Writing in a fair and balanced way is a cornerstone of being a journalist. This is a fundamental idea that is drilled into us as journalists by every mentor we’ve had. That is the traditional way to do journalism and it is an overarching agreed upon pillar of the profession. The idea of being balanced and fair revolves around the concept that a person can be completely unbiased. I argue that anyone who claims to be completely unbiased is living behind a façade. As the human condition is studied further, it is becoming common knowledge that while an individual may feel they are completely unbiased, biases in actuality have the potential to be completely unconscious and hidden.

One important component of balance and fairness in journalism, in my opinion, is the concept of false balance. The idea behind this concept is that some journalists may cover a side of a story that is undeniably untrue. This reality poses the question: should the value of a point of view be taken into consideration? If so, are we not delving into the grey area between opinion and fact? Or is it prudent regardless, to create parameters in which some things are truly absolute, and therefore an opposing perspective is only necessary if it is particularly relevant to the article? At what point does a statement not need a source because it is so widely accepted?

Another topic that intrigues me greatly is the various parameters of an accurate quotation. Selection and extraction, necessary components of quote selection, is an inherently subjective action. When you are wading through a sea of run-on sentences, repeating words, and sounds like “uh” and “um” what is ethical to remove? These practices cross a line when any editing affects what the person intended the meaning of their statement to be or if you change it to the point that it loses the person’s character. Some news organizations opt to not edit quotes in any way. Some allow the use of ellipsis.

One argument against ellipsis is that it gives space for the argument that a quote was taken out of context. If the quote needs excessive editing, it should ideally be paraphrased, or another quote should be chosen. Arguments in favor of ellipses are that they can make a non-succinct quote flow better and help to convey the point of the interviewee better. The only cases where I personally feel an ellipsis is acceptable is when a quote says the same exact word over and over, or they start to say a sentence one way and then restart in an entirely different way without pausing. Even then, they should only be used when the quote is essential to the article. 

Something that is up for discussion is whether or not mass shooters and murderers should be named and made visible through photographs. I am in favor of not doing either of those things in my writing because it is well-documented that other mentally unwell people may find an attachment to the assailant. Someone may still become consumed by reading about such evil but at least it takes some of the personal element out of it. I will do anything I can to prevent such evils. 

When it comes to vulgarities and obscenities, the reading on this topic was very informative for me. I do not have much experience having to navigate whether or not to quote something obscene. I do appreciate that some news organizations are much freer with publishing obscenities when it is relevant to the story. I think that destigmatizing curse words is good. When it comes to racial, ethnic and sexual slurs, I am less inclined to feel comfortable when they get published. I feel it gives the slur less attention when it is not stated verbatim and puts more focus on the moral implications of it being used in the first place. It is not prudent to report in a sensationalized fashion. 

Another thing that falls under the umbrella of sensationalism in my opinion is when identifiers are unnecessarily referenced in articles. For me, this goes back to the idea that gender, race, religion, and many other “identifiers” are social constructs that are most often irrelevant to a story. Unless their identification is specifically necessary for making a point, they should not be brought up for the sole purpose of making it known. Achievements are one area where identifiers may be relevant to the story. One rule of thumb is that journalists should not introduce an identifier if it is not mentioned in another aspect of the story. The opposing school of thought is that the reader should not be deprived of this information, but I argue that if it is truly relevant to the story, they won’t be, but if it isn’t, they aren’t missing out on anything essential to understanding the information.

There are many other topics in this week’s reading that I would like to touch on, but this post is getting alarmingly long and I will save them for another day. In short, all of these readings further illustrate how complex it can be to convey information to the public in a way that is not harmful, sensational or biased. 

https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/quotations

https://www.linkedin.com/learning/unconscious-bias-14822310/why-identify-your-bias

https://diversity.ucsf.edu/programs-resources/training/unconscious-bias-training

I chose an article that covers a topic I have been following for many years: the murder of Elijah McClain. The New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/us/elijah-mcclain-verdict-officers.html focuses on the duel trial of Jason Rosenblatt and Randy Roedema, two of the three officers who were involved in McClain’s death. This is the first trial of three trials that will be held. The other two will be for the third police officer and two paramedics who were also charged with his death. 

The fault lines in this story regard race/ethnicity, gender, class and generation. You could propose that geography is a factor as well, but unfortunately at his point, there is arguably no state in this country where a young black man has not been murdered by police officers. 

The authors Audra Burch and Kelley Manley make a point to note that the jury was mostly white. The anger and surprise felt by many is that the jury only convicted Roedema guilty of criminally negligent homicide and assault. Rosenblatt left a free man although many feel that he is just as responsible for McClain’s murder.

“How do you convict one and acquit the other? How can you call this justice?” said Candice Bailey, an Aurora activist who led many of the early marches and demanded police reform. This quote is the first one presented in the article. I feel they did that because it pointedly highlights the frustration felt within activist communities who are fighting for justice for McClain. 

Shortly after, the article quotes McClain’s mother, who stated “None of them did their job that night the way they were supposed to. The police didn’t do their job that night and neither did the paramedics. They worked as a team to murder my son.” You can hear the grief and frustration through this quote of a mother who has had her son stolen from her. It is mentioned that when the officers were first indicted, the Aurora Police Association was vocal that they felt their officers did nothing wrong. 

“This is the divided states of America, and that’s what happens,” his mother said. When you hear this quote her message is clear and you can feel it. When the writers of the article retell the story of McClain’s murder, you feel the suffering to its full extent all over again. He was unarmed. He was on his way home. He was vocal about the fact that he couldn’t breathe. He begged for his life. None of that was taken into consideration. 

The most insidious and horrific part of this case, to me, is that this case was all but dismissed until the murder by cops of another unarmed Black man, George Floyd. Only then did the Colorado governor intervene. Must humans unfailingly wait to make up for their mistakes until after the damage is done? Or can we act with grace, compassion, morality and humility before mistakes are made that cannot be undone, like taking another person’s life?  

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/5/31/mapping-us-police-killings-of-black-americans

Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual

The feelings I have on a subject such as this are so complex, that I struggle to articulate them, but it is a mixture of immense frustration and anger, deep sadness, and a drive to change the world for the better and sacrifice myself for the greater good of humanity. I have forcefully lessened my desire to become a war journalist or to entirely dedicate my life to the rights of humanity, but there are many times when I still feel deeply conflicted.

I feel strongly that my own individual life is not worth more than the fair treatment of humanity as a whole. It saddens me so much because there is also the urge to bury myself in the sand and focus solely on family and simple things. I hear from many people that they are not going to have children because of the state of the world. I also have many people close to me who put themselves into a bubble and have children. There are many who rest in between, as well.

For myself, I have never been able to stomach the concept that ignorance is bliss, and I don’t know if that is for better or for worse, but I refuse to exist with a lack of understanding of the suffering being enacted and received in this world and cannot just do nothing about it. This mindset, for me, does come with some degree of nihilism, masochism, intensity and despair. But also, always motivation and strength.

This career I have chosen, journalism, is a decision based on the purpose I am passionate about. This tool of writing I possess allows me to share eloquently and strongly what is going on in the world around us. That is my way of leaving this world better than it was when I happened upon it by being born, an act that was already much too existential for my liking.

Simultaneously, being a journalist, for me, is a constant act of stuffing down my various and lengthy triggers. I don’t allow myself to be deterred by trigger warnings because I don’t want the stuff I’ve been through to affect the things I can witness. Maybe that’s the masochist in me. Not saying it still doesn’t affect me, I just force myself to process the emotions, learn and move forward the best I can.

So, the question of what can we do as journalists, right? While the number of incredible “quote-worthy” statements in the documentary was lengthy, my favorite quote of them all was: “I am not an observer I am a participant,” Dmitry Muratov. This, for me, speaks to one of the very things I have struggled with as a journalist, whether or not to also be an activist in a sense and speak out about injustices on a personal level. What has always felt right in my heart and head is to do both of those things, but also still write honest and ethical pieces, so that is what I go with.

For me, Donald Trump’s presidency was far too much insanity, manipulation, tyranny, and ignitor of hatred. The article in our reading regarding the timeline is just one example of such injustices. Trump himself was vocal about his friendship with Vladimir Putin and his appreciation of Putin’s philosophies. We’ve come closer to terror than we’ve collectively realized, I think.

For the last part of this writing piece, I’ll aim to answer the question posed “what we can do — as journalists, as media consumers and as citizens — to further a liberatory ethics quest of the sort that Dussel propounds.”

To fellow journalists and myself: Hold yourself accountable to your biases but don’t let me prevent you from examining all things with a close eye. Prioritize the interests of the things that keep this world in balance (which is broad but hopefully understandable through a hopefully inherent sense of “good”). Call for people to do whatever they so choose as long as they are not hurting anyone or anything in a physical, mental or emotional way. Be strong and peaceful. Advocate for equity and ethical treatment of all people and all aspects of nature.

To media consumers and all citizens: Too many mass experiments throughout society have unequivocally shown that humans are easily influenced. Misogyny, racism, acceptance of tyranny, human rights services like health care and education, smoking, fashion, food, and much much more are examples of ulterior motives being packaged in a way that both serves and takes, or worse, just takes in the most insidious of ways. Be aware of this. Fact check to the best of your abilities. Be conscious of the outlets you are supporting not just by means of finances but also viewership. 

Admittedly, the more I write on this topic the more despair I feel. At times it seems that humanity has lost its way, but when I speak with some people person to person, I see the glimmers of light around me and I am hopeful. Maybe also I am a fool.

Here’s how you can show your support for press freedom and the right to know

https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/how-to-protect-and-enhance-freedom-of-expression

^^^^^^^^ this above link is an article straight from George W. Bush’s Presidential Center website. I think it’s worth comparing this article to the one from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The aspect of our readings from ONA Ethics that most piqued my interest this week, while it was all interesting, is that of the topic on confidential sources. In the two publications I have had more extensive experience in, El Leñador News and Osprey Magazine, using a confidential source is not something that is permitted unless there is an extremely extenuating circumstance. I have often wondered, if a situation were to come up, how that would be handled specifically within these organizations, or even more, within other news organizations that I have no experience in. 

In ONA Ethics, they state that “[B]efore a journalist grants confidentiality, you should have a detailed discussion of the source’s reasons for wanting to avoid accountability, which is what happens when you don’t name sources.” This brings up the vital question of the “reasoning” and even deeper, how a journalist is supposed to gauge the value of the source’s reasoning. This question requires its own set of research tools as well as deciding personal and professional limits to your leniency in this topic. 

While there are many reasons a source may want to remain nameless, the only reason that to me seems valid is if a source is trying to protect their safety or wellbeing, i.e., their job, the circles they need to remain in, etc. One point that ONA Ethics brings up regarding this practice, however, is to only grant these leniencies if the person who wants anonymity is in a vulnerable position, not a powerful one. Powerful people have been known to use information that they have given unnamed to spread slander and misinformation. 

Another important factor to consider is that in some states there are no laws to protect confidential sources. This becomes a higher risk factor if you are reporting on sensitive information that has legal implications. If you, as a journalist, try to withhold the information you received from said source, you could be fined or taken to jail. “It’s also worth noting that not every story based on confidential sources presents the threat of going to jail,” ONA Ethics says.

Before considering using a confidential source that can be more difficult to fact-check, it is important to determine whether a source can be trusted. Many individuals have ulterior motives that can include leaking information that somehow benefits them or someone they know or work with. I have never thought of encrypting my email, but this is something that ONA Ethics cites in their writing as a useful tool, which has me thinking. 

Being super specific about the terms of an agreement with a confidential source is paramount. You don’t want there to be any miscommunications that could either destroy trust between you and the source or even worse, you use information from them that is a lie, and it affects your credibility even further as a professional. According to ONA Ethics, “[J]ournalists should be especially reluctant to quote a spokesperson without using her name.” “A rare exception might be when a spokesperson is giving you information that doesn’t relate directly to the official or organization she represents.”

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.npr.org/ethics#1-honesty-in-reporting

https://nppa.org/resources/code-ethics