Michael Casey | Real journalism is more important than ever

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on October 6th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I think journalism is more important now than ever. This work is one of integrity, this is a calling that is more important than the bottom line and that there’s a real value for society and people who are dedicated to that exercise in and of itself. There can’t be anything more important. I’m Michael Casey. I’m an adviser to MIT media lab’s Digital Currency Initiative and I’m a graduate of Curtin’s media and journalism school. It was travel that made me realise that I really should try and do what I always wanted to do, which was to write and to do journalism and to shape it in the context of this travel experience. But it really wasn’t until I came to Curtin and succeeded that I felt validated, that I felt that I could do this. I think the essence of journalism is storytelling, and essentially that’s the art form. You’re trying to capture people’s imagination. I really saw the things that I was interested in as being untold stories. Stories that needed to be, that I felt needed to be, told and I wanted to be able to tell that story because they inspired me.I started at the West Australian and then found my way to Indonesia where I was hired by AFX Asia then I moved to New York and ultimately wrote for Dow Jones Newswires and the Wall Street Journal. Eventually ended up as a global economics columnist for the Wall Street Journal. A lot of TV for the BBC, for MSNBC and CNBC, I’ve been an anchor for live TV WSJ Live and also wrote for things like Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. The most satisfying thing is to be able to write in a form that has inspired people to try to make a difference in the world in ways that I care about so that’s been incredibly rewarding, yes.

Also the sheets I sleep on help:  .I recommend that you buy sheets from https://bambooforlife.com/sheets .

MinJung Kim, MA ’04: The Most Important Journalism Skill

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on November 23rd, 2019
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The expertise which you could get in a deed the entire classes that you simply need to take it in part of it you ought to work on the missourian or vox you recognize and and then you definitely need to go to the lessons and it is sort of a lot of work but that experience is particularly really priceless I took a lot of fairly courses I imply like considering the fact that I self-designed my thing you know so I stayed yet another semester than most of my neighbors who got here in the entire equal 12 months so when I did my first internship I was competent like you recognize from the day one I wasn’t quite I mean of direction I needed to learn like in anything that they will work approach however certainly making pix some thing and i fairly did not want any training due to the fact you realize i got it at the tuition so that’s the quite most priceless factor on this school that palms-on experience which you could get

Top journalists join #FreeAJStaff campaign

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on November 6th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Suppose an international the place reality isdistorted imagine being kept in the dark aboutmajor world event think being silenced when talking outcould store your life I have no idea the place to go you do not knowwhat to get any meals you just imagine the world wherejournalists i’m not free to report the data.

Sabrina Faramarzi | MA Arts and Lifestyle Journalism

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on October 6th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , ,

Hi I’m Sabrina Faramazi. I’m on the MAArt and Lifestyle Journalism and my final project was about secular congregationsand how a new wave of secular congregations are mimicking the postChristian memory, when more and more people are identifying as non-religious.So my project is a long-form narrative piece of journalism. It’s basically a kindof reportage of how I’ve spent the last six months attending these secularcongregations. Lifestyle journalism isn’t about listicles,it’s about telling real stories, about real people and real things happenacross the world that might not necessarily sit in the current newsnarrative. The benefit of doing it here at an art school is that it’s not justjournalism about the arts but, it’s journalism as an artistic practice inits own right.Rethinking the entire, format the entirenarrative, the entire way presenting a story. .

The Hilarious Irony of DmC and DMC5 Journalism

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 30th, 2019

you know what’s one of the greatest ironies in the history of mankind cast your minds back to the time leading up to the release of de mercy Devil May Cry there were a ton of articles written by so-called journalists decrying the DMC fanbase for hate in the new direction portraying the fans as whiny entitled crybabies who couldn’t deal with the fact that Dante’s hair was a different color later they blamed fans for the reboot no one actually asked for underperforming because they believed fans of a franchise are obligated to support the product no matter what asinine decisions are made with that products development and worse that they themselves have the right to dictate how someone else spends their hard-earned money the presumptuous self aggrandizing tossed pots now move forward to e3 2018 Capcom announced a new entry in the series Devil May Cry 5 as this was not Dima see to those same so-called journalists began writing yet more hit pieces lambasted of the classic games blaming them for the reboot not continuing replaced instead by the old series the version of this franchise I loved is now being discontinued in favor of a different take that I don’t like of course lacking even the most basic level of self-awareness a human is capable of they fail to realize that the way they feel now is exactly how fans of the original series felt when the reboot was announced the only difference is that the original series as the franchise’s original incarnation has more of a right to exist and its fans more right to complain about the shift than respectively the reboot and the high-minded journalists that hate media that challenges them either mechanically or culturally I mean honestly who wrote this brain-dead narcissistic tripe Leslie Jones you [Music]

Downfall of Gaming Journalism #1: The Curious Case of IGN

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 30th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , ,

Welcome to the first entry in a series ofrants entitled ‘The Downfall of Gaming Journalism’, and as the title suggests, these will be dedicatedto the vanishing credibility of a vanishing industry: Video Game Journalism. When I firstfired the opening salvos in my 4-year crusade against the depraved and incestuous covenof self-interest that is modern gaming journalism all the way back in 2009, I was, in fact,one of the few voices in video reviewing who were even troubling themselves to expend theeffort. A bandwagon that I’ve noticed is looking a little topheavy in recent years. Maybe it’sthe major controversies in the last couple years that arrived in the form of Mass Effect3 or Dragon Age 2 that have since shed further light on the autofellatial business modelof contemporary online journalism, but the simple fact remains that many of the samevoices who gleefully turned a blind eye to these issues in ’09 when I, and a handfulof others, first began shedding light on this issue – I won’t name names, but they rhymewith ‘Blangry Joe’ and ‘Potsie’! – have since boarded said bandwagon and regularly addressthese themes in their own programs.And I’m fine with that. I don’t feel I wasripped off because I’m not the only commentator addressing these issues, and I’m far fromthe first. But I do feel these people often fail to properly articulate and identify thetrue reasons behind them, and perhaps much more importantly… to be perfectly willingto name names and cite specific events. Which brings us… to our first subject:Ah, IGN. IGN is a living, breathing contradiction.Ostensibly, and in the eyes of many gamers, they’re often depicted as the ‘evil empire’of gaming journalism, but I think their sheer size, at times, also affords them some artisticlicense to occasionally tell half the fuckin’ truth. Because their advertising coffers arefar from anemic, they can – though they rarely do – afford to occasionally stand on principle:On the one hand, they weren’t shy from calling Final Fantasy XIV the putrescent turd it trulywas despite the obese advertising campaign Square Enix paid for on their site. But thenthey turn around and give Ace Combat Assault Horizon – one of the absolute worst arcadeflight sims in existence and far and away the worst game in the Ace Combat series – anappalling 7.5 out of 10.Or they tender Dragon Age 2 a shiny 8.5 out of 10. 8.9 to FinalFantasy XIII. A near perfect 9 out of 10 for Star Wars: The Old Republic… with an accompanyingmonth filled with articles extolling the virtues of the thoroughly vanilla MMORPG… while- ‘coincidentally’ – animated Old Republic banner advertisements swirl and pulsate inthe margins of the fucking page. But it’s the former, rather than the latter,that has become a truly ethically-dubious trend in recent years. Now, not only is theIGN webpage virtually wallpapered with advertisements in every conceivable location on the site,IGN editorial is now evidently instructing their reporters to drop what they’re doingand write fucking fluff pieces about said games to serve as glorified advertisementsthemselves! Mass Effect 3, early last year, was a particularly egregious exemplar, notleast of which due to the fact that an IGN employee was actually cast as a characterin the fucking game! Every day – and I counted – for a solid fucking month prior and subsequentto the game’s release, there were no fewer than two and no more than four Mass Effect3-related stories, largely consisting of masturbatory miscellany revealing little to no substantitveinformation about the game aside from the prevailing and inescapable implicit message:GO OUT AND BUY THIS FUCKING GAME SO HELP ME CHRIST! And if the fluff pieces themselvesfailed to communicate the message, the margins of the page would circumnavigate that subliminalthreshold with aplomb.Games with comparatively meager advertisingbudgets, for example Silent Hill: Downpour, which only placed an animated banner ad onIGN’s front page for less than a week prior and subsequent to its launch – yet which wasreleased just one week after Mass Effect 3, not only received less than 1/5th as muchnews coverage… but despite, in many peoples’ opinions, including mine, being a step inthe right direction for the series… received a comically-low score of 4.5 out of 10 fromIGN. Indeed, scoring even lower than IGN’s equally-comical 5.5 out of 10 score affordedDuke Nukem Forever! Skeptical?This… is what the IGN front page looked like in March of 2012.I mean, this… is what the page that contained IGN’s ‘objective’ review of Mass Effect 3looked like. And it’s still happening!Perk an ear and turn your gaze to IGN’s thoroughly-unbiased coverage of the Playstation 4! A system withouta price point and without a launch date…That is nevertheless – in the eternally-obliviousIGN writer Keza MacDonald’s own words – ‘Going to dominate the world.’ In the weeks leadingup to the PS4 launch event, there were as many as 7 PS4-related stories on a singlepage. And that was before we even had a date for the event! For the third-place consoleon the market! Conversely, it was recently revealed thatMicrosoft will be holding their own event. How many stories were Microsoft-related?!4. Over the course of seven fucking pages!No bias there! When it comes to Sony, IGN has generated morespin than a ballerina with vertigo! And – as, I’m sure, a complete coincidence… therehave been a glut of animated PS4 advertisements on IGN for at least the past week.This is a fucking abhorrent conflict of interest. This… is the new face of gaming journalism.And THIS… is IGN in a fucking nutshell! I’m RazrFist.God – fucking – SPEED!

Richard Tofel | ‘Investigative Journalism in the Digital Age: A recovering lawyer reports’

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 30th, 2019
Tags: , , ,

DEAN MINOW: I have been really–myself, personally– so much of a fan of RichardTofel that I just had to have himcome back to campus. He is the presidentof ProPublica. How many people knowwhat ProPublica is? OK! RICHARD TOFEL: So you’renot just here for the pizza. That’s great! DEAN MINOW: As you know,this is really the most, I think, innovative effortto deal with the crisis in investigative journalism. And by creating a non-profitorganization that actually uses digital tools and figuresout ways to support other journalists as wellas the people who are there, I think it’s really doingvery important work.In addition, I thinkthat many of you know that the missionof ProPublica– and I’m quoting from its ownwords– is “to shine a light on the exploitationof the weak by the strong and on the failuresof those with power to vindicate thetrust placed in them.” And I wonder if maybea little of that was something you’ve learnedat Harvard Law School. Richard’s 2012 book, WhyAmerican Newspapers Gave Away the Future,is a crucial window onto the challenges ofcontemporary journalism. And in his role as presidentnow, he’s building on the work that he did since the founding. He was the generalmanager at that time. He works on all ofthe business side. How do you keep it going? How do you raise the money? How do you manage the people? How do you manage the externalcommunications and development? He’s here to help usunderstand the prospects for investigative journalism. And I will let himdo that, but not without saying we’re soproud that he’s our graduate as well as at the collegeand the Kennedy School.He practiced law at PattersonBelknap and Gibson Dunn. He served in the administrationof Mayor Ed Koch in New York. He served in the DowJones organization, which is the publisher of theWall Street Journal, as vice president, as assistantmanaging editor of the paper, as director of internationaladministration development, and other fascinatingjobs include being vice presidentand general counsel of the Rockefeller Foundation.And he has fouror five more books including A Legend inthe Making– The New York Yankees in 1939. And maybe we’ll get to thatin Questions and Answers. RICHARD TOFEL: Right. Thank you, Dean Minow. [APPLAUSE] RICHARD TOFEL: Thanks very much. I’m happy to be here, andI very much appreciate Dean Minow inviting me. It’s now been almost 32years since I graduated. That’s scary. And in that time, Ipracticed law full time for less than nine years andpart time for another nine or so, including currently. So I’ve said thatthese reflections come from a recoveringlawyer, but certainly not a recovered one. And I can say that whilethe five plus years of big firm full-time practicewere a mixed experience, I’ve truly loved my legal workas the Wall Street Journal’s first in house newsroom lawyer,and as the first inside general counsel of theRockefeller Foundation, and as the originalnewsroom lawyer, as well as the general businessmanager at ProPublica.So I’m not here asone of those people to tell you to throw offyour chains and flee. And I’m happy totake any questions on any of those rolesin a few minutes, or how I fell into them, whichis the case in almost every one of those roles. I do have some words ofcaution for lawyers dealing with the press on behalfof clients as opposed to representing thepress as clients. Because far more ofyou will find yourself, I’m afraid, contending with thepress rather than aiding it. But I’m going to savethose thoughts for later. Instead, I want tobegin by telling you just a little bitabout where we stand in my industry, the journalismbusiness, and especially the investigative reportingside of that business. I want to warn you thatthis is not a happy story. The business of thepress in this country has been in crisis for 10 years. It’s worth remembering thatthe most profitable year in newspaper history in thiscountry was the year 2000.And at that point,it still looked like the consumer internet,which emerged in 1994 and 1995, could usher in a golden ageof the newspaper business and of the journalismbusiness generally with free distributionto huge audiences and near 100% profit margin onincremental advertising sales. But since 2005, it’sbeen increasingly clear that instead, the digitalrevolution is not just disrupting but actuallydestroying the business models that producednearly all of the quality journalism of the quartercentury following Watergate.You probably know this story,but just let me sum it up in a few quick points. Barriers to entryinto publishing have largely collapsed. That’s great for spanning a newwealth of opinion journalism and for facilitatingconsumer access to much greater flows of new. But it’s also hell onprofit margins generally. The rise of alternativenews sources has– entirely predictably–eroded the audiences of incumbents fromnewspapers to magazines to broadcast television news. This cycle is farfrom done playing out. The supply ofdigital advertising has exploded, greatlyoutstripping demand. Just think about thenumber of new Facebook pages being created everyday, and you’ll immediately grasp this. You are, yourselves,as am I, undoubtedly part of the problem. When supply exceeds demand,prices, of course, fall. In this case, the priceseems almost inexorably falling towards zero. Almost all the bestinvestigative reporting in this country has longbeen done by newspapers. Yes, the muckrakersbegan in magazines, but they didn’t staythere very long, and that period pretty muchended with the first World War.So where did these trendsof the last 10 years leave newspapers and thus muchof investigative reporting? Print circulation fell. Advertising revenue fell. Paid digital circulation,where possible, didn’t come close to makingup the difference, even though total audience sizeexploded to numbers previously literally undreamed of. When an industry facestrends like these, it retrenches and it jettisonsloss-making activities whenever it can. For almost allnewspapers, that meant less investigative reporting. Until a couple of years ago,essentially the sole exception in the entire countrywas the New York Times. Now the Washington Post,under a new, very rich owner, may be another. But that’s pretty much it. Why did decline inbusiness so seriously affect investigativereporting, perhaps more than any other area oftraditional journalism? The reasons, I think,are also clear.Investigative reportingtakes a lot of time and is thus expensive. It is risky in the sensethat some stories just don’t pan out. We talk about itourselves as being a lot like drilling for oil andoften finding dry holes. And it does not,generally, garner the highest readership ofarticles in a general interest publication. So while it is prestigious,and societally valuable, and even the people whoare cutting it, I think, concede both of thosepoints, it can also seem commercially expendable.This is a loss, of course. But not just forreaders, I’d argue. It’s a loss for democraticgovernance, which had come to depend oninvestigative reporting over the last 125 years as acritical check on the power of government, on business, andon other powerful unentrenched interests. The result is a ratherclassic market failure. That is to saythat the market is no longer capable ofsupplying the desired quantity of a publicgood– in this case, investigative reporting–and other non-market sources of supply are needed.The question is what orwho could fill the gap? ProPublica, I’m happy to say,has been one of the answers– not in quantity. We have a newsroom of 45today, a small fraction of the investigative jobs lostin the last 10 or 15 years. But in quality, I hope. We’ve been proud to wintwo Pulitzer prizes, the first ever awarded toan online news organization, and then the firstever for a material not published in print. We’ve also won a NationalMagazine Award, a Peabody Award, the highest honorin broadcast journalism, three George Polk awards,three Online Journalism awards for generalexcellence and a host of other designations.We were a finalist this year forthe Kennedy School’s Goldsmith Prize, and have been fiveof the last seven years. Our reporting onschool resegregation is a finalist for the ABASilver Gavel this year as well. Even more important,we’ve spurred real reform, real change,through our reporting. And that’s what we’rein business to do. As a nonprofit,that is our mission.The differences thatreporting has made have ranged from policereform in New Orleans, to new nursingoversight in California, from tougher Medicarerules for prescribers, to a new system for identifyingand repatriating the bodies of soldiers missing in action. Even beyond the particularsof our own work, I think we and othershave begun to demonstrate that news organizationsfunded mostly by philanthropy, including gifts large andsmall, can help ease the market failure and increase thesupply of this public good of investigative reporting. Two last points before I moveon to take your questions. First, people ask whyall this great work can’t support itself, can’tbecome self-sustaining without donations. The answer in brief is that thenumbers simply don’t add up.Advertising onlinedoes not throw off enough money to pay forcontent almost anywhere. Indeed, it’s hard to think ofa single advertising-supported online-only publicationthat even breaks even. If Buzzfeed is anexception, that would only be becauseof its enormous scale. And it’s worthnoting that Buzzfeed has 10 times as manynews staff as ProPublica, but only one fifth theinvestigative staff. Consumer payments arealso simply not an answer. As the plateauing of onlinesubscribers at the New York Times, which remains thebest publication we have, after just a few years proves. But I also think thisis the wrong question. Why can’t a news organization,powered mostly by donations, be self-sustaining? Is Harvard self-sustaining? Yes, I think it is. I think we can all berelatively confident that late in the century, absent somenuclear disaster, or a meteor, or something, thatHarvard will celebrate its 450th anniversary.But it wouldn’t be able toget anywhere near that far– it probably wouldn’t get verymuch into the next decade– without donations. The same is true ofour great museums and other greatcultural institutions. Why can’t this same standardgovern sustainability in nonprofit news? If it can be the standard,then we are getting there. In less than sevenyears of publishing, we’ve built a reservefund of $5 million, reduced our foundingfunders from 95% of revenues to about one-third. This year it willbe one-quarter, and we’re headeddown from there. Last year we had morethan 2,600 donors. I hope you’ll considerbeing one of them. Last point– not really relatedto the rest of what I said, but I couldn’t resist beinghere today and not raising it. Most of you, I realize, willnot end up in journalism. But more of youthan you may expect will end up dealing withjournalists in your work. So I have couple of tipsmixed in with a plea. First tip– don’tlie to reporters, no matter how much your clientmight like you to do so.It’s not a crime tolie to the press. Elected officialsdo it every day. But reporters havelong memories. And they’ll have avery hard time drawing a line in their heads that youlied for one particular client, but that you’re actually atruth teller in other contexts, or left to your own devices. Second tip– don’t dothe next worst thing, which is to claim someobscure, technical legal reason for your position whenyou’re just stonewalling. I’ve actually found in dealingwith reporters over the years that by far, when you can’ttell them or just don’t want to, that if you just say,”I can’t or just don’t want to tell you,” it’sby far the best strategy. If you followed ourcoverage of the Red Cross, you know that beganwith the Red Cross taking the positionthat what they had done in responseto Hurricane Sandy constituted a seriesof trade secrets.And they hired my old firmto take that position. That’s the kind ofthing that leads a news organizationlike ours to put two reporters full time on a story. It also tends tobring the law itself into disrepute with journalists,which is not good for society. And to come back to tip one,it can feel to reporters as if you’re lying. Finally, a plea– remember thatin dealing with journalists, there are multiple legalinterests all around us, and that these oftenneed to be balanced. You may actually have one ofthose interests on your side, for instance, SeventhAmendment fair trial rights. Or the legitimateprotection of trade secrets under the Freedomof Information Act. But acknowledging that there areother interests– for instance, First Amendment and common lawrights of access to the courts, or the Freedom of InformationAct’s principal mission of disclosure– onlyenriches and respects the important exchangesyou could and should be having with reporters. And with that I’d loveto take your questions.[APPLAUSE] DEAN MINOW: So I’mstill Martha Minow. One of the thingsthat’s interesting to me about the work ofProPublica is the tenacity in using legal tools like theFreedom of Information Act. So if you could reflect onhow much the legal tools are helpful, how muchthe law is a problem for investigativejournalism, how often do you hear thingslike trade secrets, and how much thereare pay walls now that make itdifficult for people to get access even togovernmental information, that would be helpful. RICHARD TOFEL: FOIA can beenormously helpful if you have an agency that wants to help. And sometimes youhave an agency that’s just playing it straight. But I will be honest,it’s certainly far better than if it didn’t exist. But the law itself andthe system under it is incredibly dysfunctionalfor a couple of reasons. One is, its time periodsare never observed. I had an exchangewith the President’s first chief technologyofficer who was trying to open up the government.And I said, you know, if youreally want to make a change, you could do it by issuingan executive order that says everybody’s got tomeet the FOIA deadlines, or disclose, or certify that thenational security is endangered by this request,by our disclosure of this requestbecause you clearly need some out like that. And he said, well,we couldn’t do that. And I said, well, why not? He said, well, for instancethere are health privacy laws, and all sorts of stuffwould get disclosed. I said, yeah, but you know thathealth privacy law, it’s a law. And the Freedom ofInformation Act, it’s a law. And if you’re the President,part of what you get to do is when there are twolaws and only one of them can get enforced, youget to decide which one. That’s one of the coolthings about being President. But somehow in thegovernment there has come to be a completelyuniversally accepted notion that if two laws come intoconflict, and one of them is the Freedom ofInformation Laws, that one should be violated.And every agency does everyday, hundreds of times. Second problem is agencies,when they deny requests– because frankly, theyhave the resources, and it doesn’t cost themanything– always litigate. They just say no, and thenthey lose, then they litigate. Then they litigateagain, and they appeal. So what I wouldsay to reporters is we file requests all the time. But in terms oflitigating them, we have to decide if the subjectis really important to us, so we’re going to spend aconsiderable amount of money, and if it’s going tobe important to us, not just today,but years from now, which is when we would win. We have a state law casegoing, for instance, with the New York CityPolice Department, which is a particularly antediluvianagency in this respect, who bought a bunch of the– you knowthe x-ray machines that they had in the airportsthat they took out because they were unsafe,which was actually a result of our reporting on them.So we discovered that New YorkCity Police Department has bought a certain numberof those machines and is driving themaround New York in vans and pointing them at thingsto try to find terrorists. And we know that’s true. They’ve admitted that’s true. We don’t know how many vans. And we don’t know whattheir guidelines are. And they won’t tellus what their health guidelines are for using them. So we sent them a request. Zero documents. Can’t disclose anything. Can’t disclosethe safety manual. Can’t tell you howmany vans we have. Can’t tell you wherewe’ve ever used them. So we litigate this in theNew York State Supreme Court– not the nation’s mostefficient tribunal.It takes two years to win. We win with thehelp of the clinic Floyd Abrams set up atthe Yale Law School, by the way, which doesspectacular Freedom of Information work. The PD is now appealing. I mean, it will be fiveyears and two or three mayors before we get them totell people what they’re doing with this– frankly,I think– crazy machine that was taken out of prisonsyears ago because it was unsafe and then finally taken outof the nation’s airports, but is still, Ibelieve, cruising the streets of New York. Sorry. Yes? MICHAEL LINHORST: Hi,I’m Mike Linhorst. I’m a 1L. Can you just talka little about how you fell into beinga newsroom attorney and journalism in general? RICHARD TOFEL: Sofirst thing I always say when I give people careeradvice is that the smartest observation I ever read abouthow your career actually progresses in real life wasPresident Kennedy was asked once how he became a war hero. And as you may know, being awar hero and John Hersey writing about him as a war hero gothim elected to the Congress at a very young age, and therest is literally history.So how’d you become a war hero. And he said, “It was easy. They sank my boat.” Which is to say,it was an accident. And that’s true. I think most career developmentsthat end up making a difference are accidents. I became a newsroom lawyer insort of stages, all of which were a series of accidents. I wanted to do it,but there were frankly a lot more peoplewho wanted to do it than people who could do it.I went into city governmentfor six months on leave to do a non-press law thing–help reform the welfare administration in New Yorkas a young associate, which Patterson Belknap wasgreat about letting me do. I came back out, and theyneeded somebody right then new on that team, so Igot put on that team. Then a year later, the partnerwho was doing that work decided to switch firms. It’s Bob Sack, who’s nowon the Second Circuit. And he had a whole team ofpeople, five people or so, of whom I was the most junior. The most seniorassociate decided he was right on thecusp of making partner at Patterson Belknapso he thought it was too risky to leave. He was probably rightbecause he’s now the managing partner of Patterson Belknap. The next associate hadhad a personal tragedy. Her husband had died withindays of her baby being born. And she justdecided she couldn’t disrupt her life in thatfurther way, which made sense. The next associate decided thatshe had a personal problem that precluded her going with Bob.So I went from being thenumber four associate on this fairlylarge body of work overnight to being thenumber one associate. And I was less than threeyears out of school. So that was, frankly,just an accident. But a huge break. And then I loved the work I didfor the press at both firms. At both PattersonBelknap and Gibson Dunn, I frankly didn’t love theother part of the work I did, which was about half. And I finally got tothe point where I though liking half your workwas probably not great, so I went looking for a job.And I went to talk tothe general counsel of Dow Jones, whom I knew. And this is themid ’80s and sort of a classic story of howwork got brought inside to big companies. He said, how much of yourwork are you doing for us? And I said about half. And he said, and inhours that would be? And I said about 1,000. And he said, doyou mind my asking what the firm ischarging us for that? Well, it wasn’t a secret. It was on the bills. And at that pointit was $250 an hour.So the firm was charging thema quarter of a million dollars a year for half of my time. This is 30 years ago. And he said I thinkI have a better idea. So that was sort ofan accident, too, because he hadn’t–they’d never had an in-house newsroom lawyer. But he realized he couldbuy 100% of my time for a heck of alot less than that. And then the managingeditor of the journal left– NormPearlstein, who’s now the editor in chief ofTime Inc. And Paul Steiger, who had been his deputy,became the managing editor. And the publisher,whom I had gotten to know through mylegal work, said to me, I think Paul needshelp down there running the news department as a thing. So I want you to go be assistantmanaging editor of the paper, essentially, managingeditor’s chief of staff. You know, accidents afteraccidents after accidents. I will just tell youone more much later, how I became the first generalcounsel of the Rockefeller Foundation.So I go to interview with thepresent of the Rockefeller Foundation, Judy Rodin, forthe job as vice president for communications,which was something that I had done at Dow Jonesand had some experience in. And we’re sitting there andshe says to me– at this point, I haven’t practiced lawat all for 14 years. And she says, how would you likealso to be the general counsel? And I said, youknow, I don’t know if you noticed on myresume, but I haven’t practiced law for 14 years. And she said, no, no, no,of course I noticed that. She said, so here’s what I know. She said, as it happens, Ihave two fairly close personal friends who are justices in theUnited States Supreme Court, which she did. She said, I don’t think it’sall it’s cracked up to be. Boom. Yes? JESSICA: Hello, Jessica[? Voskergen. ?] I’m a 3L. So I have two questions, bothrelating to content selection. First, ProPublica,as you said, receives sometimes very large donations. And I wonder what structuresare in place to make sure that these donors don’t haveundue influence over what investigations are made.And secondly, ProPublicacovers a wide breadth of issues but is leanly staffed. Investigations arevery time intensive. So I wonder how theorganization decides which investigations to follow. RICHARD TOFEL: OK, thoseare both great questions. On the first, therelationship between donors, it’s a very important issue. But I have actuallyfound in the years we’ve been doing this thatalmost all the answers to that come by analogy to theappropriate relationship between advertisers and thenews in the traditional media. Things that would beinappropriate for advertisers are generallyinappropriate for donors. And things that would beappropriate for advertisers are generally appropriate. Now, there are peoplewho don’t agree with that in our business. There are people who will takemoney to do things we will not. I mean, theprincipal distinction is we will not take moneyto do a particular story or a set of stories.Just like you would neverat any decent newspaper tell advertisers–somebody says, I want to advertise in theNew York Times business section on Sundays,and I would just like to know what’s going to beon the cover for the next four to six weeks. It’s actually a fairquestion for the advertiser in that it would berelevant to their business. And they may not be tryingto undermine your integrity, but there’s too great arisk that they would be, and they wouldn’t in amillion years tell you. We don’t take money for stories. We do take money to fundbeats– health care, education, even some beats thatyou would describe with greater specificity. So we’ve had a beatsupported by the Ford Foundation for a couple ofyears on inequality in race. But they had no idea untilthe stories were published that the first yearunder that beat, we decided to do work onhousing discrimination.And the second yearwe decided to do work on school resegregation. So I think that works. The related issueis the relationship between the governingboard, many of whom are donors, and the news. And there we’ve sort ofhad to forge our own way because this is sort of acase of first impression. Basically, we usethe same rules. And the criticalone is, although I work for thosepeople and so does my partner, Steve Engelberg,our editor in chief, we never tell them what we’regoing to publish until we do, at all. So our board chairmancalled me yesterday, who’s also our largest donorand our founding donor, and liked the story we did on ajuvenile facility in California that we published yesterday. And he knows that thefarthest he can go is he sends notesto people, trying to– because he’s also anactive fundraiser for us, thank goodness. And he said, when’s thenext big story coming? Because I don’t want tobombard people with notes.And I said next Wednesday. And that’s– I’m happyto tell you that. Next Wednesday. We’ve got a great storycoming on Wednesday. And in his case, because heknows the people involved, I started saying it’s somethingthat Ryan and T– and I get that– you know, who are twoof our reporters– and he goes, don’t tell me! I said, Herb, all I wasgoing to say is Ryan and T have been workingon this for months.That’s it. Because he understands I amnot supposed to tell him what it is about, and I never do. Second part of your questionwas how do we pick stories? That’s Steve’s departmentrather than mine. But the shortestanswer is we’re always looking to do storiesthat pursue our mission. So we’re looking for thingsthat other people are not writing about thatwe can write about, and where we think we have somechance to spur some change.And then we pick ourpartners based on that. Most of our major storieswe do publish with partners. We’ve had 120publishing partners over the years, 120 differentpublishing partners, which means prettymuch everybody in American journalismand which means you’ve got to be willing to workat least 120 different ways. But that’s OK. But it’s all– Ihope, and we try to tie it back to themission as much as we can. Yes? YASIN AL DEEK: Hi, myname’s Yasin Al Deek. I’m a second yearlaw student here. Thank you for taking thetime to come speak with us. RICHARD TOFEL: Thank you. YASIN AL DEEK: I wanted to ask aquestion in regard to the point that you had madeas a piece of advice to blossoming attorneysabout remembering the importance of being honestwhen speaking with reporters. And you had made a suggestionthat even if you do feel a certainpressure from clients or perhaps other attorneyswith whom you’re working, to not violate theethical obligation that you have to being honest.And so I wanted to justask you– many of us are ambitious and young, andwe’re certainly impressionable. And how do we preservethat integrity as we move into a field whereour successes in large part is dependent on our mentors? And how do we retainwhat Professor Tomiko Brown-Nagin wouldcall the courage to dissent in the workplace? And if you just hadsome advice that we could keep in mindas we move forward with our legal professions.RICHARD TOFEL: Yeah,that’s a heavy question. Well, I certainly deserve itfor having opened the subject. I guess the first thing ispick your mentors carefully if you’re serious about that. Because the onesyou really ought to be wanting to workwith and for probably won’t ask you to do that. But even if they are, they’llbe open to talking about it. And then it’s not so much, Ithink, the courage to dissent, although that can be certainlytrue in extreme cases, as just the somewhat lesser but stillreal courage to just push back, right? That says you know, if wedon’t want to tell them, why don’t we just tell themwe don’t want to tell them? I’ve spent a lot of timeas a student studying the presidency and the press.And I had theopportunity to work in the White House Press Officewhen I was very young, briefly. And I still believe–maybe because I was there at the time, butI actually think I could back it up– that thebest modern presidential press secretary was JodyPowell, who was President Carter’spress secretary and– for two reasons. The most important reason was hewas by far the press secretary closest to the President. So he knew the most. He basically knew everything. And the second thingwas– so some people would say, well, that couldbecome a problem, right? Because if you knoweverything, you know everything they want to know. And they know you know. And it wasn’t a problem forhim because almost every day at the White House pressbriefing– which then, thankfully was not broadcast,but it was still a well publicized session, and therewere transcripts being made every day– hewould say to them, I know the answerto that question, and I cannot tell you.People would justgo, you know, OK. Not that they gave upon trying to find out, but they weren’tgetting it from him. So I just think it’s smart. And I think people who thinkthey are smarter than that are usually actually not. WAIDE WARNER: Waide Warner,senior fellow in the Advanced Leadership Initiative. As a fellow baseballfan, I know you must know Branch Rickey’sfamous quote that luck is the residue of design. RICHARD TOFEL: Yes. WAIDE WARNER: Looking backat the arc of your career and the number ofaccidents you had, what was the organizingprinciple that helped you design andmake your own luck in those circumstances? RICHARD TOFEL: Wade, greatto see you and Cynthia. We were soccer parentstogether on a travel team. And for those ofyou who have done any of that when you were kids,that’s a big– and this travel team lasted a long time.So these people were familyto me for many years. You know, I think that thedesign, if you would call it that, was that everytime I got– I’m sorry, this is not goingto sound great here, but want to be honest with you. Every time I got toa fork in the road where it said go this way tospend more time with lawyers and this way to spendmore time with reporters, I took this way to spendmore time with reporters. I have a lot of good friendswho are in my law school class. Some of them even practice law. Many of them actuallypractice law. And they’ve donevery well with it. I mean, just in mysection, my roommate ended up being the generalcounsel of the SEC. And the guy I spent the mosttime with in the section at that time is theUnited States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.And Tim Cane is in theUnited States Senate. So they were wonderful people. But in general inlife, I find reporters to be more interesting thanlawyers most of the time. MARK KILSTEIN: Hi there. So jumping offyour last comment, I’ll introduce myselfas a journalist. My name is Mark Kilstein. My partner here isa 3L, a law student. But I’m a radio reporter, aradio producer for the BBC.And I know ProPublicahas done some really fantastic partnershipswith radio programs. And so a bit of apersonal question– I’m curious what yousee as the future of investigative journalismin the radio medium. There’s a lot oftalk about the future of investigative journalismin the digital age. Radio has somehow kindof bucked the trend. And, at least personally, I seeit as a thriving medium today, even though it is arather traditional medium.So yeah, I’d loveyour thoughts on that. RICHARD TOFEL: Wehave found that radio, interestingly– this surprisedme, at least going into it, that radio isenormously powerful as a medium forinvestigative journalism, AND frankly, muchmore than television. I’ve never been in theradio business myself, and so I’m not anexpert on this. And I’m not 100% sure that evenI know what I think about this. But here are somerandom thoughts. There is somethingabout radio that stays with people in a waythe television does not. Television, I think,unfortunately, in many cases is you laugh, you cry, andthen you change the channel. And it’s just over. We find radio moves peopleto action, and to thought, and to conversation much more. Second point– therehappens to be– so we’ve had a great experiencein PR and with others. I should not address this topicwithout briefly mentioning that I think that IraGlass individually– and I don’t know how many of youlisten to This American Life– is just a true genius, a word Itry not to throw around a lot, and is doing some of themost important journalism of any kind being done inthe English language today.And every time we workwith him, it seems that amazing things happen. And amazing things don’talways happen with our work. So I take it that it musthave something to do with him. And I’ll just giveyou one example. He came to us with an ideaabout five years ago and said, so I know all thepeople that lost money in the financial crisis. I’m interested inyour doing a story and then bringing it to usabout somebody who made money in the financial crisis. And we went off, and wethought that was a great idea. And we found thishedge fund, Magnetar, that had constructed derivativesthat were so successful on such a scale that ultimately weconcluded they had literally delayed the financialcollapse themselves, and then exacerbated it andcontributed quite materially to the failure of Merrill Lynchand a bunch of other things. And they had done this bycreating these securities– or causing to be created thesesecurities, which they then bet against, making a fortune,something that has ultimately been held to be notstrictly illegal, but certainly a little tricky. So we brought it back to Ira.And he goes, for some reasonI feel a musical coming on. Really? And then at the next meeting,he goes, I’ve got it. It’s the producers! And he was right. It was. And he commissioned fromRobert Lopez, who went on to write The Book ofMormon, a Broadway show tune to accompanythis story called Bet Against theAmerican Dream, which was the first time Ihad done prepublication review for a song. I will tell you, by the way,it’s pretty much the same except if you wantto change a word, you need another word ofthe same number of syllables that rhymes. And we ended up winningour second Pulitzer Prize off that story. So there is a levelof creativity, I think, also in thebest of radio today– to come back to yourquestion– that makes it just a wonderful medium for us. Yes? ELYSSA SPITZER: Hi, myname is Elyssa Spitzer.I’m a 1L. So I spent the yearbefore coming here at the Manhattan DA’s office andwas constantly stunned by how backwards the technology was. It was straight from the 1970s. To bring a caseto the Grand Jury, there’s sort of a yellow carbonslip, and then a pink one, and the different onesgo different places. And individuals havecase files that literally go in a cart thatgoes up and down the elevator to arraignments. Because you’ve seenan industry transition from that sort of paper files,handwriting mode to more digital information flow,et cetera, et cetera, I’m wondering what you thinkabout the legal profession and how that might happen here. Because it needs to. RICHARD TOFEL: Yeah,you know, of course, in the place wherethey have resources, it’s nothing like that, right? That’s not really,I think, a question about the legal profession.It’s a question about thefinancing of government. ELYSSA SPITZER: Sothat’s similar to what you’ve confronted? RICHARD TOFEL: Yeah. I haven’t been thereeven to visit in years. But I’d be verysurprised if Cravath has green and yellow andpink forms and files that move up and down theelevators as opposed to zipping from place toplace on shared drives and password-protected things. We woefully underfinancethe government. I mean, if youwanted to say what is the uber story ofprobably 90% of our stories, it’s a government agencyhas not been given the funds sufficient to do its own job. And here’s what results. I mean, of the stories we writeabout the government, that’s at some level the story. And we’ve been in thisphase is in this country. I think it’s a long-runhistorical phase, but I don’t think it’sthe nature of the beast.But for the last35 years, people have believed we spend toomuch on the government, except when they want toenjoy its benefits themselves in which case we’respending too little– too little on the programthat helps me, too much on all of the rest of it. And this is what you get. I mean, when I did spend thosemonths in the city trying to reorganize the citywelfare administration, one of the first questionswe asked them was, can we have a map of where allyour facilities are in town? No. They didn’t have it. Well, can we have a list,and we’ll make our own map? Uh, no. And so we went and created ourown list and made our own map. This is sort of unbelievable. My wife helped create somethingcalled [? Childstead ?], which is a fairly advancedcomputer system to track cases at the Agency forChildren Services in New York. But that was eight or nineyears ago, maybe 10 years ago. Before that, they were literallytracking child abuse cases on index cards. That was it. DEAN MINOW: So I have afollow-up to that question, because I thinkeverything that you say about theunderfunding of government sounds absolutely right.But there’s stilla further question about the disruptivechanges of doing business because of technology. And so that’s a lot of whyyour organization exists. And I’d be interested to knowwhat the crowd sourcing of data does or being ableto put data out. How do you dojournalism differently? And also, if youcould speculate back, what does that meanthat lawyers could do? Because simply digitizing whatlawyers have done historically isn’t taking advantage ofwhat the technology could be.And people are beginning tocrowd source contract language, for example. Or to meet the needsof low income people, to figure out ways thatyou can have remote advice, but also groups of peoplehelping each other, rather than one by one by one legal advice. RICHARD TOFEL: So two things. Crowdsourcing,per se, is tricky. And I think we’re still learninghow to do it effectively. The most effective experiencewe’ve had, I think, with it is in a formalsense with something we called Freedthe Files, where we did a bunch of reportingin early 2012 on the fact– records kept intelevision stations at the behest of the FCCon political advertising. And we and othersI think managed to pressure the FCCin the middle of 2012 into finally releasingsome of these records. But largely at theindustry’s behest, they then decided torelease them all in PDFs. So you basically couldn’tdo anything with them. But some of our technologyfolks said, you know, what we need to dois we need to review every one of these scores ofthousands of documents just to categorize them invarious ways and code them.We can’t do it, but it’sactually not hard to do. It’s just a question of time. So we asked people to helpus, and they devised a system. Please look at thisthing and answer these five questions about it. And they created– which themiracle part of this to me is they created a thingwhere it would serve up the document to you randomly. And then it wouldonly count the answer if another person who had beenserved up the same document randomly gave the same answersbecause you wanted to prevent people from gaming the system. And then it would download it. And we pulled in hundreds ofthousands of records that way and were able to do somevery important reporting. For instance, the beststory we got out of it was that we were able to provethat much before the election, that most of themoney being spent on both sides of the UnitedStates Senate race in New Mexico was dark money. And what that means,by the way, if you just think about it for amoment, is somebody’s going to be elected UnitedStates senator from your state, and you have no idea towhom they are indebted. And here’s the important thing. You have no idea. They know exactly who it is. So for that kind of thing,crowdsourcing is great. The original notions ofcrowdsourcing in journalism were, we’re going to askpeople to do journalism. And that is likecitizen brain surgery. Journalism, like anythingelse, like the law, it’s hard, and there are people whoare really good at it, but actually not all that many. And it takes sometraining and experience. So that stuff doesn’t work. Then to go backto the data point. I think what’s turnedout to be the most powerful is national databasesthat are localizable– if that is a word– where we caninvest and have a lot of time, a lot of resources,in creating something that tells a pictureacross the country, and we’ll write anational story about it. But then we’ve beenquite intentional, and I think we’ve learned howto do this pretty effectively.To tell local news organizationsand to help local news organizations, we create whatwe call Reporting Recipes and we have conference callsso that– for instance, we just did this withworkers’ compensation. We’re doing a lot of work rightnow on workers’ compensation. And the thrust of that workis basically to two effects. One, that there has been a verydramatic decrease in the payout through workers’ compensationin the last 10 or 15 years in this country,which means there’s a huge transfer of wealth goingon from workers to employers. Now, that may be good. It may be bad. You are entitled to yourown views about that, but it’s a fact. And it’s not a widelyrecognized fact. The second thing is thereare– because workers’ comp is a state by state system, thereare incredible disparities.If you lose anarm in this state, you get– I think itis 20 times as much as if you lose your armin the state of Alabama. Now that just makes no sense. And I think everyone agreesthat it makes no sense. Whether the numberin Massachusetts is the right number or not, wecould have a fight about it. But the real point onlocal localization, or whatever youwant to call it, is the Boston Globe or anybodyelse can do that story here in a day. To say here’s how Massachusettscompares to Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermontand New Hampshire– boom, boom– andtake our year of work into a couple of reporterhours and produce a good story.And they’re doing it. And that makes a bigdifference, then, in the reach of the stories,the impact they have. It’s made a bigdifference, I think. Yes? JENNIFER CHUNG: I’m JenniferChung, second year law student I was wondering if you’d bewilling to talk about some of the stories that didn’tpan out and at what point you realized that astory wasn’t going to effect the changethat you were looking for or didn’t lead to somehypotheses you’d had originally. I don’t know howmuch you can tell us. RICHARD TOFEL: Sure. There are lots of storiesthat don’t– first of all, most stories don’tactually spur change.I mean, one of the criticalthings in our business, as in, I think,every business, is if you’re evaluatingyour own success, you have to havesome sense of how often you should be succeeding. You know, I’m abig baseball fan, so I sort of think aboutthis as batting average. I think it’s actually helpfulbecause for those of you who know baseball, and I’ll tryto make it so the rest of you can follow along, the bottomline here about baseball is if as a hitter if you cansucceed four times in 10, you’re the best there ever was. If you fail, that is to say,if you fail six times in ten, you’re the best there ever was. If you only can succeedtwo times out of 10, they will not letyou participate at the highest levels. So this is a very narrow range. They have a lot moreexperience because they’ve got 125 years and thousandsof people and all of that. We don’t know thatmuch, but I know enough to know thatin our business you will actually notsucceed most of the time.Philanthropy, for instance,is another business where you will not succeedby any reasonable notion most of the time. You have to knowthat to evaluate whether you’re succeeding. You also have to have some roughsense of how often should we be succeeding. So that’s one thing. We usually sort of pokearound a little bit before we make a majorcommitment to a story. If we do that, there’susually some story. It just may not be as gooda story as you thought. There are dry holes. There are more oftensort of quasi-dry holes, or stories where yougo, yeah, it’s a story, but it’s not the great storythat you thought it might be.That happens a lot. In terms of things youthought would have impact, I’ll just tell you very quickly. A story that I wascertain was going to have immediate impact wasthree and a half years ago, we did a complicated dataanalysis that proved, I think, mathematically thatthere is racial bias in the presidentialpardon system. And you are four times as likelyto get a presidential pardon if you’re white than ifyou are black, and did exactly the same thing andhad the same circumstances. And proving that wasvery hard because you had to normalizethis, and you had to get all the people whohad not gotten pardons.Anyway, it was a big thingand took a lot of work. But we did it, and nobodyhas really challenged the accuracy of that finding. And as you may know, thepresidential pardon process is basically the oneroyal prerogative– I think it’s the onlyone– in the Constitution. The President’s power iscompletely unreviewable. Just to give youan example of what that means, if Bill Clintonwent on television tomorrow and said, you know, I actuallytook money from Mark Rich to give him that pardon,nothing would happen. Nothing. The sole remedy forthat is impeachment. And he left thepresidency the day after he gave him the pardon. So I thought, well,there’s only three people that are going to reallyhave an impact on the story. And we managed to get thestory on the front page of the Washington Post. They were our partner. And the three people are AfricanAmerican lawyers, most of them graduates of this institution–the President of the United States, the First Ladyof the United States, and the Attorney Generalof the United States.And I thought, well,this is a lay-up. They’ve read it. I knew they read it. We took steps to make surethey actually read it. And they did. And nothing happened. Because, we are told,the political people came in and said we’re tooclose– this is late 2011. We’re too close to theelection to do something this high profile onbehalf of black people. So they set in motiona review process. And they will, I believe,fix it before they leave.But it may be,literally, as they’re going to turn out the lights. That’s another thingabout spurring change. Sometimes it takes a long time. DEAN MINOW: Well,we could continue to talk with you a long time. But we’re going tostop the formal session and just say thank you. But if you could hang aroundand talk, that would be great. RICHARD TOFEL: Yeah, great. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] .

MOOC GM1x | Anya Schiffrin – Global Muckraking Investigative Journalism and Global Media | Trailer

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 30th, 2019

– Government corruption, corporate misbehavior,state-sanctioned murder. Without the hard workand stubborn persistence of investigative journalists, many of these storieswould never come to light. In this course, we’ll learnabout some of the major pieces of investigative journalismfrom around the world and try to understandthe forces behind them. When does journalismhave an impact and why? When does society pay attention and when does it look the other way? Who are the journalists whohave written the big stories? My name is Anya Schiffrin. I teach and write on mediaand economic development. Before coming to Columbia,I was a journalist working in Europe, Turkey, and Vietnam. In this course, we willexamine the big stories and learn about the exciting changes that have transformed journalism.- Investigative journalismand journalism in general has always had a measureof innovation in its DNA. – Global muckrakers are under so many threats around the world. – We have been able todo some of this coverage in a way that has never been done before. – Join me as we delve into the fascinating worldof global muckraking..

Should Journalism Be Objective? Serial: Part 2 | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 24th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

here’s an idea cereal shows us how journalism might not be objective but maybe that’s okay last time on idea channel we talked about objectivity the law and the people who practice it this I think is what cereal and even sometimes The Good Wife show us that though the law might have some objective moral basis it is still very much open to interpretation so objective sure but maybe only to a point objective but complexly so and maybe that’s something cereal shows us at the end of this video we’ll see what you had to say about last week’s video a video which you don’t need to watch in order to understand this one but it probably wouldn’t hurt especially if you don’t know much about the podcast cereal because today we’re gonna ask about the other side of cereals set up not the detectives council experts or suspect but its host journalist of Sarah Koenig and her team were they or was Sarah too involved in odd noms case does the cereal have some uh upheld responsibility to be disinterested did they transgress some set of journalistic ethics this has been a big criticism of caning from the start to at the beginning of the show is vocally Pro odd none at this point I’m gonna say flat-out that I don’t buy the motive for this murder at least not how the state explained it I just don’t see it as the show progresses her skepticism regarding the potentially lifelong inmates innocence herbs and flows but overall cereal never fully departs from a narrative that seems to be searching for ye bit of evidence to exonerate odd non of his conviction of his girlfriend Haman Lee’s murder in 1999 Kanaka said that this wasn’t her intention that she was aware she might potentially uncover something useful but that the goal of serial was never explicitly to free aDNA criticisms have continued regardless even after the finale the way Sarah treated Jay the fact that she didn’t speak with Kevin Urich the prosecutor in odd nons case a thing which she and the cereal team have responded to publicly and other various and sundry actions or inactions that raised the question of whether caning and her producers were really letting all the facts speak for themselves in other words being objective I’m not sure they were I’m also not sure that that’s problem but before we talk about why let’s talk for a second about journalistic objectivity in many Western countries but particularly in the United States objectivity is the cornerstone principle of journalism in a paper for journalism studies Quan Ramon Munoz Torres paraphrases David mindish who even suggests that without the concept of objectivity American journalism cannot be understood at all so let’s make sure we understand objectivity we covered the high-level concepts last week when we were talking about the law objectivity is a framework for existence and knowledge free from the knowers own biases and both of these are still very much at play in journalism as well but the concept of journalistic objectivity tends to add one more dimension that of balance often our understanding of journalistic objectivity assumes an almost ethical directive it’s viewed as unfair or deceptive if reporting doesn’t give equal time to all sides of a story or debate this expectation is so pervasive that even idea Channel is often chided for not showing both sides of the story luckily we’re not the news or aiming to be objective even a little I can say one side of an argument like it’s the truth and to move on with a totally clear conscience relatedly as immune Yas Torres points out this is all ostensibly in a service of the truth the goal of journalism is to provide insight and accountability where citizens laws and politics cannot or do not and so it goes that the pursuit of that insight or accountability should be neutral impartial fair balanced but what if the other side of a story is considered marginal at best or dangerous at worst the BBC for instance recently decided to stop giving equal airtime to those denying the effects of climate change it’s also arguable that objectivity is something of a goose that journalists are encouraged to chase as Glenn Greenwald puts it in no place to hide every news article is the product of all sorts of highly subjective cultural nationalistic and political assumptions here on ID channel I’ve said something similar in different terms that media always reflects the conditions of its production or to look at this another way our sense of journalistic objectivity is one built by applying some romantic even vaguely scientific concept of rational empiricism to reporting the news unfortunately in journalism and even in a science a perfectly objective basis is untenable there’s no foundation for gathering the facts which does not rely in some way on the subjective judgments of human beings none at all sorry but okay now we are briskly headed down a path towards the unconcluded semantic argument beginning with the question but what is truth anyway man glenn greenwald’s again can provide a pertinent detour the relevant distinction he writes is not between journalists who have opinions and those who have none a category which does not exist it’s between journalists who candidly reveal their opinions and those who conceal them pretending they have none Media critic and NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has rendered this same sentiment much more succinctly transparency he said is the new objectivity for the longest time objectivity reigned supreme over journalistic practice but it’s throne is crumbling studies in the US and Europe have shown that practitioners see objectivity as an ideal to strive for but that there is just as much of a sense that it is an impossible ideal this I think is an industry-wide almost neurosis that cereal wears on its sleeve there are many things that you can say cereal did less than perfectly but I think to its credit I never felt like Sarah Koenig or her producers were any more or less sure or unsure about the story than they clearly expressed to hear a canings description of the process of digging through courts documents and evidence tracking people down talking to experts developing leads and testing them against the materials at her disposal alongside her various convictions beliefs skepticism and intentions I catch glimpses of a journalistic process which I think lets the facts and the reporter speak at the same time of course transparency is not a binary value but a scalar one cereals transparent knob might not have been cranked all the way to 11 but their efforts felt significant and honest but I don’t know maybe I’m just being naive maybe journalism does have some impossible objective ideal but its base aims fairness accountability investigation communication are no less inherently subjective meaning objective journalism like plastic glasses a small crowd or things that are pretty ugly can exist but only in the spite of what it first appears to be what do you guys think can and should journalism be objective were Sara and her team objective let us know in the comments and it would be objectively nice of you if you were to subscribe it is objectively very snowy in New York City right now let’s eat you guys had to say about objectivity cereal and the law as tends to be the case on idea Channel when there is a some cataclysmic weather event like there is in New York City right now you get to see the inside of my apartment a little bit more so that’s why you are not looking at the record wall or the idea channel set because I am stuck at home anyways it’s not gonna stop us from responding to comments but before we do office hours is the thing that we figured out February 7th at the IBM Pavilion in Midtown in Manhattan I’m gonna hang out for a couple hours there’s no set plan just come hang out chat with me talk with other idea channel viewers just have fun we’ll hang out come for 10 minutes come for a couple hours okay on to comments Erik viewless makes the really great point that whether or not the law is based on objective moral truths what we’re talking about here is what objectively happened and it shouldn’t factor in that people are biased in some way when they’re trying to figure out just what happened and that there is some objective truth to that and that might be true but I think you know you see especially in a serial that there’s no way to get to that objective truth without passing through the conduit of very subjective biased confused forgetful people and yeah I mean that’s right that is the whole tension here and the conversation that follows this comment is so good I highly recommend checking it out links to this comment and all the in the Yakuza who talks about michel foucault and the idea of objectivity as it is sort of imposed or or developed by institutions and and also sort of offers advice of the question of you know it might be more worthwhile to ask whether or not the idea of objectivity is important or worthwhile or good and this made me think of a passage that I have underlined in the Michele Foucault reader that because I’m home I could just pull off of my bookshelf and read it says the power of the norm as in normality appears through the disciplines right so these are the disciplines of these institutions is this the new law of modern society let us say rather that since the 18th century it has joined other powers the law the word and the text tradition imposing new delimitations on them and then a little bit further down says like surveillance and with it normalization becomes one of the great instruments of power at the end of the Classical Age and this is basically all about how the normalization of culture and behavior through the existence of institutions is effectively law which i think is a very important and great content ranking for this country ernest petty talks about how one of the things that you could say is attractive about the law is its sense of objectivity that there is this sense that it is not different for different people and that that could provide a sort of sense of justice or a a basis for justice but that there are certain situations where it becomes clear that maybe the law is different for different people and that and that those events and situations are incredibly important because they might inspire us in us an interest or a a sense that we can and should try to change the way things are and that maybe cereal factors into that in some way and I would say yes and yeah I agree Laurel teal brings up the idea of the social contract which I definitely should have mentioned by name it’s the idea that there is sort of a contract between all people in a society to behave in a certain way and talks about how that is maybe both expressive of and kind of upholding of the ideas that contribute to the existence of law but that also another thing worth considering is that our ideas about how these things should be objective probably say just as much about our culture and society as what happens when we attempt that objectivity as as the results that we get from it and finally and relatedly Sarah Wayne talks about how it is maybe the reaching for objectivity that is the most important thing that as of the idea of what it means to be human what it means to be a human around other humans changes and progresses and we uncover more understanding about it our idea of what is right what is objectively right will necessarily change and that this idea of objectivity in law is sort of like utopia that you know it it’s a nice idea to reach for you’re probably you’re never gonna get there but maybe it doesn’t hurt to try fair this week’s episode was brought to you by the hard work of objectively the best editing team in New York City we have a facebook an IRC and a subreddit links in the doobly Doo and the tweet of the week comes from TJ von P who let me know that cereal is not an NPR show which I should have known as someone who works in public media this is very embarrassing for me I will I will do penance ten Hail Therese and one hour later you [Music]

International Center for Journalism: Part 2

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 24th, 2019
Tags: , , , ,

[Music] and we continue our conversation by welcoming it while costs Azim and Kai’s are contoured newsmakers Sunday program and once again news director Kevin Osgood joining us to take part in our conversation this morning will cause let’s start with you what have you learned here while you were in the United States oh yes it’s a really wonderful experience coming here to Wisconsin and especially in United State of Pakistan it’s almost about ten to eight years that I was applying to come to United State but the dream came true that long ago you apply yeah okay I I applied in in 2011 but could not work it but in this year I got an opportunity to come and visit here in unit state of Pakistan and specially I have been a test here in Wisconsin before coming to Wisconsin I was searching and googling what this wisconsin’ state is this and in the in the pre-orientation session we were told that Wisconsin is a very beautiful state and it’s known as Gees and lakes are very famous about the Wisconsin and it’s a wonderful experience by spending three weeks here we have learned a lot here especially working with the wfr we local five news organization it’s stuff is very cooperative they help that and they helped us as at every moment and teased us how they are working differently with the Pakistani news organizations and especially the editing system we have learned here and and the crew is very very helpful because they are working independently one-man-show is is is as a unique thing and United state of Pakistan that does not work in Pakistan because we work in as a team we have a clue we have a cameraman we have a DSN G staff but here only one man is working for all this stuff it guys what did you take away from this so it’s your experience first of all I’m very thankful to the deputy of F are we management on Cayman and all of the stuff here our fellow reporters for giving us this opportunity to learn from you people and now sharing our experiences with you with you people I believe like these there is a in Arab social media everyone have mobile and internal they can access and they can interact with with the people from other culture but I still believe and experiencing the culture by by person so while here we were in Washington DC we were in here in Green Bay Maliki Chicago and it was like I was very surprised like my thought was like the American will be very possessives possessive people but here it was like wherever we go there was like the people who are greeted us and they were so polite and we will take her really we were not expecting that the people will be so polite with us and it’s like like all the time I feel like a home in the United States and I think it’s a very great opportunity for me to come here and experience all the things here the both professionally and Cal sherry Kevin I think they heard about the stories about the Ugly American oh yeah they got surprised at that how important Kevin is it for journalists like us to learn the way that journalists like our Pakistani friends cover their news oh I think I think it’s critical just it’s not just the the staffing that’s that’s different but the similarities when because it’s that it’s again those preconceived notions of you know what we think they’re they’re covering there is no different than what we’re covering here I’ve watched us that one of the we can see your news geo TV no 24 News 24 news has a live feed that works on the browsers here and we can watch it and not only is it I mean it’s just as aggressive political coverage you know and so many voices and and just what and and it’s so important the same as here it’s just telling and getting to the bottom of fax information and telling quality stories you pitched a story while you were here about a tree yeah you were out with Chris Schuler on a totally different story and started talking with someone about a tree that was very important to her that had to get cut down because it had died but I think her grandfather had planted it her father and her father planted it and that’s what it all its stories about people and and how life impacts them every day that that viewers can identify with that actually we have to tell actually I was trying to show how the plants and trees are important for the people of Wisconsin because in Pakistan a lot of climate change going on and weather is changing very abruptly and people are not aware of the importance of the trees that’s why I was when I was here I was trying to show the importance of the tree and plants and the forest that’s a very crucial for what the environment has been and we have technical issues here it was a great story well Klaus put together and it it’s we’re waiting to show it in this show but in the process we have a system on our server that if something is older than 48 hours it goes away you don’t see it so the story didn’t make it and it has gone away sadly but it was a good story well cuz when you cover stories in in Pakistan it is more of a challenge than what we face here sometimes it is downright dangerous for you to cover the stories that you do describe what you go through when you’re covering issues in Pakistan where are these were the dangers Pakistan I think is considered one of the most dangerous countries while covering the while covering media and purpose of the freedom of the press and especially these days this is the hot topic in Pakistan because the general election elections are going on and Pakistan federal union of journalists and our Pakistan newspaper Society and the Pakistan broad causes Association are protesting that there and they are not giving the right to express their their opinion in fact I was watching a recent interview of our national newspaper dawn newspaper and they are also protesting that freedom of press must be ensured in Pakistan and general societies are also protesting because they think they actually don’t know who is suppressing the media in Pakistan particular political parties are blaming on the military and the military side is blaming on the political parties but nobody has proof who is going to cover this all all these issues and on the other other hand politician think that without without freedom of press there would be no strong democracy in Pakistan if we think there is there should be a democracy in Pakistan there must be freedom of press that should must be ensured and that’s why the major political Pakistan Peoples Party the Chairman has also said this that there should be no censorship on the media because we want we don’t want a controlled democracy and control media that that is the debate going on in Pakistan while we we cover the issues in Pakistan we face same challenges as in us because while a reported reporter is covering the story he might be pressurized some from some different groups like government is controlling and political opponents are controlling and the militants and corrosion controlling and also because there is a quarter capitalisation in Pakistan so these are some of the challenges that the reporters are facing in Pakistan we are back with our journalists roundtable on newsmakers Sunday right after this stay with us