I had just finished reading an article that not only made me question the journalism in it but made me just a little bit sad for the generations to come... here's a link to this ah-mazing article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/18/only-36-percent-of-americans-can-name-the-three-branches-of-government/?tid=pm_pop (I must warn you though, you might just shed a tear...)
The article was about how only 36 percent of Americans can name the three branches of government, the only thing that makes this whole article even the tiniest bit relevant is the fact that Constitution Day was this Wednesday. (Happy Birthday Constitution!!) Not only did this fail as an article to make the important, interesting (it actually does the opposite) it fails several other types of Principles of Journalism AND Yardsticks of Journalism.
One of the most important principles this article had failed to pass was Watchdog, this article does no justice to the fact that journalism's main job is to keep people/organizations with power in society in check. I do not see how finding out how 64 percent of this country cannot identify three branches of government that we have been learning since about third grade, (Varying on where you went to school, but you get the idea) keeps people who have the potential to "scam" everyone keeps them "in check". This was also very UNinclusive (de-clusive, anti-inclusive?? Help me out on this one you guys...) yes, in a way, it includes everyone but it has sensational stuff people will read only to give them good ratings, now that's not good.
As I mentioned earlier, this does the opposite of making the important, interesting. Making the important, interesting means engaging the audience in local news that is not only relevant to them but also keeps them interested enough to continue reading/watching the news. In a way, they also break the rules of verification. Verification is to have sources verify that this is true, but this article only includes one source of information/verification which is the Annenburg Public Policy Center.
Now give a round of applause for the Yardsticks of Journalism they did not follow [insert applause here] NEWSWORTHINESS, this is a biggie, if this is not worth reporting then why is it even up on the site? This neither has a lasting effect on people (except for the fact that it will make people sad for America tomorrow) or important. Context, which is the same as Verification so I do not have to go over this one (but if you want me to, then comment about it) except that there is only one expert source. There is no explanation, this article was just a big "What" instead of a "Why" Ex. WHY do we not all know this?; WHY do they not teach us this every chance they get?; WHY are we not interested in learning this as a whole? Those should be questions you ask them and giving answers to us. (Civic Contribution is the SAME thing as Watchdog soooo....) Local Relevance, I can kind of see their thinking on this one, people all over the country should know the branches of the government but they don't really need to know that 64 percent of us are a little, slow (just kidding, I'm sure they have a valid excuse). Lastly, this was NOT enterprise. What part of this was aggressive? Not as in, did the reporter go out and tackle the expert who conducted the survey and then threaten him to get the data, but as in where's the investigating?; the interviewing?; the sneaking-around to get answers to inform the public? This was passive reporting simply passive and I'm sorry for all that trouble they must've went through to talk to an expert about a study they did.
Thank You, Washington Post and tsk-tsk.
P.S Now that I am done with that somewhat rant thing going on over there, I would like to make one more subtle statement... the fact that most of us couldn't name this is a little sad. But, we can overcome this, right guys?!?!
No comments:
Post a Comment