class, he asked?
I agree that many of the problems media practitioners face daily can be avoided/solved with a bit of common sense. But there is more to it than that.
There is a way of thinking about an ethical problem that can lead to a defensible, ethical, even moral resolution.
I want the students to understand that conflicting values are at the core of most ethical issues. The public's right to know vs. a media subject's right to privacy is a classic values conflict.
We resolve such a conflict applying our own personal values, our experience addressing similar problems in the past and through the modest application of classic moral theories, though many of us could not name or define them. Most important, media practitioners apply their craft values, as well. There are some rules, some widely held standards and a variety of ethical codes that are the foundation of the craft and that must be addressed when dealing with any ethical problem.
Working journalists have so internalized the process that most issues can be addressed quickly, in the field or on deadline. But the knotty problems, the Gordian knot problems, require a more thoughtful approach. And that is where a media ethics class can provide some guidance for the long haul. At least that is my hope.
Yes, as my student said, people on the street can certainly resolve the ethical dilemmas we addressed in class. But they won't bring craft values, standards and codes of conduct to the process and putting those before students and helping them understand their application seems important to me.
For any number of reasons, many J-school programs do not require ethics education of all majors in all disciplines. I understand the barriers. But I am grateful the University of Idaho understands the need and requires this class of all majors before they can graduate.
I will teach the course next fall and spring, more effectively, I hope. If the class is better, this semester's students can take the credit. As guinea pigs, they have all earned A's.
steve
Monday, May 3, 2010
A case against boring
Hello,
“About a year ago, as a result, the newspaper ditched its daily editorials, setting aside a liberal tradition established by (former editor Ralph) McGill and others. Instead, the opinion pages are devoted to debate over matters of local interest — and the paper has promised more local investigative reporting on its news pages.”
Wallace’s comments sparked a brief but intense, and inconclusive, debate on media websites and blogs. A casual reading suggests Wallace lost the debate, but in a split decision.
Wallace is a fine editor. And the Journal-Constitution is, by all accounts a quality newspaper still. It’s even possible the AJC isn’t boring. I haven’t read it during my time off, so can’t really say.
But as much as I admire Julia Wallace, I have to side with those who believe the absence of strong views, the elimination of editorials and the simple left/right framing of complex stories is the wrong, the absolutely and self-destructively wrong direction for newspapers.
If I had it to do over again, I would go in the opposite direction. More voice and attitude on the news pages, a stronger editorial voice complemented by a wide-open, interactive op-ed strategy, more emotion in the writing, more nuance in the reporting and more respect for the intelligence of readers.
In examining their readership studies, AJC execs apparently took to heart complaints that the newspaper was politically and socially out of sync with its audience. But attempting to bring the news and editorial pages into sync will do nothing to improve credibility and can only hurt readership.
Theories of bias are too complex to address in this post. But the fact is readers see bias even in the most-even handed – read dull and boring -- treatment of complicated issues.
In my view, those perceptions are fueled by simplistic framing (as if covering the right, then the left really provides balance) loaded language and irrelevant story selection and focus. Maybe worse, readers find hidden bias where none was intended. If bias is inevitable and unavoidable, let it be clear and out in the open – transparent, as Wallace rightly argues.
If there is anything we can learn from the new media explosion it is that news consumers want to be involved in the news conversation, want to understand the biases inherent in any news report, demand transparency and expect to be engaged in the subsequent conversation.
The antithesis of the AJC philosophy can be found today on the front page of The Arizona Republic, a full-page editorial (here) attacking the state’s new immigration law and the politicians who made it happen.
News reports have said up to 70 percent of Arizona voters support the new legislation. Clearly, Republic editors made no effort to stay in sync with the political views of their readers. They chose instead to take a strong, unequivocal stand.
And it wasn’t boring
Steve
Having been out of the newsroom for nearly 18 months, I believe I have gained a more objective perception -- if not a particularly fresh one -- of newspaper strengths and weaknesses.
I have traveled quite a bit, probably reading more daily newspapers in more cities in my months away from the business as I read in the several years leading up to this “vacation.”
As I have said before, there still is some outstanding newspaper journalism apparent in just about every market.
But if I had to generalize on the overall quality of daily newspapers in this post-depression period, I would have to make this observation: They are boring; more boring than ever and that is saying something.
There are obvious reasons that reflect less on editors and publishers than on the economics of newspapering in the aftermath of a three-year staffing bloodbath.
Newsrooms with 30- to 50-percent fewer journalists have attempted to focus remaining staff on core content, trying to sustain government and watchdog reporting, to maintain some level of investigative reporting and to stay on top of sports and, maybe, business in some markets.
That means fewer reporters are working on enterprise, news features, analyses, personality profiles and lifestyle stories. Heavier reliance on wire services and syndicates has led to a greater homogenization of content, particularly in features sections.
I haven’t done a survey, but I also would guess there are far fewer columnists of all stripes, bleeding some papers of the little personality they had before the collapse.
Making matters worse, cuts have been so deep that focus on core watchdog journalism is spread among fewer reporters on any given staff, meaning too much coverage is process oriented, reliant on official sources, press releases and routine meeting coverage.
So at the same time newspapers work to take advantage of a modest economic turn-around, confronting horrific circulation and readership declines, they are presenting readers with a product not only thinner and less substantive than before, but also one that is too often flat, uninspired and --- there is no other word for it -- boring.
All of this came to mind late last week while reading a National Public Radio (here) online report on media credibility. The report cited the usual statistics showing an ongoing decline in press credibility and focused on the efforts of Atlanta-based media to address the problem, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Here is how the article summed up the AJC’s response to credibility concerns.
“The Journal-Constitution asked readers what they want — and made a big change. ‘What we found is they don't want us to be a newspaper with a strong point of view,’ says Julia Wallace, the newspaper's editor-in-chief. ‘But what they do want is, they want balance. If we have a view to the right, they want a balance of a view to the left. And they want us to be transparent about how we go about our work.’ “About a year ago, as a result, the newspaper ditched its daily editorials, setting aside a liberal tradition established by (former editor Ralph) McGill and others. Instead, the opinion pages are devoted to debate over matters of local interest — and the paper has promised more local investigative reporting on its news pages.”
Wallace’s comments sparked a brief but intense, and inconclusive, debate on media websites and blogs. A casual reading suggests Wallace lost the debate, but in a split decision.
Wallace is a fine editor. And the Journal-Constitution is, by all accounts a quality newspaper still. It’s even possible the AJC isn’t boring. I haven’t read it during my time off, so can’t really say.
But as much as I admire Julia Wallace, I have to side with those who believe the absence of strong views, the elimination of editorials and the simple left/right framing of complex stories is the wrong, the absolutely and self-destructively wrong direction for newspapers.
If I had it to do over again, I would go in the opposite direction. More voice and attitude on the news pages, a stronger editorial voice complemented by a wide-open, interactive op-ed strategy, more emotion in the writing, more nuance in the reporting and more respect for the intelligence of readers.
In examining their readership studies, AJC execs apparently took to heart complaints that the newspaper was politically and socially out of sync with its audience. But attempting to bring the news and editorial pages into sync will do nothing to improve credibility and can only hurt readership.
Theories of bias are too complex to address in this post. But the fact is readers see bias even in the most-even handed – read dull and boring -- treatment of complicated issues.
In my view, those perceptions are fueled by simplistic framing (as if covering the right, then the left really provides balance) loaded language and irrelevant story selection and focus. Maybe worse, readers find hidden bias where none was intended. If bias is inevitable and unavoidable, let it be clear and out in the open – transparent, as Wallace rightly argues.
If there is anything we can learn from the new media explosion it is that news consumers want to be involved in the news conversation, want to understand the biases inherent in any news report, demand transparency and expect to be engaged in the subsequent conversation.
The antithesis of the AJC philosophy can be found today on the front page of The Arizona Republic, a full-page editorial (here) attacking the state’s new immigration law and the politicians who made it happen.
News reports have said up to 70 percent of Arizona voters support the new legislation. Clearly, Republic editors made no effort to stay in sync with the political views of their readers. They chose instead to take a strong, unequivocal stand.
And it wasn’t boring
Steve
Friday, April 30, 2010
Welcome
Hello,
Welcome to my new blog. Journalism Still Matters replaces my Still A Newspaperman blog, begun in July 2008.
That blog was hacked several months ago, its latest posts and archives obliterated and not recoverable. Regardless, it was time to retire Still A Newspaperman. The title suggested I remain rooted in the past, nostalgic for a newspapering era long vanished. Well, of course I am nostalgic for those better times. But nostalgia doesn't change the current reality.
The newspaper world to which I devoted 35 years of my professional life is dead and gone and no amount of nostalgia will bring it back.
But newspaper journalism, if not prospering, survives. The industry may have lost as many as 15,000 practitioners in the last three years. But those who remain labor heroically -- in the face of daunting productivity demands, wage reductions and furloughs -- to serve their communities.
At the same time, old dogs and new are reinventing the practice of journalism, launching print and digital initiatives, experimenting with innovative non-profit and for-profit business models, crating collaborative institutes and think tanks.
Even in the face of recent industry travails bordering on collapse, I am an optimist. Good journalism still matters -- to the journalists who produce it and the communities they serve.
In this blog, I will highlight some of that journalism from time to time. I'll also write about media ethics in our fast-evolving profession, about transparency, accountability and values.
Most of those who will read this blog will know me as the former editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, WA. Since leaving the newspaper, I have been consulting, teaching and traveling, trying to understand better the forces altering the journalistic landscape.
Recently, I accepted an appointment as visiting assistant professor of journalism at the University of Idaho where I have been teaching mass media ethics since January. Next academic year, I'll also teach a new course in media management and leadership.
Some of my work at Idaho will find its way into this blog.
Thanks for checking in.
Steve Smith
Welcome to my new blog. Journalism Still Matters replaces my Still A Newspaperman blog, begun in July 2008.
That blog was hacked several months ago, its latest posts and archives obliterated and not recoverable. Regardless, it was time to retire Still A Newspaperman. The title suggested I remain rooted in the past, nostalgic for a newspapering era long vanished. Well, of course I am nostalgic for those better times. But nostalgia doesn't change the current reality.
The newspaper world to which I devoted 35 years of my professional life is dead and gone and no amount of nostalgia will bring it back.
But newspaper journalism, if not prospering, survives. The industry may have lost as many as 15,000 practitioners in the last three years. But those who remain labor heroically -- in the face of daunting productivity demands, wage reductions and furloughs -- to serve their communities.
At the same time, old dogs and new are reinventing the practice of journalism, launching print and digital initiatives, experimenting with innovative non-profit and for-profit business models, crating collaborative institutes and think tanks.
Even in the face of recent industry travails bordering on collapse, I am an optimist. Good journalism still matters -- to the journalists who produce it and the communities they serve.
In this blog, I will highlight some of that journalism from time to time. I'll also write about media ethics in our fast-evolving profession, about transparency, accountability and values.
Most of those who will read this blog will know me as the former editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, WA. Since leaving the newspaper, I have been consulting, teaching and traveling, trying to understand better the forces altering the journalistic landscape.
Recently, I accepted an appointment as visiting assistant professor of journalism at the University of Idaho where I have been teaching mass media ethics since January. Next academic year, I'll also teach a new course in media management and leadership.
Some of my work at Idaho will find its way into this blog.
Thanks for checking in.
Steve Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)