Welcome to the Ministry of Truth

In George Orwell's 1984, his main character Winston works at the Ministry of Truth. It is where all the so-called newspapers, books, and other articles of writing are kept, and changed. It is Winston's job to go back and "correct" errors in old articles. These can include who Oceania is at war with. And Winston appears to be the only one who realizes that Big Brother can change history by changing the papers and history books.

We certainly aren't in a world that operates under such a system, which is not what the title of this post was to suggest. Rather, we are in a world where readers get to choose their own truth. They decide what they want to believe and what they don't. Sure, people have been doing this since the beginning of time, but with the advent of the internet and new technology, choosing your truth is even more prominent than before.

I sat in on a panel of graduate students from the University of Oregon earlier today, discussing this idea of choosing your own truth. One panelist brought up Newt Gingrich's interview on Meet The Press, where he called the Republican Medicare plan right-wing social engineering. Afterwards, Newt tried to reverse his statements, saying the media blew them out of proportion and he was set up. Here we have an example of someone saying one thing, then saying something else and picking which of the two is actually true. He is picking his own truth. And the audience is just supposed to go along with it.

However, audiences today are changing. We are a younger generation with different interests, likes, and hobbies. Facebook was created in our lifetime. So was twitter. Where and how we get our news is different than our parents. My freshman year in college, the topic of Scientology was brought up. A friend of mine said if you want to know about Scientology, just watch the South Park episode. So I did. And over the years I have discovered that if you want to know about almost anything, there is a South Park episode about it. And it's accurate.

"Satire has a long history of shining a light on truth," panelist Jacob Ditmer said. As an example, take a look at John Lithgow reading Newt's press release on the Stephen Colbert show. Shows like Colbert's, or the Daily Show, make news a performance. It's entertaining and satirical, but it's accurate. As an audience, these shows appear to be good truths to pick.

Another issue the panel touched on that I want to mention here was the idea of technological determinism. Does technology determine social behaviors in the people using it? Is it the video games, cell phones, and unlimited access to the internet that causes things like school shootings, bullying, and sexting? Or is it just easier for policy makers to legislate solutions for these societal problems by blaming the technology?

"People can make bad decisions," panelist Mara Williams said. "The idea that the online sphere should be feared doesn't allow for positive connections that can happen too." It seems we only look at the bad, and then choose the technology (the video game, the cell phone) that caused it, instead of the people. Does that sound like the truth, or "truthiness?"

Truthiness?

Disclaimer: It's going to be hard for me to focus this post, so be prepared for some rambling on my part. It's been a day full of provocative things to think about.

This morning I attended a panel discussion about "finding fact in the age of truthiness." The discussion was led by Tom Bivins, The John L. Hulting Chair in Media Ethics at the University of Oregon. The main goal of the panel was to discuss the place of opinion in news journalism and how that place has changed and will continue to change over time.

First, I would like to mention that the word "truthiness" was apparently invented by Stephen Colbert. Google defines it as, "In satire, truthiness is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

This is the difficulty that journalism faces today, and it's a two parter. One, readers are choosing their own truths -- they decide what they want to believe despite evidence or facts, and part of this is enabled by technology. When you can customize your online news to only show you the news stories you care about, or only subscribe to news that leans in your direction of thinking, you aren't getting the whole news. Two, journalists might have a tendency to report on things because it "feels" true without backing it up with facts and evidence. This type of reporting might appear rather opinion based, or point of view based, when in actuality, it's just bad reporting.

"People now can order their own news through the web," panelist Mike Hunsacker said. "The business of journalism has to work much harder to build and audience and sustain an audience. If there is no audience, there is no service."

Panelist Mike Fancher said that good faith with readers is the essence of journalism. It's hard to establish that faith when you can't even establish an audience. "In a world of such constant bombardment of information, journalists are struggling to figure out what grounds they stand on, so they are turning to this opinion journalism," he said. "It's not a good ground for journalism to stand on."

Another interesting point, made by panelist Lee Wilkins, was that journalism as a profession has lost its moral high ground. Journalists have forgotten how to fact check and dispute bad information or wrong facts -- instead they are relying on their idea of truthiness. "I can look at Jon Stewart and see better in depth reporting than on the front page of the New York Times," she said. Why? Because Jon Stewart isn't afraid to tell his audience when they have been lied to by the media. "To say something is a lie is not opinion," Wilkins said. "Lies can be proven."

So is opinion without a place in journalism? No, not entirely according to the panel. "If we are willing to say from the start that we have an agenda in our reporting, then it's journalist and it's honest," Fancher said.

And this is where blogs come in. As panelist Mike Hunsacker said, this is why blogs are so rich. "They give us the ability to dig deep into the material," Hunsacker said. "You aren't just verifying and attributing sources. You can take your readers directly to the source, show them the documents and the interviews and let them see for themselves."

While I stated earlier that new technology could be driving readers away from good journalism, Fancher noted that so many good things can come of technology and journalism, mainly because of the blog. "In the digital world, there is the opportunity to layer and layer information," he said. In the interactive internet world, the opportunities are wonderful but we have to seize them."

Not only can they layer your stories, bloggers also have the ability to post news every minute of every day. Not many newspapers can do that. However, journalist bloggers must have the same level of truth and accuracy as traditional journalists. Otherwise, their opinions are no different than anyone else's -- and we all know what they say about opinions.

"Newspapers are an important part of our lives, not to read, of course, but, when you're moving you can't wrap your dishes in a blog."
Stephen T. Colbert, host, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," 2009

The First Amendment Center posted this quote on facebook this morning and I had to share it. It's true -- newspapers are versatile. They double as coffee coasters, blankets, bubble wrap, and let's not forget that kidnappers couldn't write ransom notes without newspapers.

Rise of the Machines?

At the beginning of my blog I confessed my struggles with technology and the new direction journalism is taking. I got into this profession because of a passionate love affair with newspapers and the printed word. I would sit for ages at my desk plunking away at my antique typewriter. It was my grandmother's, who died when I was very young. She was a materialistic woman and most of her things were locked in a safe after she died. But on my 14th birthday, my grandpa brought me her typewriter. Several years later I took it to college with me and it still sits on my floor beside my desk. I only got a laptop because I had to. And thus began my aversion to technology.

In class today we were fortunate to have Ed Madison as a guest speaker, educating us on the revolutionary ipad. For about 30 minutes I was pretty enthralled with the idea of this new interactive media. Whereas before, computers isolated people -- it was such a solo activity. Now suddenly with tablets and smartphones, people are reconnecting. What was before a virtual community is now tangible. Writers and journalists can now interact with their readers and give them a "surround sound" experience. This isn't the death of the printed word, as Madison so eloquently put it, it is the marriage. And let's just say, I kind of want one.

And then I hear the make-believe tears of my neglected typewriter and suddenly I remember... Does anyone else recall The Terminator? Words like Skynet, Cyberdine Systems, Human Cyborgs? Yes, it's all a little cheesey -- but the message is the same: what happens when machines take over? Sure, you could make the argument that the new tablet is a step in the other direction -- it's reconnecting people. It's bringing us back together. But it's also encouraging us to rely on it. And relying on technology instead of people raises red flags for someone like me -- someone who has seen The Terminator one too many times.

Copyrights -- what's it all about?

Soon after adorning my blog with images found offline, I was informed by Associate Professor Scott Mair that everything that takes a form is copyrighted. In other words, one needs permission to use pictures, words, artwork, or photographs. But, surely if you can download something from off Google, it's ok to use? Apparently not.

However there are exceptions to the rule -- the fair use doctrine. The rules to this rule seem kind of confusing though too -- as confusing as copyrighted material. Copyright.gov puts it like this, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation."

Fair use includes things like for educational purposes, or as long as you only use a portion of the piece. You can read the rules here. Apparently attributing your sources isn't good enough. From the looks of things, fair use might not be good enough either.

The National Union of Journalists recently reviewed Ian Hargreaves' Report on Copyright. According to journalist and blogger Jon Slattery, it got mixed reviews but freelance organizer John Toner said,“We are pleased that the report rejects the so-called ‘fair use’ doctrine which is based on questionable notions of fairness. The doctrine, which comes from United States law, permits the use of a creator’s work without permission and requires potentially huge legal costs for a successful challenge."

The review puts Google on the spot -- more importantly how Google claims that scanning millions of books is fair use.

But is this report really going to improve freelance journalism, like the NUJ claims? Journalists will have more protection of their own works, but less access to other material that can enhance their own material. While this might not directly affect journalists in the US, it's always worth knowing other countries' rules on copyright laws.

Jenni Russell wins 2011 Orwell Prize for Journalism

If you haven't guessed by now, I am a little George Orwell obsessed. So when I read that Jenni Russell won the 2011 Orwell Prize for Journalism, I had to check out her work.

The Orwell Prize for Journalism is a British prize for political writing founded in 1993. Three prizes are awarded each year, one for a book, one for journalism and one for blogging. The winners are those who come the closest to Orwell's ambition of making political writing into an art. Orwell's own adopted son sponsors the prize. As a newbie blogger and a student of journalism, I think I just found a new goal for myself.

Russell is a British columnist and broadcaster. She writes for the Evening Standard as well as the Sunday Times and the Guardian. And she has two kids on top of that. Her son submitted several samples of her work to be considered for the prize. After reading a few of her pieces, I find her style of writing somewhat fascinating -- I think Orwell would appreciate her efforts of uncovering truth with an artistic balance.

I also thought it was interesting what Jon Slattery had to say about the contest -- or rather what judge Martin Bright had to say about the direction journalism has gone. He said it's almost impossible for young journalists to break into the field without offering to work for free and knowing all the right people.

Here are some samples of Russel's work:

Speak up, Nick, or We'll Think the Worst

The Selfish Generation

"Reasonable" expectations of privacy

Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis coined the phrase, ‘the right to be left alone.’ Apparently, in the year 1890, there were various troubling things to them that were impeding on personal property of individuals. Imagine if they could only see the world today.

First of all, people have embraced (sometimes with open arms) their lack of privacy. The world is an increasingly smaller place with fewer holes to hide in. This would be disturbing to Warren and Brandeis but how many of us really care?

When I Google my name, the first listing is my Facebook. The third listing is my ex-boyfriend’s Myspace. If I click on images, there are literally dozens of pictures of me that Google has pulled from my Facebook. And not just me, but my sisters, my friends, and even friends of my friends whom I don’t even know personally. So these social networking sites must not be that secure right? But so many of us don’t really care. My only halfhearted attempt at privacy is using my name that only my friend’s know I go by. If you Google just Sarah Moser, you won’t find a single picture of me. So maybe I do care a little bit.

My freshman year in college, I had a professor who warned us about social networking. Apparently burglars will create fake Facebook accounts and add people in their area, usually young women. Those young women tend to through parties, and post pictures of said parties. These pictures give the burglar clues to the inside of the house, as well has what kinds of things he can find there. Moral of the story: don’t put pictures of your house, your house’s location, your phone number or anything that can identify you and make you vulnerable.

Fortunately, we are grateful to live in a country that does recognize privacy to a certain extent. It’s what’s called a reasonable expectation of privacy. The more public a person you are, the less privacy you get to reasonably expect. The more public of a location you are in, the less privacy you can reasonably expect, as opposed to what you can expect from the comfort of your own home. So let’s say you are a non-public person, sitting on your couch at home, playing on Facebook. You are at home, so the expectation of privacy is pretty high. But you are also online, and suddenly you are bringing in a whole virtual world that Warren and Brandeis knew nothing about. Sure, you might be at home, but virtually you are in a hub bub of social activity. Think of it like the mall, or a park, or on a street downtown. Suddenly you aren’t alone anymore and how you act, or the things you might say, will be different than how you would act or talk while being at your house. This is what you need to understand about the online world – it is a public place. People can see you, hear you, follow you, and talk to you. You are not alone. So the reasonable expectation of privacy might not be what you thought it was. In light of that, take caution in the things you do online – because people can see you just as if you were shopping at the mall. If you have no problem wearing that skimpy bikini to the mall, or telling everyone about how you had too much to drink last night, then you might not have to evaluate your online behavior. But if that doesn’t sound like you, keep in mind that is exactly what you are doing online.

We the ppl

The other day I was standing in the kitchen of the retirement home I work at, talking to a fellow server. She, like me, is a student at the University of Oregon. While I can’t recall the context of the conversation exactly, I will never forget when she said that, “other ppl involved in the situation might think differently.”

Now, you might be wondering why I chose to abbreviate people. That seems rather unprofessional, right? You would never use such abbreviations when writing an article, or a paper to a professor, or a professional email, or while talking… Would you? Apparently not. Because that’s exactly what my co-worker did. She abbreviated ‘people’ while talking to me.

I want you now to say a sentence (maybe something like, ‘we the people’) but try abbreviating people. ‘We the ppl.’ It seriously takes more work to say ‘ppl’ than ‘people.’ Of course this isn’t the case in texting, which is why to my dismay, text messaging lingo was invented.

I never use text messaging lingo. I spell out all my ‘you’s,’ ‘see’s,’ ‘be’s’ and I will always ‘be right back,’ but never ‘brb.’ Honestly, my text messages usually follow AP Style. On top of that, I don’t text people that use this type of lingo and slang, because it drives me crazy. When did it become ok to spell night ‘nite?’ The word ‘cause’ is already a slang of ‘because,’ so what is up with ‘cuz?’

The truth of the matter is, I think text messaging lingo is almost dangerous to our society. Words are becoming extinct, and others are evolving into something far less sophisticated than what they started out as. When it becomes socially acceptable to use slang and abbreviations in emails, texts, and status updates, pretty soon it crosses over into college papers and every day speech. It kills off other, properly spelled words.

Words with more than three syllables practically live in a figurative museum. Let’s take a group of high school (or even college) kids and ask them to read the Declaration of Independence. Or The Constitution. It’s as if it is written in a different language! No one talks like that anymore – those words don’t even exist. Is this really for the better? If the founders of the Constitution were writing it today, it would undoubtedly read, ‘We the ppl.’

The worst thing about this all is that the demise of the English Language was predicted over 60 years ago by a man named George Orwell in his novel 1984. In the book, a new language is emerging called Newspeak. It is a reduced and simplified version of the language, getting rid of any superfluous and unnecessary words. We do this today – instead of saying something is more fun, it becomes funner. We don’t say it’s not fun, we say it’s unfun. It cannot be denied we are getting dangerously close to Newspeak via text messaging, and further away from our country’s heritage. And when no one can understand the Constitution anymore, who will be there to interpret it for us? IDK, but OMG Im sure we the ppl wont b the 1s.

Here are some videos to watch to prove my point a little more:

Me, Myself and I

Things we Say Wrong

Are Journalists human?

It seems like a silly question. Of course journalists are human. But should they be allowed to act like humans? I read an article posted by the New York Times just a few days ago. The author, Mathew Ingram, was critiquing a new standard for journalists by the American Society of News Editors. In a nut shell, journalists should refrain from social networking. This could mean anything from twitter to Facebook and even Myspace (which is still around I am told).

There have been cases of news editors and reporters losing their jobs over something they tweeted. Does anyone remember the video of President Obama calling Kanye West a jackass after he interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the VMA awards? That video was hilarious – it was such a real moment from the President but we only know about it because Terry Moran, a former White House Correspondant who worked for ABC tweeted it. The network immediately apologized for its employee’s careless behavior.

Apparently, Moran should have apologized for being human. If I were in the same room as the President and heard him say that, I would of course go and tell all my friends and family. It was funny. That’s exactly what this guy did, he also jut told all of his followers on Twitter. Apparently this is bad? Are we as journalists not allowed to separate our social lives from our professional lives? Maybe not, when so many headlines and stories are broken over social media networks (take, for example, the killing of Bin Laden). As a journalist trying to stay on the ball, you would be open to these social media, find your sources and get updated regularly on what’s going on.

So where does that leave a personal life? Or opinions? As journalists, are we working 24-7? Is there never a break? I guess you could answer this question by saying keep a journal; a blog could work too but still people can access your blog. Personally, I think it’s all a little over the top. Journalists are trained to report the facts. That doesn’t mean we don’t have opinions, we just tend to not let them show in our stories. But having something to say on an issue shouldn’t get you fired from your job. Being a social person shouldn’t be a bad thing. I am very perplexed by this whole issue to be honest. I agreed to be a journalist but I didn’t agree to give up my life. Or have feelings, opinions and emotions.

What if being a human being is what makes me a better writer? What if crying with the mom whose son has brain cancer, helps me write a better story? I am not a brick wall. I don’t think journalists should be. We should care about what we are writing about, have passion, have motivation and cry a little if you need to. This isn’t George Orwell’s 1984 – yet anyway. We are still allowed to be people and express ourselves.

Waiting for the big one

Last week in class, we got to skype with Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen K. Doig.

Doig was somewhat of a pioneer for Computer Assisted Reporting almost 20 years ago. It was interesting to hear about how things have changed over two decades. Doig said that if writing 'The Big One' today, initially the core question of the investigation – was this an act of God or something preventable – would still be the same. However what took almost three months to produce could be done in days. These days the data is easier to get to, more things are available electronically and the computer power is much stronger. But it is the inquisitive nature of a journalist that hasn’t changed.

Essentially Doig just had an interest in doing a data based story. He had no backgrounds in computers, just a little curiosity. It’s refreshing to know that one doesn’t have to have a background in math or science to be successful at computer assisted reporting. All you have to have is an interest in computers.

However, stories have to go a little further than having an interest. There has to be an element of human interest. If people don’t care about your story, why bother writing it? In this case, Doig found a story he knew was important to people and that’s why it was successful.

Doig also had things to say about what skills journalists need today. “Despite all talk of modern technology, computer assisted analysis does not replace traditional journalism; going out and talking to people,” he said. “They are vitally important.”

He encouraged every reporter to have passing knowledge of spreadsheets such as Microsoft excel. “Using paper is doing it the hard way,” he said. “Eighty-90 percent of stories can be doing using excel.”

However, Doig also said not to panic if you are not an expert. “No matter what beat you wind up doing, you will be working in an environment where basic data skills will be required,” he said. “There is a demand in journalism no matter what form. There are so many options for being a master in journalism – you don’t need to use all of them. Find the tools you are comfortable with, get good at them and find the opportunities to use them. You will wind up in the place you are meant to be.”