The Observation Deck

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I completely agree on that. But that doesn't negate the need for a code of ethics or application of journalistic principles.

I guess I just don't get what is so ethical and principled about a journalist compared to a regular person. I'm not saying they aren't ethical and principled, I just don't really believe the "code and principles" are among the great mysteries of life.

And in response to Michael and Chris, I do think there are vocations at which people can be proficiently self-taught. Just because journalism schools exist doesn't mean someone else can't be a responsible, effective reporter. I don't mean to belittle your profession, but I think dentistry and graphic designing are different types of vocations that require a "taught" skill set, where as the arts - including journalism - are more intuition... the skills are a gift.

I'm not sure I see what everyone is arguing about.

I don't think Jim started the Observer to try to put the Plain Dealer or Sun Newspapers out of business.

If the choice is between biased coverage of an event or NO coverage of an event, I'd rather have the biased coverage.

When I looked out my front window to see smoke on the horizon over on Warren road, I didn't even bother turning on the tv, because I knew any news coverage wouldn't happen until much later. I immediately turned on my computer and logged on to the deck. I didn't get all the details, but I certainly got a good start.

Am I a journalist because I can fill a page with my opinion? NO.

did I ever claim to be? NO

is that my goal in life? NO

I write, because it's fun, and I continue to write because (to my own surprise) I've actually had people that tell me they like to read my articles. Some even tell me that they rarely agree with what I say, but they like to read it anyway.

To me, the Lakewood Observer is about increasing the quantity of information available. Issues like quality and credibility usually work themselves out in the long run.

Bret,

I think that's more or less what I started out trying to say, except you said it less confrontationally.

But, I would ask, out of curiosity... Why don't you consider yourself a journalist? Because you write opinion? Because you have a day job? Because you don't get paid for writing?

I'm just looking for a consensus definition for "journalist" (as used in this thread) other than "someone who went to journalism school." I'm really not trying to upset or offend anyone.

Bret Callentine wrote: I don't think Jim started the Observer to try to put the Plain Dealer or Sun Newspapers out of business.

If the choice is between biased coverage of an event or NO coverage of an event, I'd rather have the biased coverage.

Bret

To be honest the Observer was designed to NOT COMPETE with ANY other media venture in Lakewood or beyond. It was not until out success that they came out of the woodwork to attack.

It is hard to remember back to when the LO was started but one reason was Lakewood could not even buy coverage in the Sun Papers what alone the PD. Also everywhere else there was room for news and discussion it was over populated with people using many, many different names shouting down other people using 5 different names.

It was when Lakewood really needed to talk about the future, and really need good press to bring in new businesses and home owners.

I also believe that you could shed light on the editorial process when it came to your story on the UN, and our editor.


Brad

I would have to think we have to go no farther than the Pitbull Ban to see how the real media would handle it.

For me the wake up point was Brother Petty. The most prolific pedophile of all time and no media source ever got it right. With the exception of Michael Gill and the FreeTimes. Many of the mainstream could not be bothered to even get his name right. It was a very disturbing show on how inadequate the "real" media is. The example I always use, Petty moved from class to class then school to school very quietly, yet all of that hushed up by the media. The Observer was able to show a pattern to his behavior going back over a decade in 5 different cities as many as 15 schools and institutions, yet mainstream chose the easy way. One school, one case, one family.

FWIW



.

that's pretty much it.

I consider myself a writer, not a journalist.

I write an op-ed peice, The individual who,what, when, and where are secondary to the "why". I don't think it has anything to do with getting paid.

Actually, I think most of the peices that appear in the LO qualify as op-ed. But that in no way detracts from their value. In my opinion, being a journalist has more to do with having the desire to serve the purity of the story not any angle or agenda.

With that criteria, I don't see any difference between Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman and someone like Stephen Colbert. None of them, in my opinion, are journalists.

And just to put it out there. I did take some journalism classes in college, and do own a copy of the AP Stylebook (although it's a bit dated), but I don't think there will ever be a qualifying exam to become a certified "Journalist", because writing will always be more art than science.

Bret Callentine wrote:I don't think Jim started the Observer to try to put the Plain Dealer or Sun Newspapers out of business.

Interestingly, when the paper that became the Lakewood Observer was first talked about, one of the hopes was that if we accomplished nothing else, we might cause the "professionals" at the Sun Post and Plain Dealer to cover Lakewood a little better.

Not sure that happened, but that's part of the LO history.

Steve

.

chris richards wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote: There is a difference between the average citizen writing articles and the professional journalist, who gets paid for their work, to write an article probono. Just as there is a difference between graphic designers who get a four year degree and those who download a copy of photoshop or indesign and play desktop publisher.

Chris

What is the difference between you doing something pro-bono out of passion, and you doing it because you have to?

How about working for pay on a project you care about, and getting paid for the project you loathe?

At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, and ideas, and morals clash, the mercenaries always check out first.

I would really like some sort of clarification here between, bloggers with no editorial staff or lawyers, faux name boards, and the Observer Projects that have writers, editors, legal team, real names, etc. Advisory Board members that are tops in their fields including PRINT MEDIA. This is insane, the FREETIMES used AGS' web developer?

At what point, do these people using real names become less credible? This is my point. Lauren Rich Fine, maybe one of the most quoted people in print media, can only be trusted when talking through a journalist? Ken Warren top Library Director in the USA is only quality and believable when channeled through Molly Cavannah*, in a game of telephone limited by space available?

OK for those that do not get it. It is all spin. All of it. You find the people who spin it the way you like. Then find a couple you do not agree with. The truth, will be in the middle.

* I like Molly Cavannah, and found her piece on the library to be very good. She has covered Lakewood for years and generally does a good job for the PD. I only used her because she recently wrote a piece on the Library for the Plain Dealer.

.

I recently visited the Newseum in Washington D.C. and many of the discussions in this thread were going through my mind when I toured the museum.
I'll be writing an article on the visit and part of my observations will include some of the "who are we" questions that have recurred since the LO inception.

Brad Hutchison wrote:
I'm just looking for a consensus definition for "journalist" (as used in this thread) other than "someone who went to journalism school." I'm really not trying to upset or offend anyone.

Here's some:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/journalist

Jim O'Bryan wrote:At what point, do these people using real names become less credible? This is my point. Lauren Rich Fine, maybe one of the most quoted people in print media, can only be trusted when talking through a journalist? Ken Warren top Library Director in the USA is only quality and believable when channeled through Molly Cavannah*, in a game of telephone limited by space available?
.

The idea that the Library staff writes about the Library for the Lakewood Observer makes that writing a press release, not journalism. If Ken Warren is writing about something he is knowledgeable in other than the library, it can be considered an article, which can then be shifted into the realm of journalism. But that doesn't make him a trained journalist. (He might be, I am unaware of his background, just using him as an example)

What is the difference between you doing something pro-bono out of passion, and you doing it because you have to?

How about working for pay on a project you care about, and getting paid for the project you loathe?

While a person's heart may not be in a project, if they are being paid, they are expected to give their all. If they did not do so, they would lose business.

As for writing for a volunteer paper pro-bono, I don't think I've ever heard of a case where one has had to do so if they were not passionate about it. So in the case of this topic, it does not apply.
[/quote]

chris richards wrote:The idea that the Library staff writes about the Library for the Lakewood Observer makes that writing a press release, not journalism. If Ken Warren is writing about something he is knowledgeable in other than the library, it can be considered an article, which can then be shifted into the realm of journalism. But that doesn't make him a trained journalist. (He might be, I am unaware of his background, just using him as an example)

Chris

Before we get to the whole release thing. I think you would agree to think that when Ken Warren writes about the Library, the books, the programs, the building that it is nothing more than a press release. I would say closer to a sermon from the mount.

Seriously, what is the difference between a press release, usually written by someone with a background in journalism, and the journalist that rewrites it? To use pay as some for of abstract matter of value. I would have to think the PR/Media person is getting paid more for the writing.

Now if we are to believe that these journalism students can be bought by the company they write the releases for, the whole journalism thing flies out the window.

What we need and depend on is the check and balance system. This can be provided hundreds of different ways. In the "4th Estate" mode, a person gets a "tip" for a story, hands it off to a writer. That writer either has knowledge or needs to gather knowledge on the subject, just to hope to ask the right questions. Then it comes back and goes through editing, and legal(sometimes) and then is printed.

Compared to: A knowledgeable/witness writes the story they know about, that goes through editing and possibly legal?

Every living thing does better when their heart is into it.

Bryan

Sanity may prevail. I appreciate the definition, and provide this as well

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/journalism


This is a subject that does need to be dealt with.

"The way we get news is not going away, it is merely evolving. The way we get news will always be one person telling others. How that evolves will be extremely interesting."


.

When I was very young, I believed that the American history they taught us in school was accurate, and that journalism was a profession, such that you could believe what was written in the paper, or, to a lesser degree, broadcast on radio. I was wrong.

My childish belief was that reporters were careful to avoid letting their personal (or corporate) biases affect what they wrote. That they dug out and published the five Ws for each story, and that their work was reviewed by editors to insure compliance with the journalistic code, including that the information provided was accurate. I accepted that there would be errors (a reporter is under tremendous pressure to publish the story, yet often lacks the background to understand the subject about which he is writing), but didn't think that a story would be slanted.

I now think this was never actually true, and that the field of journalism has now abandoned most ethics, unless challenged, when they make a specious argument that they were in compliance. Even as an older child, I could recognize that papers and networks were actively slanting the news to reflect their own beliefs. Today, the only way to get accurate coverage is to read multiple papers and view multiple networks, and assume that the truth is somewhere between their biased reports. I now read five newspapers a day, free (thanks to the internet) and as I read them I keep in mind what I have concluded are their prejudices. For example, I think as I read the NY Times that I am getting the eastern liberal slant.

The media now seems to think it is in the business of manufacturing the news, and telling us what to think. I submit in support of this the lack of original data in the media. If a politician writes a letter, or gives a speech, one would think the media, if the story is newsworthy, would print the letter or the text of the speech, but they never do. The most we get are sound bites, or the written equivalent, that support the slant the medium has placed on that issue. So the Tet offensive, a military action that we won, is sound-bited into a defeat. Senator Obama's pastor's speech, which taken as a whole was a plea to keep working to improve our country, is sound-bited into an expression of hatred.

So given that journalism has abandoned its ethics, I think the only advantage of reading a paper, over reading bloggers, or postings on the observation deck, for example, is that an editor should have checked the article in the paper to insure compliance with corporate biases, and that the reporter, being limited to coverage of certain areas, is likely to be more informed of the infrastructure in that area. For example, a poster on the deck might think that speeders are a problem that should be reported to his congressman; one would hope that a reporter would be aware that speeding is under local, or possibly state, jurisdiction, and that writing to council, the major, the state legislators, or the governor is likely to be more effective.

I think a problem with posters and bloggers is that a person can be profoundly misinformed on a subject, but if he is a good writer, his misrepresentations may appear to some to be accurate. Blogs are not challengable. Fortunately, postings are, and a misrepresentation is likely, one would hope, to draw a response. But if the responder is not a good writer, we are left with a misrepresentation appearing to be accurate.

So I guess the best answer is to trust nothing you read.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Before we get to the whole release thing. I think you would agree to think that when Ken Warren writes about the Library, the books, the programs, the building that it is nothing more than a press release. I would say closer to a sermon from the mount.

Seriously, what is the difference between a press release, usually written by someone with a background in journalism, and the journalist that rewrites it? To use pay as some for of abstract matter of value. I would have to think the PR/Media person is getting paid more for the writing.

It seems people fail to recognize that one of the hallmarks of the profession of journalism is being non-biased. The passionate individual is more likely to impart his own set of values and beliefs into the story, especially if he has not had training otherwise. Part of the growth in popularity of citizen journalism involves people who feel as though major corporations and the goverment work too closely with the main stream media and have been chipping away at the un-biased qualities of journalism. The danger of citizen journalism is that the line between reporter and pundit becomes a little hazy.

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/pres ... nalism.php

Sure there is a problem with journalists rewriting press releases, but that still does not make those pieces journalism. If a store in Lakewood were to write an article about itself and submit it to the Observer for publication, would that not make the piece a press release? Is that not the same for the Library. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Library writing about itself, its just not going to be called journalism.

you can choose who your sources are. In todays era of hyper-specialized professions and academic fields this makes it easier to make propaganda than in an ideal situation. but there are no ideal situations. Without an Axe to grind there is nothing to chop away at.

I've read a few books by Joseph J.Ellis and others about the late 18th century and early 19th century. The excerpts they have from newspapers of the era show a complete absence of the standards we take for granted today. It is amazing things turned out as well as they did.

Wonder where John Zenger learned journalism.....

Jeff