Reporting 101: Balanced journalism http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=95e4ef0dd9&height=&width= Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:57:07 GMT Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:05:11 GMT 1 en-us <![CDATA[11:57 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:57:51 GMT Welcome everyone to DigitalJournal.com's online liveblog "Reporting 101" class to discuss balance and bias in news reporting. The liveblog will begin shortly. You may submit questions anytime and we'll get to all your questions as soon as possible. ]]> <![CDATA[11:58 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:58:38 GMT Please make sure the questions are related to the topic. More general questions can be asked after the discussion ]]> <![CDATA[12:01 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:01:41 GMT So let's begin. Today's topic will address ways to improve writing, avoid bias in reporting (even when it's unintentional), how to remain professionally detached and how to look for sources and quote people in articles.
]]> <![CDATA[12:02 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:02:38 GMT First, what is balanced journalism? These are stories that cover multiple perspectives, giving equal time to opposing viewpoints. It’s unbiased, doesn’t contain loaded or leading language, and ensures all the facts are accurate. ]]> <![CDATA[12:03 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:03:12 GMT Every reporter should make sure he/she interviews multiple sources for an article, or at the very least cites multiple sources. It’s important to cover all bases. If you are doing a story on environmental damage due to a polluting factory, you need to interview at least three people – the CEO of the factory, an environmental protection agency, and a politician who may be/should be investigating this issue.
]]> <![CDATA[12:03 Comment From Leonard B.]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:03:48 GMT <![CDATA[12:04 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:04:12 GMT Or maybe you’re writing a story about outages on a site like Twitter. Sure it’s fine to interview people affected by those blackouts, but a fair story would make sure someone from Twitter has a chance to reply. It’s tough to get a hold of some of these executives but you don’t have to rush a story simply because you interviewed one person.
]]> <![CDATA[12:05 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:05:45 GMT Being balanced means giving equal “air time” to your sources. So a story on ACORN shouldn’t have 400 words from ACORN opponents and 20 words from an ACORN representative. There’s an obvious imbalance in that reporting. The same can be said with pro-Obama poll results. A piece that is largely in favour of the President needs to have balance added because there are those people who disagree. You need to find them and quote them so their side of the story is included.
]]> <![CDATA[12:06 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:06:35 GMT Worth noting is professional detachment. That means you should not put yourself in the story if there is no need to do so. A story on environmental damage doesn’t need your opinion or perspective, unless you’re writing an op-ed, right? Hard news requires impartiality. ]]> <![CDATA[12:07 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:07:01 GMT <![CDATA[12:07 Comment From Leonard B.]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:07:11 GMT <![CDATA[12:07 Comment From Leonard B.]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:07:20 GMT <![CDATA[12:08 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:08:05 GMT Right, Leonard, the MSM is guilty as well, they're not perfect. These rules of impartiality and balanced reporting applies to all journalists, no matter which outlet they work for. ]]> <![CDATA[12:08 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:08:30 GMT <![CDATA[12:09 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:09:03 GMT <![CDATA[12:10 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:10:48 GMT I think that is a good point Stacey. People do copy what they see. They also label other sides because of one person. For example, not all right-wingers think like Rush Limbaugh and not all left-leaning people think like Keith Olbermann. You can't peg an entire thinking based on the actions of a few. As a journalist, no matter how passionate you feel about a subject, you should remain impartial when you write an article. It’s easy to let your emotions seep into an article about politics, for example, but experienced journalists known when to report the facts, the situation, and nothing else. ]]> <![CDATA[12:11 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:11:27 GMT <![CDATA[12:13 Comment From Drewman]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:13:00 GMT <![CDATA[12:13 Comment From Yassin]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:13:04 GMT <![CDATA[12:13 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:13:08 GMT KJ, good idea, and that's why new media is so valuable. When average citizens can offer corrections or suggestions to articles, it adds value to the news gathering process ]]> <![CDATA[12:14 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:14:46 GMT One way to test professional detachment is to read your completed draft and ask yourself these questions, “If I were just the average reader, is this balanced? Is this article trying to influence my opinion on this subject in some way?” ]]> <![CDATA[12:15 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:15:26 GMT <![CDATA[12:15 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:15:35 GMT <![CDATA[12:16 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:16:32 GMT Stacy, I disagree, because reporters know when they are passionate about a certain subject. It takes time to spot this bias, to be detached, but it comes with experience and having a keen eye for loaded language (more on that soon) ]]> <![CDATA[12:17 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:17:45 GMT <![CDATA[12:18 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:18:31 GMT Balanced writing requires neutral language. So don’t write “Lefties” but write “Democrats” instead. Don’t berate a celebrity’s behaviour, simply let the actions speak for themselves. This speaks to your point Stacey -- people should look to ensure they have both sides covered and both voices included.
]]> <![CDATA[12:19 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:19:16 GMT Being neutral relates to what sources you choose. So if you only cite “extremist” blogs that solely report on one political spectrum, make sure you offer balance by citing a more neutral source. Mainstream sources, such as BBC News, do a great job in trying to cover both sides, and those sources can often be linked without too much concern. ]]> <![CDATA[12:19 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:19:32 GMT <![CDATA[12:20 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:20:53 GMT KJ, you are right, and a clear-headed journalist will be able to spot those agenda-driven bloggers ]]> <![CDATA[12:20 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:20:58 GMT I also agree with Dan Gillmor, director of the Center for Citizen Media who told me he worries about journalism-as-stenography, where journalists are so worried now about being called biased that they print what comes out of someone's mouth without calling out the inaccuracies or lies. You have to research what someone tells you and ask others what they think to find out what is truth and what is a variation of it.
]]> <![CDATA[12:22 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:22:32 GMT So moving on to being neutral...why is this important? Your sources say a lot about you. If you keep returning to the same extremist right-wing or left-wing blog, your credibility as an unbiased journalist will likely take a hit. It’s always advisable to interview someone, too, in order to find the answers to your specific questions. Articles on the Web aren’t always giving you the full scope. They will lie, and so will people. An old journalistic cliche says "If your mother tells you she loves you, check your sources."

]]> <![CDATA[12:22 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:22:58 GMT <![CDATA[12:23 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:23:42 GMT Here’s an article from BBC covering all sides of a Middle East debate.
Here we see the reporter speaking to a rep from the Israeli government AND a Hamas official about a controversial UN human rights report. It’s not biased to one perspective, and all the facts are laid out clearly so readers can make their judgment for themselves.
]]> <![CDATA[12:24 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:24:18 GMT <![CDATA[12:24 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:24:24 GMT <![CDATA[12:25 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:25:05 GMT It comes back to the five Ws of responsible interviewing: who, what, when, where, and why. By getting all the facts and asking the right questions, you can publish a well-rounded and fair article. ]]> <![CDATA[12:25 Comment From Andrew]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:25:45 GMT <![CDATA[12:26 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:26:22 GMT <![CDATA[12:26 Comment From Andrew]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:26:32 GMT <![CDATA[12:26 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:26:36 GMT <![CDATA[12:27 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:27:05 GMT Next, a journalistically sound article will verify the accuracy of its information. We’re not just talking stats you found on a site, from a document, a press release. This pertains to verifying the evidential base of statements. If a source says, “three-quarters of the municipal budget goes to education,” a reporter shouldn’t just quote it without thinking twice. A good reporter will find out if that statement is actually true. ]]> <![CDATA[12:27 Comment From Andrew]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:27:51 GMT <![CDATA[12:27 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:27:52 GMT You also want to make sure you don't go into an interview or topic or article assuming you know the outcome or what someone will say. It's very sloppy journalism that is nothing short of dangerous. You normally end up trying to (subconciously) prove your thesis when you assume anything going into a story. Sometimes you miss obious facts or points when you think you know what someone will say. Ask questions, even simple or stupid ones, to learn about a topic. Then ask someone else what they think of something. ]]> <![CDATA[12:27 Comment From Andrew]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:27:55 GMT <![CDATA[12:28 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:28:22 GMT <![CDATA[12:28 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:28:57 GMT <![CDATA[12:29 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:29:52 GMT Stacey: We work behind the scenes at Digital Journal to do our best to teach all reporters these fundamentals.
]]> <![CDATA[12:30 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:30:23 GMT Also, Stacey, these News Reporting 101 liveblogs are a start...And to be honest, all journalists learn from experience, and editors often point out to Digital Journalists how to improve their articles and find balance ]]> <![CDATA[12:30 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:30:31 GMT <![CDATA[12:30 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:30:47 GMT <![CDATA[12:30 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:30:58 GMT <![CDATA[12:31 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:31:48 GMT And one more point on citing facts: It’s lazy journalism to simply accept a source’s fact without question. A source could have many reasons to fabricate facts, and as much as we want to trust our interview subject, we can’t let them say things without finding out if they are true, especially when it comes to stats.
]]> <![CDATA[12:32 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:32:06 GMT Savvy journalists will ask a source, “Where’d you get that information?” It’s not needed for every minor detail, but a journalist will know in his gut when something sounds fishy, when a fact needs verification. ]]> <![CDATA[12:32 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:32:34 GMT <![CDATA[12:32 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:32:48 GMT <![CDATA[12:33 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:33:39 GMT <![CDATA[12:33 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:33:58 GMT <![CDATA[12:34 Comment From Jennifer Simpson]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:34:13 GMT <![CDATA[12:34 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:34:39 GMT <![CDATA[12:35 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:35:05 GMT <![CDATA[12:35 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:35:56 GMT Good point Jay. Reading a quote back to your source can be important for verification and to get more info. Make sure you don't let them convince you to change something, though. Often people will ask you to reword something if they don't like how it sounds. This can be bad because people should not be allowed to take back what they say in every case. It can be very important to the story. ]]> <![CDATA[12:36 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:36:54 GMT Also, a smart journalist will ask himself/herself, “What other info do I need to make this a complete story?” To be fair and thorough, an article should contain as many layers as possible, probing deep into the story to offer context and insight. It shouldn't be a rehashing of a press release. ]]> <![CDATA[12:37 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:37:12 GMT <![CDATA[12:37 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:37:27 GMT <![CDATA[12:37 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:37:36 GMT <![CDATA[12:38 Comment From Ravi]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:38:02 GMT <![CDATA[12:38 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:38:14 GMT <![CDATA[12:39 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:39:28 GMT Jay, you're on the right track, because a good journalist will need to find info from multiple sources. Having as many viewpoints in an article as possible only strengthens the writer's credibility ]]> <![CDATA[12:40 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:03 GMT <![CDATA[12:40 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:11 GMT <![CDATA[12:40 Comment From Ravi]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:51 GMT <![CDATA[12:41 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:41:15 GMT <![CDATA[12:42 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:42:00 GMT <![CDATA[12:42 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:42:10 GMT <![CDATA[12:42 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:42:32 GMT Finding more info to make a complete story -- being a thorough as possible -- requires some extra effort, perhaps digging into public records or books (remember those?) or an additional interview to find out about someone’s past. For an article about that environmental pollution, dig into the suspected company’s history to find other possible cases of pollution. Also, finding at least three sources helps you corroborate facts. If one outlet says one thing, and two others say something else, it should be considered a red flag.
]]> <![CDATA[12:43 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:43:03 GMT For a science story on a new discovery, you should point out what the scientists have discovered before, the implication of this news to the specific industry/market, and any alliances these scientists have with corporations. ]]> <![CDATA[12:43 Comment From Ravi]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:43:46 GMT <![CDATA[12:44 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:44:20 GMT Which is why an experienced journalist will find out any ties those scientists have in order to offer a very thorough and transparent article ]]> <![CDATA[12:44 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:44:25 GMT <![CDATA[12:44 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:44:41 GMT <![CDATA[12:45 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:45:07 GMT What do you mean, KJ? When a story is too complicated for you to tackle? ]]> <![CDATA[12:45 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:45:41 GMT <![CDATA[12:45 Comment From steph s]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:45:49 GMT <![CDATA[12:46 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:46:32 GMT <![CDATA[12:47 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:47:15 GMT That's how many newsrooms work, KJ, you're right. A beat reporter covering crime might stumble on a hot sports story but will pass it along to the sports journalist who knows that area intimately ]]> <![CDATA[12:47 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:47:32 GMT Our discussion so far is a very basic but important overview of what makes a fair and balanced article. It’s not easy, good journlaism never is. When you go the extra mile, the reader notices and your authority on a subject becomes even more credible. It's a long-term thing. You can lose your credibility with one sentence, and you gain it over time. In media, people only remember your mistakes. Always remember that. You have ONE, only one, shot.
]]> <![CDATA[12:48 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:48:06 GMT Does anyone have questions about this topic, about reporting fair and balances articles? ]]> <![CDATA[12:48 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:48:57 GMT <![CDATA[12:50 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:50:08 GMT Stacey, it's virtually impossible to be 100% objective. We carry with us baggage that we can't always check at the door. Now, whether we let our opinions influence our writing is another matter. It might take several drafts, but a writer can revise an article to make it as balanced as possible. It might not be completed objective, but the name of the game is being balanced and accurate ]]> <![CDATA[12:50 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:50:12 GMT <![CDATA[12:51 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:51:02 GMT <![CDATA[12:51 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:51:36 GMT I agree Jay. Environmental reporting is a mine field because very few people are experts. You see it especially in the global warming debate. Who is correct? How are we supposed to know as average people? I think so-called experts are often biased in this field. ]]> <![CDATA[12:51 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:51:52 GMT <![CDATA[12:52 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:52:31 GMT KJ, sometimes journalists need to bone up on their favourite subjects, or learn new things by researching thoroughly. That's why journalism is a constant education ]]> <![CDATA[12:53 Comment From Jen B.]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:53:02 GMT <![CDATA[12:53 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:53:51 GMT <![CDATA[12:53 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:53:54 GMT <![CDATA[12:54 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:54:04 GMT Jen: There are some cases where you don't have to find a comment from "the other side." In the specific example you mention, if Obama were to lie, it's fair to call him on it. But you should make sure you state facts that prove how it's a lie and not someone's opinion. Once you've stated the facts, ask others if they agree. If you find someone who doesnt' believe Obama lied, ask them to prove why and quote those facts. There are only one set of facts, but variations of the truth come along with them. Just make sure you are 100% accurate when you call someone out on something. ]]> <![CDATA[12:54 Comment From Ravi]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:54:26 GMT <![CDATA[12:54 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:54:44 GMT <![CDATA[12:55 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:55:45 GMT Also very important to remember, people will omit facts to fit their argument. That is technically not a lie, but it distorts the truth. You have to make sure what someone tells you is accurate, but then ask someone else if anything is missing. That single question can make or break a news report. ]]> <![CDATA[12:56 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:56:10 GMT We've seen that too with citizen media, Ravi. Yes, we all come with preconceived notions on certain area, but citizen journalists want to see balance and fairness restored to the news medium. They don't like the top-down power structure of the MSM, and citizen journalism finally democratizes the media. ]]> <![CDATA[12:56 jawma via twitter ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:56:54 GMT The Washington Post thinks Fox News is bias in its reporting, who would believe that? 60 % of people think all news shows are bias.]]> <![CDATA[12:58 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:58:01 GMT Interesting article worth noting is Andrew Moran's article on how three-quarters of people believe news organizations are baised ]]> <![CDATA[12:58 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:58:07 GMT <![CDATA[12:58 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:58:25 GMT <![CDATA[12:59 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:59:08 GMT I would personally refrain from labelling sources as being biased. For example, always assuming Fox News is biased makes you biased just for saying it. The same goes for the NY Times, or others. You have to approach every source with a complete neutral tone where you neither believe nor disbelieve anything in it. Don't label a news outlet, ever. It's fair to believe those things inside, and approach with a healthy dose of skepticism, but don't avoid sources just because of something you think they will say. ]]> <![CDATA[12:59 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:59:27 GMT It comes down to awareness, KJ. Sometimes, these events are under the radar of citizen journalists, who don't receive regular press releases or event updates. It takes some digging, the hunger to cover something original ]]> <![CDATA[1:01 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:01:12 GMT We thank you all for participating in this News Reporting 101 Liveblog on DigitalJournal.com. It was informative for everyone involved. We look forward to your involvement next month for another session soon to be announced ]]> <![CDATA[1:01 Comment From Carolyn]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:01:23 GMT <![CDATA[1:02 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:02:31 GMT <![CDATA[1:02 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:02:38 GMT Carolyn: I would ask the question, definitely. However, I wouldn't "call them out." It creates hostility in an interview and you'll lose the interview if you do. I would ask them, "But what about ________________. Some would argue _________" and then quote their reaction. Calling them out as a liar will end the interview instantly. It's important to do, though. ]]> <![CDATA[1:03 Comment From Stacey Hollingsworth]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:05 GMT <![CDATA[1:03 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:09 GMT Join this group to be alerted to the topic/date of the next News Reporting 101 liveblog ]]> <![CDATA[1:03 Comment From KJ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:11 GMT <![CDATA[1:03 Comment From steph s]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:17 GMT <![CDATA[1:03 Comment From Ravi]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:21 GMT <![CDATA[1:03 Comment From Jay David Murphy]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:57 GMT <![CDATA[1:04 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:04:14 GMT And as a reminder to everyone: This entire liveblog can be re-read at any time. The full conversation is available in RSS feed format here for those who want a transcript. ]]> <![CDATA[1:04 Chris Hogg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:04:31 GMT Thank you everyone for taking part, we'll see you next month. ]]> <![CDATA[1:04 David Silverberg]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:04:53 GMT Feel free to contact us anytime if you have any questions, or post a comment in this blog post ]]> <![CDATA[1:05 ]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:05:11 GMT 
 
]]>