One section I liked was the one on page 5 about engaging the reader. A lot of talk about journalism being only a way to spread information with no biases makes the style of writing seem simpler than it is. Theres a quote that says, “Journalists must thus strive to make the significant interesting and relevant” (pg. 5) which sums up the point of that section. The journalist has two jobs, first to engage the audience with interesting and good writing to then be able to educate and inform the audience about important issues. A quality of a good journalist I think is able to grab the attention and keep the attention of an audience to properly inform the public on things they probably want to know. The section before that on page 4 has similar elements that are also important. Theres a sentence like “Journalism carries with it a responsibility to improve the quality of debate by providing verified information and intellectual rigor” (pg. 5) which is similar to the other passage but has a key difference. Not only is a journalist trying to make good writing to keep the public engaged but they are supposed to filter out and provide information to be sent out into the public that will be beneficial. News are just facts that garner its nuances and interest in public conversation, so the journalist is also tasked with the job of providing an ‘intellectual rigor’ to add to the public conversations.
Questions I have about the article come from page 8 where it says, “Though proportion and comprehensiveness are subjective, their ambiguity does not lessen their significance”. It was talking about keeping the news proportional and having diversity in perspectives in news. But it says those things are hard to measure since their ambiguous, but journalism is a very fact driven field, so how does one navigate something that’s up for interpretation in an article meant to only project objective truth?
On p. 2 para. 9, I focused primarily on the sentence, “This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other forms of communication such as propaganda, advertising, fiction, or entertainment”. This is an important aspect of journalism because it is more important to be reliable than the first one to publish a story. You have to obtain facts from multiple different sources, and disclose as much valuable information as possible that supports both sides of the argument you are covering.
On p. 5 para. 2, I focused on the sentence, “It must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need”. Not everyone wants to hear about bad people in the world, especially when it is related to a large crime but society needs to be aware about how events like these affect them, especially when it is in their own community. Journalists still need to cover the stories that are harder to talk about because it is their job to keep the world safe and informed about safety issues in our own local areas.
The first question I have is in regard to p. 4 para. 8 and specifically the sentence, “Journalism should also attempt to fairly represent varied viewpoints and interests in society and to place them in context rather than highlighting only the conflicting fringes of debate”. This seems to me like it is contradicting the idea of keeping journalism unbiased and producing content that satisfies both sides of an argument. I wonder if most journalists try to grab stories from a biased source, and are tasked in making it as unbiased as possible while still using the central idea of their argument.
The second question I have is in regard to p. 7 para. 2, specifically the sentence, “Writing a blog entry, commenting on a social media site, sending a tweet, or ‘liking’ a picture or post, likely involves a shorthand version of the journalistic process”. How does this sentence further support an idea we talked about in the first week of class where we said anyone can be a journalist? I understand where these two ideas may compare, but why are we allowing everyone to call themselves a journalist when it takes so long to get to that point in your career? Personally, I don’t believe that we should be terming everyone as a journalist just because of how much respect they deserve with how much work they have put into their careers.
After reading The Elements of Journalism excerpt by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel it has brought more aspects of journalism to my attention. The first element that stuck out to me was on page three in the first paragraph. This explained the importance of journalists’ independence. It states how they cannot be “seduced by sources, intimidated by power, or compromised by self-interest,” while keeping an “open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity.” This shows that journalists must have the ability to have their thoughts and opinions, but while looking past their own “economic status, race, ethnicity, religion, gender or ego.” If they are unable to do this, then this field will be very difficult for them to succeed in. As I continued reading I found the fourth paragraph on page seven interesting. This explains the two main things that separate the journalistic process from the end product which is journalism. The first is motive and intent. The overall purpose of journalism is to “give people the information they need to make better decisions about their lives and society.” Without having the correct motive and intent it could influence readers to make poor decisions because the journalist misled them. Especially if they have been following this same organization or writer for a while. The second difference is the conscious or “systematic application of a discipline of verification to produce a fundamental truth.” This is different because it is not just interesting or informative but is critical for the end product of the story. Before reading this article I wasn’t aware of these factors and now will look for them when I read other news articles!
Questions I have about this article are from page two paragraph three regarding the idea of loyalty and how technology has affected that. How long does it take to build loyalty between readers and have technological advances made it difficult to keep loyal followers? My second question came from page three paragraph two when it talks about the importance of being neutral but not arrogant. Is it difficult for new journalists to find the balance between a neutral point of view without being arrogant?
Pg – 2, Para. – 4
This speaks to multifaceted approach to different things, but it also put the emphasis on the why of the importance of truth. I feel that truth has been displaced and lost on people nowadays. This paragraph show cases the importance of it, even as time moves forward
Pg – 4, Para. – 2
This paragraph agains speak to the importance of truth and exposing the truth, but also how it is not for “light use”, for a purpose. Being able to expose and re-sight events is importance, which is why gaining profit from such exposer is motivating in a wrongful way. Which can lead to those who chase and don’t think about the effects it may have and why things are structured as they are.
Questions: These are more generally questions, more about my thoughts that were brought out due to the reading.
1. Have journalist stop trying in ways they use to? – Meaning are they still trying to expose and bring truth to the public and make it an understanding for most.
2. How do people trust journalist and find their trusted journalist? – Many people can say things but how do we determine whether to believe them or not.
Being impartial or neutral is not a core principle of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, they are not and cannot be objective. but journalistic methods are objective. (Page 2, paragraph 7)
There is a stigma around journalism where it is stated that it has to be a neutral source, this passage challenges that. This is because when journalists cover stories they have the opportunity to choose what they want to write about, making it something that cannot be fully objective. The opportunity that they have to choose what to cover creates media bias although they still present information correctly.
Good decision making depends on people having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but in a capacity that is more down to earth. (Page 1, paragraph 1)
This highlights the idealized version of journalism and challenges it by instead highlighting the more practical version of journalism. It focuses on how journalism can provide useful information in real world situations. It gives journalism a real purpose for utility for the rest of the reading.
How does one pick a subject to cover that they know will be relevant with a multitude of audiences?
When someone has a subject to cover with so much information how do they know which ones will be the most important?
This paragraph details how journalists have the responsibility to citizens. That responsibility includes seeking to be representative of citizens in a society. The commitment to citizens would be failed if not all citizens are being included in the picture. The act of leaving different minority groups out in terms erases them. It encourages the leaving out of those who are deemed as different. Journalism is supposed to represent everyone.
Page 3, paragraph 3
This paragraph details how journalism is meant to watch those in power and how their actions affect citizens. It allows citizens who may be voiceless to have a chance to speak their minds. Kovach and Rosenstiel write, “watching over the powerful few in society on behalf of the many to guard against tyranny”. This reminds me of the article on the history of journalism. The earliest forms of journalism was to hold the King accountable for his actions and to inform the citizens. It is important for journalists to stay educated on political matters so that citizens are protected.
The article mentions that it is important for journalists to ask what information is most crucial for citizens to know and what form is best. It describes how engaging and learning from the audience is very important. What is the best way to engage with the audience? Should journalists conduct research and surveys? Or, is there an analytic tool that could be used?
A section of the articles details the effect that social media has on journalism. It is mentioned that journalists have to verify information that readers might have already encountered, and then help them make sense of what that means. How do journalists combat the misinformation that readers have encountered from social media, and make people deem their news credible?
What was interesting to me in this article was the section “Its first loyalty is to citizens” (pg 1) this section talks about how a journalist should show allegiance to citizens. It is easy to create a bias in articles and accidentally sway towards one side of something but in this section they say “They must strive to put the public interest – and the truth – above their own self – interest or assumptions.” This commitment journalists have to citizens should try and represent groups in society, being able to get different perspectives. On page 2 it says “ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them” this would cause a negative outlook in the news industry if journalists failed to include citizens. In the end this creates trust between the news industry and builds a loyal audience.
A second interesting section was on page 5 “It must strive to keep the significant interesting and relevant” This section discusses how journalism is storytelling with purpose. “It must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need.” This suggests that the writer should provide both familiar and expected information but also have information they did not realize they needed having both creates a good mix in a story. This section also discusses that journalists need to ask what information holds the most value that readers would want to know about, but to do it in a form that people will be able to fully understand.
The first question I have is: Does building a relationship with citizens create a larger audience?
The second question is: How does a journalist know which important topic to write about?
On page 1 paragraph 2, I found the point about journalism being a “practical and functional form of truth” to be really interesting. I think it’s important to understand that journalists won’t always be able to obtain “absolute” truth in their writing. We need to be able to recognize this and understand that there is still a “journalistic truth” writers can strive for.
On page 2 paragraph 7, I thought it was really interesting how it talked about how journalists themselves can’t be objective but journalistic methods are. Objectivity in journalism doesn’t mean that journalists are free of bias but rather the methods being used in their writing are.
One of my questions is can journalists become biased in their journalistic methods when they try to keep stories interesting for readers? Another is about the element of “[journalism’s] practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover” and how it’s a “cornerstone for reliability”. Does this mean a university student can’t be reliable when covering stories at their own university?
On the first page, 3rd and 4th paragraphs stood out to me. ‘This journalistic truth is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, subject to further investigation.” “Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information.” I find this information because I can relate to this when I hear a story or read one. Especially when a story sounds very interesting, you don’t want it to be false or largely exaggerated and then you are walking around with incorrect information. Allowing the readers to be fully aware of their sources gives lots of credibility to the story and an extra sense of trust for the reader to the author.
On page 5, paragraphs 1 and 3, it covers some interesting points on keeping the story interesting. “Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. It must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need.” “Quality is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has the most value to citizens and in what form people are most likely to assimilate it. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance trivializes civic dialogue and ultimately public policy.” This shows how much work goes into journalism. Not only does the journalist have to gather information, but they have to figure out a way to gather both what the people want and what they need, while delivering both in a way the engages the reader so they aren’t skipping over what they need and don’t necessarily want.
Two questions I’d raise would be in what have journalists been able to present news that doesn’t interest people in an interesting way. Since it isn’t always clear what the “undesired news” would be, what kind of news falls under that and how exactly are they presenting it? Second question I have is, since journalists in certain situations have to poke their heads in places that won’t always make people happy so that way they can get needed information, how is it they can go about their job while maintaining a relationship with the majority of the public?
In the passage from the greater work “The elements of Journalism” by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, they speak on the importance of diversity in newsrooms. On page 6 paragraph 3, Rosenstiel and Kovach say “News organizations do well to nurture this by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. Conversation and debate stimulate the intellectual diversity of minds and voices necessary to understand and accurately cover a diverse society. Having a diverse newsroom does little if those different voices are not spoken or heard.” People’s life experiences lead them to think in a way that’s unique to them individually. These different perspectives must be heard in order to accurately recall what has happened and doing so not only from the perspective of the white man. This is of upmost importance when it comes to journalism because minorities have not always been heard in this country, but their opinions and the things seen by minorities is just as valid as any. Additionally, here in America, white people make up around 75% of our population, not hearing the voices of minorities merely means that we would be ignoring the opinions and points of view of 25% of the country. These are opinions that are no less important than anyone else’s.
The first passage from The “Elements of Journalism” that stuck with me was paragraph 1 on page 3. authors Kovach and Rosenstiel discuss the importance of independence in journalism. More specifically, to not let yourself as a journalist lose your open mindedness. This can be letting yourself be swayed by certain people in the story, becoming biased, or even letting yourself be intimidated by someone you are reporting on. By falling victim to these habits and losing your independence as a journalist your vision of the story becomes tainted and that will bleed into your work and worse your credibility.
The second passage that peaked my interest was paragraph 1 on page 7. The authors compare the average person posting on social media like twitter, to the journalistic process. It struck me because its an angle I had not thought about before, and it means that everyone is more of a journalist then they think. Through assessment of the information determining if what your writing has value to others, and then sharing it online in the best way possible. Its like a mini journalistic process, however most people go wrong with mass amounts of bias and opinion in their online posts. Which is what sets it apart from healthy, individualistic journalism.
Q1: How can journalists make sure they themselves are not being manipulated by subjects not telling the truth as they are building a story?
Q2: Should apps like twitter/X promote a more journalistic process when posting to spark healthier online debates? or possibly create a new app that does so.
11 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 5”
One section I liked was the one on page 5 about engaging the reader. A lot of talk about journalism being only a way to spread information with no biases makes the style of writing seem simpler than it is. Theres a quote that says, “Journalists must thus strive to make the significant interesting and relevant” (pg. 5) which sums up the point of that section. The journalist has two jobs, first to engage the audience with interesting and good writing to then be able to educate and inform the audience about important issues. A quality of a good journalist I think is able to grab the attention and keep the attention of an audience to properly inform the public on things they probably want to know. The section before that on page 4 has similar elements that are also important. Theres a sentence like “Journalism carries with it a responsibility to improve the quality of debate by providing verified information and intellectual rigor” (pg. 5) which is similar to the other passage but has a key difference. Not only is a journalist trying to make good writing to keep the public engaged but they are supposed to filter out and provide information to be sent out into the public that will be beneficial. News are just facts that garner its nuances and interest in public conversation, so the journalist is also tasked with the job of providing an ‘intellectual rigor’ to add to the public conversations.
Questions I have about the article come from page 8 where it says, “Though proportion and comprehensiveness are subjective, their ambiguity does not lessen their significance”. It was talking about keeping the news proportional and having diversity in perspectives in news. But it says those things are hard to measure since their ambiguous, but journalism is a very fact driven field, so how does one navigate something that’s up for interpretation in an article meant to only project objective truth?
On p. 2 para. 9, I focused primarily on the sentence, “This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other forms of communication such as propaganda, advertising, fiction, or entertainment”. This is an important aspect of journalism because it is more important to be reliable than the first one to publish a story. You have to obtain facts from multiple different sources, and disclose as much valuable information as possible that supports both sides of the argument you are covering.
On p. 5 para. 2, I focused on the sentence, “It must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need”. Not everyone wants to hear about bad people in the world, especially when it is related to a large crime but society needs to be aware about how events like these affect them, especially when it is in their own community. Journalists still need to cover the stories that are harder to talk about because it is their job to keep the world safe and informed about safety issues in our own local areas.
The first question I have is in regard to p. 4 para. 8 and specifically the sentence, “Journalism should also attempt to fairly represent varied viewpoints and interests in society and to place them in context rather than highlighting only the conflicting fringes of debate”. This seems to me like it is contradicting the idea of keeping journalism unbiased and producing content that satisfies both sides of an argument. I wonder if most journalists try to grab stories from a biased source, and are tasked in making it as unbiased as possible while still using the central idea of their argument.
The second question I have is in regard to p. 7 para. 2, specifically the sentence, “Writing a blog entry, commenting on a social media site, sending a tweet, or ‘liking’ a picture or post, likely involves a shorthand version of the journalistic process”. How does this sentence further support an idea we talked about in the first week of class where we said anyone can be a journalist? I understand where these two ideas may compare, but why are we allowing everyone to call themselves a journalist when it takes so long to get to that point in your career? Personally, I don’t believe that we should be terming everyone as a journalist just because of how much respect they deserve with how much work they have put into their careers.
After reading The Elements of Journalism excerpt by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel it has brought more aspects of journalism to my attention. The first element that stuck out to me was on page three in the first paragraph. This explained the importance of journalists’ independence. It states how they cannot be “seduced by sources, intimidated by power, or compromised by self-interest,” while keeping an “open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity.” This shows that journalists must have the ability to have their thoughts and opinions, but while looking past their own “economic status, race, ethnicity, religion, gender or ego.” If they are unable to do this, then this field will be very difficult for them to succeed in. As I continued reading I found the fourth paragraph on page seven interesting. This explains the two main things that separate the journalistic process from the end product which is journalism. The first is motive and intent. The overall purpose of journalism is to “give people the information they need to make better decisions about their lives and society.” Without having the correct motive and intent it could influence readers to make poor decisions because the journalist misled them. Especially if they have been following this same organization or writer for a while. The second difference is the conscious or “systematic application of a discipline of verification to produce a fundamental truth.” This is different because it is not just interesting or informative but is critical for the end product of the story. Before reading this article I wasn’t aware of these factors and now will look for them when I read other news articles!
Questions I have about this article are from page two paragraph three regarding the idea of loyalty and how technology has affected that. How long does it take to build loyalty between readers and have technological advances made it difficult to keep loyal followers? My second question came from page three paragraph two when it talks about the importance of being neutral but not arrogant. Is it difficult for new journalists to find the balance between a neutral point of view without being arrogant?
Pg – 2, Para. – 4
This speaks to multifaceted approach to different things, but it also put the emphasis on the why of the importance of truth. I feel that truth has been displaced and lost on people nowadays. This paragraph show cases the importance of it, even as time moves forward
Pg – 4, Para. – 2
This paragraph agains speak to the importance of truth and exposing the truth, but also how it is not for “light use”, for a purpose. Being able to expose and re-sight events is importance, which is why gaining profit from such exposer is motivating in a wrongful way. Which can lead to those who chase and don’t think about the effects it may have and why things are structured as they are.
Questions: These are more generally questions, more about my thoughts that were brought out due to the reading.
1. Have journalist stop trying in ways they use to? – Meaning are they still trying to expose and bring truth to the public and make it an understanding for most.
2. How do people trust journalist and find their trusted journalist? – Many people can say things but how do we determine whether to believe them or not.
Being impartial or neutral is not a core principle of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, they are not and cannot be objective. but journalistic methods are objective. (Page 2, paragraph 7)
There is a stigma around journalism where it is stated that it has to be a neutral source, this passage challenges that. This is because when journalists cover stories they have the opportunity to choose what they want to write about, making it something that cannot be fully objective. The opportunity that they have to choose what to cover creates media bias although they still present information correctly.
Good decision making depends on people having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but in a capacity that is more down to earth. (Page 1, paragraph 1)
This highlights the idealized version of journalism and challenges it by instead highlighting the more practical version of journalism. It focuses on how journalism can provide useful information in real world situations. It gives journalism a real purpose for utility for the rest of the reading.
How does one pick a subject to cover that they know will be relevant with a multitude of audiences?
When someone has a subject to cover with so much information how do they know which ones will be the most important?
Jadyn Stevens- Journal 5
Page 2, paragraph 2
This paragraph details how journalists have the responsibility to citizens. That responsibility includes seeking to be representative of citizens in a society. The commitment to citizens would be failed if not all citizens are being included in the picture. The act of leaving different minority groups out in terms erases them. It encourages the leaving out of those who are deemed as different. Journalism is supposed to represent everyone.
Page 3, paragraph 3
This paragraph details how journalism is meant to watch those in power and how their actions affect citizens. It allows citizens who may be voiceless to have a chance to speak their minds. Kovach and Rosenstiel write, “watching over the powerful few in society on behalf of the many to guard against tyranny”. This reminds me of the article on the history of journalism. The earliest forms of journalism was to hold the King accountable for his actions and to inform the citizens. It is important for journalists to stay educated on political matters so that citizens are protected.
The article mentions that it is important for journalists to ask what information is most crucial for citizens to know and what form is best. It describes how engaging and learning from the audience is very important. What is the best way to engage with the audience? Should journalists conduct research and surveys? Or, is there an analytic tool that could be used?
A section of the articles details the effect that social media has on journalism. It is mentioned that journalists have to verify information that readers might have already encountered, and then help them make sense of what that means. How do journalists combat the misinformation that readers have encountered from social media, and make people deem their news credible?
What was interesting to me in this article was the section “Its first loyalty is to citizens” (pg 1) this section talks about how a journalist should show allegiance to citizens. It is easy to create a bias in articles and accidentally sway towards one side of something but in this section they say “They must strive to put the public interest – and the truth – above their own self – interest or assumptions.” This commitment journalists have to citizens should try and represent groups in society, being able to get different perspectives. On page 2 it says “ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them” this would cause a negative outlook in the news industry if journalists failed to include citizens. In the end this creates trust between the news industry and builds a loyal audience.
A second interesting section was on page 5 “It must strive to keep the significant interesting and relevant” This section discusses how journalism is storytelling with purpose. “It must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need.” This suggests that the writer should provide both familiar and expected information but also have information they did not realize they needed having both creates a good mix in a story. This section also discusses that journalists need to ask what information holds the most value that readers would want to know about, but to do it in a form that people will be able to fully understand.
The first question I have is: Does building a relationship with citizens create a larger audience?
The second question is: How does a journalist know which important topic to write about?
On page 1 paragraph 2, I found the point about journalism being a “practical and functional form of truth” to be really interesting. I think it’s important to understand that journalists won’t always be able to obtain “absolute” truth in their writing. We need to be able to recognize this and understand that there is still a “journalistic truth” writers can strive for.
On page 2 paragraph 7, I thought it was really interesting how it talked about how journalists themselves can’t be objective but journalistic methods are. Objectivity in journalism doesn’t mean that journalists are free of bias but rather the methods being used in their writing are.
One of my questions is can journalists become biased in their journalistic methods when they try to keep stories interesting for readers? Another is about the element of “[journalism’s] practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover” and how it’s a “cornerstone for reliability”. Does this mean a university student can’t be reliable when covering stories at their own university?
On the first page, 3rd and 4th paragraphs stood out to me. ‘This journalistic truth is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, subject to further investigation.” “Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information.” I find this information because I can relate to this when I hear a story or read one. Especially when a story sounds very interesting, you don’t want it to be false or largely exaggerated and then you are walking around with incorrect information. Allowing the readers to be fully aware of their sources gives lots of credibility to the story and an extra sense of trust for the reader to the author.
On page 5, paragraphs 1 and 3, it covers some interesting points on keeping the story interesting. “Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. It must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need.” “Quality is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has the most value to citizens and in what form people are most likely to assimilate it. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance trivializes civic dialogue and ultimately public policy.” This shows how much work goes into journalism. Not only does the journalist have to gather information, but they have to figure out a way to gather both what the people want and what they need, while delivering both in a way the engages the reader so they aren’t skipping over what they need and don’t necessarily want.
Two questions I’d raise would be in what have journalists been able to present news that doesn’t interest people in an interesting way. Since it isn’t always clear what the “undesired news” would be, what kind of news falls under that and how exactly are they presenting it? Second question I have is, since journalists in certain situations have to poke their heads in places that won’t always make people happy so that way they can get needed information, how is it they can go about their job while maintaining a relationship with the majority of the public?
In the passage from the greater work “The elements of Journalism” by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, they speak on the importance of diversity in newsrooms. On page 6 paragraph 3, Rosenstiel and Kovach say “News organizations do well to nurture this by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. Conversation and debate stimulate the intellectual diversity of minds and voices necessary to understand and accurately cover a diverse society. Having a diverse newsroom does little if those different voices are not spoken or heard.” People’s life experiences lead them to think in a way that’s unique to them individually. These different perspectives must be heard in order to accurately recall what has happened and doing so not only from the perspective of the white man. This is of upmost importance when it comes to journalism because minorities have not always been heard in this country, but their opinions and the things seen by minorities is just as valid as any. Additionally, here in America, white people make up around 75% of our population, not hearing the voices of minorities merely means that we would be ignoring the opinions and points of view of 25% of the country. These are opinions that are no less important than anyone else’s.
The first passage from The “Elements of Journalism” that stuck with me was paragraph 1 on page 3. authors Kovach and Rosenstiel discuss the importance of independence in journalism. More specifically, to not let yourself as a journalist lose your open mindedness. This can be letting yourself be swayed by certain people in the story, becoming biased, or even letting yourself be intimidated by someone you are reporting on. By falling victim to these habits and losing your independence as a journalist your vision of the story becomes tainted and that will bleed into your work and worse your credibility.
The second passage that peaked my interest was paragraph 1 on page 7. The authors compare the average person posting on social media like twitter, to the journalistic process. It struck me because its an angle I had not thought about before, and it means that everyone is more of a journalist then they think. Through assessment of the information determining if what your writing has value to others, and then sharing it online in the best way possible. Its like a mini journalistic process, however most people go wrong with mass amounts of bias and opinion in their online posts. Which is what sets it apart from healthy, individualistic journalism.
Q1: How can journalists make sure they themselves are not being manipulated by subjects not telling the truth as they are building a story?
Q2: Should apps like twitter/X promote a more journalistic process when posting to spark healthier online debates? or possibly create a new app that does so.