What journalists can learn from "The Daily Show"

This is a very old clip, but I think the issues raised are still relevant, particularly in an election year. I have said in posts here and on other blogs that I am concerned that with the 24-hour news cycle, it is becoming more difficult to find reporting that actually takes an honest, critical look at news stories. This video, which I'm sure you have all seen, is one of the most brilliant and scathing commentaries on how partisan bickering actually hurts the political process. I'll let Jon Stewart take it from here (more on my views after the jump) ...

Last year, a study at Indiana University found that determined that "The Daily Show" has as much "real" news content as channels such as CNN. I remember having debates in class over whether the show qualified as "real journalism." My argument was then and is now that an understanding of current events is necessary to understand "The Daily Show," and that most of the people I know who watch the show are far more informed than those who do not follow the news at all. I would never make a case for relying entirely on a comedy show for news, but I do think there's something to be said for the way this particular show presents information. "The Daily Show" covers real news events — it just does so in a way that makes it possible to cut right to the chase and say what is missing from a story or to point out the absurdity of a situation. Because there is not pretense of objectivity, Jon Stewart is able to be honest with viewers about what he thinks is wrong with something the government is doing. The difference between Jon Stewart and partisan "journalists" is that Stewart does not pretend to be objective or balanced.

While trying to find a copy of the study in question (if anyone has one, I'd love to have a copy), I found a good article from American Journalism Review that discusses what journalists can learn from "The Daily Show" model. The author, Rachel Smolkin, presents the idea that "The Daily Show" is often better at getting to the truth because the writers are not afraid to express outrage or to flat-out say that politicians are lying (often, she writes, using politicians' own words to highlight when they are lying).

One of the sources in this article is a journalism professor named Hub Brown who, Smolkin writes, was initially "appalled" that his students enjoyed "The Daily Show," but is now a convert. Brown is quoted discussing the idea that willingness of "Daily Show" writers to call politicians out for their mistakes is what sometimes makes it more honest than other media outlets, and I think this quote sums up why I think "The Daily Show" is a good model for other journalists.

"We saw a lot of that during Hurricane Katrina, but it shouldn't take a Hurricane Katrina to get journalists to say the truth, to call it as they see it," Brown says. "The thing that makes 'The Daily Show' stick out is they sometimes seem to understand that better than the networks do." He adds: "I think it's valuable because when the emperor has no clothes, we get to say the emperor has no clothes. And we have to do that more often here... The truth itself doesn't respect point of view. The truth is never balanced... We have to not give in to an atmosphere that's become so partisan that we're afraid of what we say every single time we say something."

.

Read more On "What journalists can learn from "The Daily Show""!

Journalists and Facebook

This month's issue of the American Journalism Review has an interesting article on the use of Facebook and other social networking sites as journalistic tools. The story discusses the recent trend of professional journalists signing up for Facebook profiles as a way of connecting with each other and finding sources. Some of those interviewed say they use Facebook for fun but do not see it as a good journalistic tool. While I have no way of knowing how the site will serve me in the professional world, it is an incredibly useful tool in my newsroom.

As a college reporter, I've become accustomed to using Facebook as a way of tracking down sources for every type of story. Many students who "opt out" of the school's directory post their phone numbers right on Facebook, and those who list their interests in pubic profiles are often easy targets for Emerald reporters looking for sources. I've used it to track down members of the various student unions, find students in a specific major or simply find people with a shared interest.

We have also used Facebook as a tool in cases where we've had to report on tragedies. For example, in his excellent coverage of the plane that disappeared near Indonesia (of the three Americans on board, two were U of O students), Eric Florip was able to use Facebook as a way of getting in touch with friends of the UO students and quoted people who had posted on the girls' "walls." Another reporter, Tess McBride, also cited Facebook in her profiles of the students . In a story that gained worldwide attention, it was difficult to get in touch with people who knew these girls, but Facebook was one way to do so. I can imagine that the site would be useful if, God forbid, there should ever be a shooting on campus. It would be a way for students around campus to quickly update one another and for the reporters to find out where their peers were at the time. It could also be a good way of gaining some insight into the personal life of any shooter. ...

One of the sources in the AJR story, Phillip Blanchard of the Washington Post, is quoted as saying he does not think Facebook is a useful journalistic Tool because he worries about the potential of fraud. He is quoted as saying "'People aren't always who they seem to be. For example, you can't even be sure who I am. ... Verification is very important in journalism, which apparently is being forgotten a lot, or never learned.'"

As an interesting side note, I will point out that Phillip Blanchard is one of my Facebook friends. I have never met him, but he sent me a friend request when I was working as a copy editing intern in Washington, D.C. Occasionally, he'll post links or questions on Facebook and the posting shows up on my "news feed." I joined a discussion forum called "Testy Copy Editors" that Blanchard moderates and in one discussion thread, someone said that a good reason to go to the American Copy Editors Society conference is the opportunity to hear John Russial speak. It's interesting how the Internet can be used as a tool for making those types of connections.

While I do see the potential for fraud in finding sources online, I have some confidence that people on Facebook are who they claim to be. I wouldn't recommend that teenage girls go meet up with people claiming to be teenage boys, but I think that the type of people who would respond to a journalist's request are probably fairly honest in their profiles.

Admittedly, it is hard to figure out what's real and what isn't since Facebook relies on people to self-report their interests/affiliations; however, I think that people generally report those things truthfully. I also think that if I track down someone for an interview, it will be easy to tell whether they're telling the truth about who they are. Facebook is a way of finding out what people's affiliations or interests are, but you should still try to verify who the person is. It's possible that I am more trusting of Facebook than Blanchard simply because of my age and the fact that Facebook was created for college students and I know how people talk about it, but I do think it's a great tool.

Read more On "Journalists and Facebook"!