The Power of Published Words in Media

undefined
 
Editors
 
And the bigger picture
 
Words have power
 
Mass media professionals sometimes don’t
realize the power of published words.
Words give us credibility and permanency.
People believe because it was “published in
a book.”
 
Publications
 
People tend to presume a statement must
be valid because it was published
somewhere, even if they don’t remember
where.
When students or scholars do research, they
presume that adding a reference
automatically gives credibility:
According to recent research, the sun revolves
around the earth (Nern, 2014).
 
References
 
Most people don’t bother to look up
references, but take their credibility for
granted.
But if you looked up the Nern reference, you
might find it is from the 
Journal of the Flat
Earth Society.
 
Credibility
 
Is that reference credible?
You can decide, but the point is that
publication gives statements more
authority—no matter where they are
published.
Maybe we think we’re skeptical of published
material. But often we’re not.
 
Skeptical readers
 
An article in a French publication quoted a
supposed skeptic ridiculing another’s
opinion by saying, “That’s just one of those
ridiculous things you read in the
newspaper!”
A few statements later, he said of his own
opinion, “Oh, I know it’s true. I read it in the
newspaper.”
I think nowadays we could sometimes say
the same thing regarding online publication.
 
Responsibility
 
Ethical media professionals have a
responsibility to carefully consider what they
are publishing.
We can begin by learning to identify three
kinds of statements:
Facts.
Interpretations.
Judgments.
 
Facts
 
A fact is a verifiably true statement made by
a writer or by someone quoted—that is, a
source.
By the writer:
The weather yesterday was bright and sunny in
Fargo.
This is an easily verifiable fact.
 
Facts
 
By someone else, quoted:
It was a bright and sunny day yesterday on
Minnesota’s Big Detroit Lake, according to
mayor Sandy Bietsch.
The reporter may not have been there, but
it’s still verifiable by consulting weather
reports or asking other people who were
there.
 
Facts
 
How about this?
It will be sunny tomorrow, according to chief
meteorologist Erv N. Nern.
It’s verifiable in that the writer could
probably prove Nern said it.
It’s not verifiable in that tomorrow hasn’t
arrived.
But it soon will be verifiable.
 
Facts
 
We rely on the facts of the sentence above
by examining the credibility of the source.
 In this case, we can presume a
meteorologist would make a prediction
based on scientific methods of analysis
proven to be generally accurate.
 
Facts
 
How about this, then?
It will be sunny tomorrow, according to Ross
Collins, professor of communication.
Fact? Here we have to question the
credibility of the source.
One thing is certain: it soon will be easy to
verify.
 
Facts and sources
 
Facts attributed to a source who is quoted
or paraphrased: this is the most common
way of presenting information in the mass
media.
But these statements depend not only on an
objective ability to verify, but also on the
credibility of the source.
 
Facts and sources
 
This means if a media writer says something
published is a “fact” because “the source
was quoted accurately,” she or he is missing
the point.
Readers presume the quote is accurate. But
they still need to know if the fact that was
asserted by the source is accurate.
Nowadays many of us believe ethical
journalists have some responsibility to
evaluate “facts” proposed by sources.
 
Verification
 
That means most often that journalists should
try to verify the fact.
Most often facts are easy to verify.
Note: “fact checkers” who go through
stories on large publications will verify facts
by making sure the source is correctly
quoted.
They will not necessarily verify that the
material in the quote is correct.
 
Interpretations
 
Interpretations are comments based on
facts.
Often these are made by the writer
following a quote from a source.
“It was bright and sunny yesterday,” said
Detroit Lakes mayor Sandy Bietsch, giving
boaters and anglers the opportunity to
enjoy a relaxing day on the lake.
 
Interpretations
 
Sounds like a pretty safe interpretation. But is it
true? Not necessarily.
Maybe it was too hot to go boating.
Maybe the fish weren’t biting.
Maybe water skiers bothered anglers and
the noise ruined the day for everyone.
Far-fetched? Perhaps. But interpretation is a
guess. We can’t really say everybody on the
lake enjoyed the day, not objectively.
 
Interpretations
 
Interpretations can get tricky, particularly in
more complex stories. What if I write:
Crime on campus has increased 20 percent in
one year, making the university a less safe
place for students.
The first part of this sentence is a fact based
on verifiable statistics. The second part is an
interpretation.
But is it a reasonable interpretation?
 
Interpretations
 
Maybe it’s reasonable, maybe it’s not.
If crime on campus consisted of three locker
thefts and two cases of car vandalism, and
it went up to four locker thefts and two
vandalism cases the next year, would you
feel less safe?
On a campus of 5,000 students? How about
15,000? How about 50,000?
 
Interpretations
 
Interpretations can suggest a judgment. A
judgment is a statement which indicates
something is good or bad.
Supposedly in “news” writing we are taught
to avoid judgments. This is, we only write
“opinions,” saying something is good or bad,
in columns or blogs.
 
Interpretation/judgment
 
It was a really nice day on the lake yesterday,
according to Detroit Lakes Mayor Sandy
Bietsch.
Did Sandy say this? No, she said it was bright
and sunny. The writer presumed that was a
good thing, and made a judgment. But not
everyone likes sun.
 
Interpretation/judgment
 
One of the tricky interpretations common in
journalism is the fully/only conundrum. For
example, I write:
Crime at the university has increased fully 20
percent in just one year.
The word “fully” suggests an interpretation,
as does the word “just.”
 
Interpretation/judgment
 
How about this?
Crime at the university has increased only 20
percent during the entire year.
Just two words changed, but a pretty
different statement.
 
Hiding judgments
 
Journalists can’t ethically include judgments
in an “objective” news story. But they can
disguise judgments as interpretations based
on interviews with sources.
How? Let’s offer an example.
 
Hiding judgments
 
A reporter interviews four people on campus
reasonably well qualified to speak about
crime: the campus police chief, the vice
president for student affairs, the student
senate president, and the chief of the city’s
police force downtown.
Three out of four say a 20 percent increase
in crime is not a very noteworthy amount.
 
Hiding judgments
 
The campus chief says, “While we would like
to see zero crime on campus, this represents
very few crimes, after all, and the increase
might just be a coincidence.”
But the student senate president does not
agree: “I really think campus crime should
be zero. Not only do we have some
worrisome crimes—three thefts is three too
many—but crimes seems to be increasing,
not going down.”
 
Hiding judgments
 
How does the writer reflect this difference of
opinion among sources?
If you as the writer believe crime trends are
worrisome, you have a handy way to report
it without saying it yourself:
 
Hiding judgments
 
The uptick in crime on campus is a real concern,
according to Student Senate President Irving Nern.
Regarding the 20 percent increase in just one year,
Nern said, “Not only do we have some worrisome
crimes—three thefts is three too many—but crimes
seems to be increasing, not going down.”
University administrators and law enforcement
officials were not as convinced that the increase is
meaningful. But campus police chief Iva Badge did
note, “We would like to see zero crime on campus.”
 
Facts?
 
Do you feel that accurately represents the
facts as collected by the reporter?
One thing is certain: No one was misquoted.
Every word presented was exactly what
they said.
The interpretation, however, is what’s
important here, and the suggested
judgment.
Obviously, you could turn around this story
to reflect the “only” interpretation as well.
 
Judgment
 
A judgment is clearly good or bad.
According to accepted news values, a
writer can’t say in a news story:
It will be a nice sunny day tomorrow on Big
Detroit Lake.
The word “nice” is a judgment, good/bad.
 
Judgment
 
But the writer can find someone else to
quote reflecting the judgment he or she
would like to see:
“It will be a darned fine day a the lake
tomorrow,” said letter carrier Stan P. Cancel. “I
wish I didn’t have to work.”
 
Fact and ethics
 
The complexities of facts, interpretations
and judgments challenge editors. How do
they respond?
Some editors tell reporters what kind of story
they want even before the reporter leaves
the office.
That is, the reporter’s interpretation is
dictated before the event.
 
Facts and ethics
 
Other editors let the reporters decide how to
cover the story.
Reporters would like to claim this is more
ethical, because you can’t know what the
story is about until you cover it.
Let us point out, too, that a good share of
academic research begins with a point of
view.
It is part of the challenge of mass media
“objectivity.”
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Media professionals often underestimate the influence words published hold over credibility, permanency, and authority. Readers tend to trust published statements without verifying sources, assuming credibility. Ethical responsibility lies in distinguishing among facts, interpretations, and judgments in media content.

  • Media
  • Credibility
  • Journalism
  • Ethics
  • Influence

Uploaded on Aug 23, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Editors And the bigger picture

  2. Words have power Mass media professionals sometimes don t realize the power of published words. Words give us credibility and permanency. People believe because it was published in a book.

  3. Publications People tend to presume a statement must be valid because it was published somewhere, even if they don t remember where. When students or scholars do research, they presume that adding a reference automatically gives credibility: According to recent research, the sun revolves around the earth (Nern, 2014).

  4. References Most people don t bother to look up references, but take their credibility for granted. But if you looked up the Nern reference, you might find it is from the Journal of the Flat Earth Society.

  5. Credibility Is that reference credible? You can decide, but the point is that publication gives statements more authority no matter where they are published. Maybe we think we re skeptical of published material. But often we re not.

  6. Skeptical readers An article in a French publication quoted a supposed skeptic ridiculing another s opinion by saying, That s just one of those ridiculous things you read in the newspaper! A few statements later, he said of his own opinion, Oh, I know it s true. I read it in the newspaper. I think nowadays we could sometimes say the same thing regarding online publication.

  7. Responsibility Ethical media professionals have a responsibility to carefully consider what they are publishing. We can begin by learning to identify three kinds of statements: Facts. Interpretations. Judgments.

  8. Facts A fact is a verifiably true statement made by a writer or by someone quoted that is, a source. By the writer: The weather yesterday was bright and sunny in Fargo. This is an easily verifiable fact.

  9. Facts By someone else, quoted: It was a bright and sunny day yesterday on Minnesota s Big Detroit Lake, according to mayor Sandy Bietsch. The reporter may not have been there, but it s still verifiable by consulting weather reports or asking other people who were there.

  10. Facts How about this? It will be sunny tomorrow, according to chief meteorologist Erv N. Nern. It s verifiable in that the writer could probably prove Nern said it. It s not verifiable in that tomorrow hasn t arrived. But it soon will be verifiable.

  11. Facts We rely on the facts of the sentence above by examining the credibility of the source. In this case, we can presume a meteorologist would make a prediction based on scientific methods of analysis proven to be generally accurate.

  12. Facts How about this, then? It will be sunny tomorrow, according to Ross Collins, professor of communication. Fact? Here we have to question the credibility of the source. One thing is certain: it soon will be easy to verify.

  13. Facts and sources Facts attributed to a source who is quoted or paraphrased: this is the most common way of presenting information in the mass media. But these statements depend not only on an objective ability to verify, but also on the credibility of the source.

  14. Facts and sources This means if a media writer says something published is a fact because the source was quoted accurately, she or he is missing the point. Readers presume the quote is accurate. But they still need to know if the fact that was asserted by the source is accurate. Nowadays many of us believe ethical journalists have some responsibility to evaluate facts proposed by sources.

  15. Verification That means most often that journalists should try to verify the fact. Most often facts are easy to verify. Note: fact checkers who go through stories on large publications will verify facts by making sure the source is correctly quoted. They will not necessarily verify that the material in the quote is correct.

  16. Interpretations Interpretations are comments based on facts. Often these are made by the writer following a quote from a source. It was bright and sunny yesterday, said Detroit Lakes mayor Sandy Bietsch, giving boaters and anglers the opportunity to enjoy a relaxing day on the lake.

  17. Interpretations Sounds like a pretty safe interpretation. But is it true? Not necessarily. Maybe it was too hot to go boating. Maybe the fish weren t biting. Maybe water skiers bothered anglers and the noise ruined the day for everyone. Far-fetched? Perhaps. But interpretation is a guess. We can t really say everybody on the lake enjoyed the day, not objectively.

  18. Interpretations Interpretations can get tricky, particularly in more complex stories. What if I write: Crime on campus has increased 20 percent in one year, making the university a less safe place for students. The first part of this sentence is a fact based on verifiable statistics. The second part is an interpretation. But is it a reasonable interpretation?

  19. Interpretations Maybe it s reasonable, maybe it s not. If crime on campus consisted of three locker thefts and two cases of car vandalism, and it went up to four locker thefts and two vandalism cases the next year, would you feel less safe? On a campus of 5,000 students? How about 15,000? How about 50,000?

  20. Interpretations Interpretations can suggest a judgment. A judgment is a statement which indicates something is good or bad. Supposedly in news writing we are taught to avoid judgments. This is, we only write opinions, saying something is good or bad, in columns or blogs.

  21. Interpretation/judgment It was a really nice day on the lake yesterday, according to Detroit Lakes Mayor Sandy Bietsch. Did Sandy say this? No, she said it was bright and sunny. The writer presumed that was a good thing, and made a judgment. But not everyone likes sun.

  22. Interpretation/judgment One of the tricky interpretations common in journalism is the fully/only conundrum. For example, I write: Crime at the university has increased fully 20 percent in just one year. The word fully suggests an interpretation, as does the word just.

  23. Interpretation/judgment How about this? Crime at the university has increased only 20 percent during the entire year. Just two words changed, but a pretty different statement.

  24. Hiding judgments Journalists can t ethically include judgments in an objective news story. But they can disguise judgments as interpretations based on interviews with sources. How? Let s offer an example.

  25. Hiding judgments A reporter interviews four people on campus reasonably well qualified to speak about crime: the campus police chief, the vice president for student affairs, the student senate president, and the chief of the city s police force downtown. Three out of four say a 20 percent increase in crime is not a very noteworthy amount.

  26. Hiding judgments The campus chief says, While we would like to see zero crime on campus, this represents very few crimes, after all, and the increase might just be a coincidence. But the student senate president does not agree: I really think campus crime should be zero. Not only do we have some worrisome crimes three thefts is three too many but crimes seems to be increasing, not going down.

  27. Hiding judgments How does the writer reflect this difference of opinion among sources? If you as the writer believe crime trends are worrisome, you have a handy way to report it without saying it yourself:

  28. Hiding judgments The uptick in crime on campus is a real concern, according to Student Senate President Irving Nern. Regarding the 20 percent increase in just one year, Nern said, Not only do we have some worrisome crimes three thefts is three too many but crimes seems to be increasing, not going down. University administrators and law enforcement officials were not as convinced that the increase is meaningful. But campus police chief Iva Badge did note, We would like to see zero crime on campus.

  29. Facts? Do you feel that accurately represents the facts as collected by the reporter? One thing is certain: No one was misquoted. Every word presented was exactly what they said. The interpretation, however, is what s important here, and the suggested judgment. Obviously, you could turn around this story to reflect the only interpretation as well.

  30. Judgment A judgment is clearly good or bad. According to accepted news values, a writer can t say in a news story: It will be a nice sunny day tomorrow on Big Detroit Lake. The word nice is a judgment, good/bad.

  31. Judgment But the writer can find someone else to quote reflecting the judgment he or she would like to see: It will be a darned fine day a the lake tomorrow, said letter carrier Stan P. Cancel. I wish I didn t have to work.

  32. Fact and ethics The complexities of facts, interpretations and judgments challenge editors. How do they respond? Some editors tell reporters what kind of story they want even before the reporter leaves the office. That is, the reporter s interpretation is dictated before the event.

  33. Facts and ethics Other editors let the reporters decide how to cover the story. Reporters would like to claim this is more ethical, because you can t know what the story is about until you cover it. Let us point out, too, that a good share of academic research begins with a point of view. It is part of the challenge of mass media objectivity.

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#