Why are journalists stuck in 1984?

J. Patrick Coolican, a writer for the Las Vegas Sun, has recently confessed one of the major slip-ups of journalists that especially tends to show itself in the campaign season. In an article for Poynter Online, Coolican admits the influence of "groupthink" when journalists spend too much time together on the trail. This constant interaction often leads to the group coming to a consensus about an issue, i.e.~ Clinton is winning, Obama was hurt in the long run by Reverend Wright's comments, McCain is too old to assume the presidency, etc. Instead of each journalist providing their own view of the action, they rely on each other to come to a conclusion of how the story will be presented. While this is mostly unintentional on the part of the journalist, the temptation to follow what the crowd is thinking is strong.

The effect of groupthink, or as journalists call it, a "narrative", is that the many nuances of a story are lost to the public when all of the storytellers seems to be saying the same thing. At the very worst, journalists could ultimately agree on certain "truths" that later prove themselves to be false, to the major disadvantage or detriment of the public. While several journalistic ethical codes warn of aligning with people and companies outside of who the journalist works for, this aspect seems more difficult to prevent. Journalists have a responsibility to the public, but they are only human and are open to the influences of others. In a time when fewer people are trusting journalists, it seems that the they are more willing to put more trust in each other.

For Future Reference . . .

While doing research for our ethical case studies this past week, I ran across an interesting story in the Society of Professional Journalists' magazine, the Online Quill. The story had to do with a college journalism class, not dissimilar to our own Media Ethics course, that had to learn an ethical lesson in one of the most terrifying ways possible. In the wake of such tragedies as the University of North Carolina and Northern Illinois University shootings, this is a story that every young journalist should read.

NBA (No Bloggers Allowed)

How powerful have blogs become? It seems that they have gained so much influence that they have been banned from the some of the locker rooms of the National Basketball Association.

The Society of Professional Journalists complained to NBA Commissioner David Stern last week after the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mike Cuban, created a policy that officially bans all bloggers from the locker rooms where journalists have traditionally been allowed to gather to cover the sports beat. The reasoning behind this new policy is that there is a space concern, meaning that all journalists would not have the room they needed to cover the NBA "fairly".

With fairness as a defense, it is interesting that the only blogger to be specifically removed from the locker room was Dallas Morning News blogger Tim MacMahon. It was also noted that MacMahon had, incidentally, written an unflattering story about Maverick's coach, Avery Johnson. While all of the official newspaper and broadcast writers were allowed to stay, it makes one wonder if bloggers, despite their influence, are truly respected in the news industry.

Though many breaking stories in recent years have been released by bloggers, their position as legitimate news gatherers seems to be questioned by the creators and consumers of news, or in this case, the news subjects. While it is true that anyone these days can have access to a blog, (as shown here) this should not determine who can and cannot have access to the information that creates news. Blogs are certainly not the oldest and most respected of media forms, but they have proven themselves again and again as a way to reveal the truth more quickly and to a wider audience. To discount the bloggers becomes an ethical issue of who the "real" news gatherers are, and who has the right to say who is legitimate or not. Finally, to specifically move a journalist of any medium, as Mike Cuban did, not only raises the suspicions of the concerned public, but also goes against our vital sense of freedom of speech and information.