"Rule 23" was the title of one of the blogs I wrote about the new revisions to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
The Rules are a reference to a set of rules often quoted by the character of Leroy Jethro Gibbs, the crusty federal agent played by that heartthrob of my youth, Mark Harmon, on the TV show NCIS. Rule 23 is "never get between a Marine and his coffee."
I promised in that earlier blog to explain two other rules and their relevance to journalism.
Rule 9 is "always carry a knife."
This could have relevance to journalists for several reasons.
For one, we find ourselves in sketchy territory -- think New Brunswick after dark. Also, assuming the knife is of the Swiss Army variety, it can come in handy in other ways.
After all, we underpaid ink-stained wretches tend to drive our cars (which were not new when we bought them) into the ground and often need quick repairs. I have used the screwdriver feature to replace a door handle.
And, face it, even in this allegedly enlightened era, men think more highly of women who can use tools.
Rule 10 is even more relevant.
Rule 10 admonishes us not to become personally involved.
That's a tough one.
Sometimes we just get sucked in to people's lives and we have to push it aside. And have a drink.
It's not always though when you might think it is. The stories of pathos -- illness, injury and death -- may just role off. If that makes reporters sound callous and cynical, well, we develop a hard shell because we have to.
But, sometimes what seems like a little thing really hits home. I'm thinking of a fatal fire in New York City some years ago. It was on the TV news. A little boy rs standing to the side of the reporter, just in camera range. He is crying, as are his parents, who know the grandmother has died in the fire. suddenly, the little boy, who is facing the stoop, starts to smile and the cameraman moves his shot toward a fireman coming down the brick steps carrying a big ginger tabby cat. The boy takes the cat and all of a sudden the fireman and the reporter are both getting choked up. It's not that they believe the cat is more important than the grandmother, it's the shift in the atmosphere and the look on the kid's face.
That's generally how it happens. It's not the whole story, it's a moment that catches you off guard.
So, Rule 10. A tough rule to follow.
27 December 2014
18 December 2014
Schadenfreude is a Lovely Word
Don't you love the German language? The way there is a single word for things that require a sentence or two in other languages.
One of my favorites of these is Schadenfreude -- literally, joy at misfortune. In practice, joy at the misfortune of others.
Oh, come on, we all feel it occasionally.
The Society of Professional Journalists newly revised Code of Ethics calls on us to "expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organization."
That part can be tough. We relish (oh, admit it) exposing unethical conduct in someone not within our organization. But one of our own?
We gotta do it.
I stumbled across a breech of ethics once. Totally by accident. My grandfather was ill, so I was driving back and forth from Hackettstown to Staten Island whenever I could. I would stay over at my Aunt's house. One night I couldn't sleep so I went hunting for some reading material. I found a Redbook magazine. On Monday morning, I picked up a copy of our paper and saw a story by one of reporters that had some very familiar statistics in it. Worded exactly the same way. I told my editor and called my aunt from his office, since I didn't remember the date of the issue. I did remember the cover and she found it. The editor went up to the town library to check it out. He fired the reporter as soon as he got back. She smirked at told him she was quitting anyway because she'd been offered a better job. Naturally, the editor called her new employer.
Karma can be a bitch.
It's not always that easy, but it's always that necessary.
Even when there are consequences.
One of my favorites of these is Schadenfreude -- literally, joy at misfortune. In practice, joy at the misfortune of others.
Oh, come on, we all feel it occasionally.
The Society of Professional Journalists newly revised Code of Ethics calls on us to "expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organization."
That part can be tough. We relish (oh, admit it) exposing unethical conduct in someone not within our organization. But one of our own?
We gotta do it.
I stumbled across a breech of ethics once. Totally by accident. My grandfather was ill, so I was driving back and forth from Hackettstown to Staten Island whenever I could. I would stay over at my Aunt's house. One night I couldn't sleep so I went hunting for some reading material. I found a Redbook magazine. On Monday morning, I picked up a copy of our paper and saw a story by one of reporters that had some very familiar statistics in it. Worded exactly the same way. I told my editor and called my aunt from his office, since I didn't remember the date of the issue. I did remember the cover and she found it. The editor went up to the town library to check it out. He fired the reporter as soon as he got back. She smirked at told him she was quitting anyway because she'd been offered a better job. Naturally, the editor called her new employer.
Karma can be a bitch.
It's not always that easy, but it's always that necessary.
Even when there are consequences.
16 December 2014
Practically Perfect in Every Way
When I wrote this headline, I realized not everyone reading this column may not raised little girls who danced and watched the movie Mary Poppins until the VCR tape disintigrated. Mary Poppins, at least as portrayed by Julie Andrews in the movie always said she was "practically perfect in every way."
And, of course, journalists tend to feel that way too. If we didn't have egos, we'd have become farriers or middle school history teachers.
But, we all make mistakes and one thing we know is the importance of "acknowledging mistakes and correcting them promptly and prominently." Those are words from the newly revised Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics which remind us of what we must do. And, maybe some people need that reminder.
Most of the mistakes are small-ish. I always ask "are you a C Cathy or a K Kathy?" And, since my younger daughter has one of the most commonly misspelled names (because of the number of possibilities), I really think about it. But, at a planning board meeting, when a new member was sworn in, I asked a council woman who was sitting next to me if he was a c Marc or a k Mark. She answered, "he's Jewish," to I wrote Marc. It's Mark.
Of course, it was easy to correct.
More complicated mistakes present challenges. We are urged to "explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly." One way we do that is to write "due to an editing error" or "due to a research error." We don't write "due to brain fade" or "due to a hangover," although that wouldn't surprise anyone. I once really wanted to write "because the angelic-looking little Girl Scout gave an alias," but I just corrected the name.
Sometimes the issue to where to run the correction. I'm personally in favor of a correction box in the same place every issue. Of course, that primarily applies to traditional newspapers (I promised my friend Mark Porter of the Montclair Times I wouldn't use the term "dead tree" any longer.) Like a lot of things, it gets more complicated with digital publications.
One of the common problems we've always had is when someone is arrested. We put it on the front page. Then, it turns out the perp isn't a perp at all and we bury it. There has to be a solution. Maybe as simple as a refer from the front page. Certainly a topic for further discussion.
Some corrections appear to place the blame, such as the "editing error" above. Others don't. That's tough to explain to people, but a lot has to do with how much time there is to prepare a correction. If we find out about the error right on deadline, it might be more important to get it in for the next day. Sometimes it's less than clear who's error it was. We work hard and fast.
Regardless, we have to correct any and all mistakes as soon as possible.
And, of course, journalists tend to feel that way too. If we didn't have egos, we'd have become farriers or middle school history teachers.
But, we all make mistakes and one thing we know is the importance of "acknowledging mistakes and correcting them promptly and prominently." Those are words from the newly revised Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics which remind us of what we must do. And, maybe some people need that reminder.
Most of the mistakes are small-ish. I always ask "are you a C Cathy or a K Kathy?" And, since my younger daughter has one of the most commonly misspelled names (because of the number of possibilities), I really think about it. But, at a planning board meeting, when a new member was sworn in, I asked a council woman who was sitting next to me if he was a c Marc or a k Mark. She answered, "he's Jewish," to I wrote Marc. It's Mark.
Of course, it was easy to correct.
More complicated mistakes present challenges. We are urged to "explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly." One way we do that is to write "due to an editing error" or "due to a research error." We don't write "due to brain fade" or "due to a hangover," although that wouldn't surprise anyone. I once really wanted to write "because the angelic-looking little Girl Scout gave an alias," but I just corrected the name.
Sometimes the issue to where to run the correction. I'm personally in favor of a correction box in the same place every issue. Of course, that primarily applies to traditional newspapers (I promised my friend Mark Porter of the Montclair Times I wouldn't use the term "dead tree" any longer.) Like a lot of things, it gets more complicated with digital publications.
One of the common problems we've always had is when someone is arrested. We put it on the front page. Then, it turns out the perp isn't a perp at all and we bury it. There has to be a solution. Maybe as simple as a refer from the front page. Certainly a topic for further discussion.
Some corrections appear to place the blame, such as the "editing error" above. Others don't. That's tough to explain to people, but a lot has to do with how much time there is to prepare a correction. If we find out about the error right on deadline, it might be more important to get it in for the next day. Sometimes it's less than clear who's error it was. We work hard and fast.
Regardless, we have to correct any and all mistakes as soon as possible.
15 December 2014
Going Native
"Native advertising" is just another term for advertising.
Companies hire people and pay them a lot more than we get paid to write about how wonderful the company is. Then they pay the publication a lot of money to publish it.
Advertising. Just with words rather than pictures of puppies.
The Society of Professional Journalists revised Code of Ethics cautions: "Distinguish news from advertising." Well, that was easier when ads looked like ads. I remember our production manager once dressing up as Ebeneezer Scrooge and sitting at an old desk with a pile of coins as a Christmas ad for a local bank. That was unmistakeably advertising. An extensive write-up on the anniversary of the birth control pill could be an ad in disguise. And, it may be labeled an ad, but the label may well be in 6-point type.
"Shun hybrids that blur the line between the two." Sounds good. We can only hope our publishers do just that.
"Prominently label sponsored content." See the reference to 6-point type above. And it doesn't say the reader actually reads the label.
Labeled or not, it's scary to think these people have so much money to put into their sponsored content. Barrels more than legitimate news organizations. They always have had the money, but they used to spend it on ads that looked like ads. Maybe even with puppies.
Companies hire people and pay them a lot more than we get paid to write about how wonderful the company is. Then they pay the publication a lot of money to publish it.
Advertising. Just with words rather than pictures of puppies.
The Society of Professional Journalists revised Code of Ethics cautions: "Distinguish news from advertising." Well, that was easier when ads looked like ads. I remember our production manager once dressing up as Ebeneezer Scrooge and sitting at an old desk with a pile of coins as a Christmas ad for a local bank. That was unmistakeably advertising. An extensive write-up on the anniversary of the birth control pill could be an ad in disguise. And, it may be labeled an ad, but the label may well be in 6-point type.
"Shun hybrids that blur the line between the two." Sounds good. We can only hope our publishers do just that.
"Prominently label sponsored content." See the reference to 6-point type above. And it doesn't say the reader actually reads the label.
Labeled or not, it's scary to think these people have so much money to put into their sponsored content. Barrels more than legitimate news organizations. They always have had the money, but they used to spend it on ads that looked like ads. Maybe even with puppies.
12 December 2014
Learn to Duck
The new revision of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics calls upon us to "be accountable and transparent."
Ethical journalism means taking responsiblity for one's work and explaining one's decisions to the public. We are exhorted to "explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practice, coverage and news content."
Well, we can try. We can also learn to duck when the "audience" starts every conversation with media bashing. It's getting so you can't walk into a room without somebody jumping on the anti-media bandwagon. Not long ago, I had to walk out of a church fellowship hour because a woman from my church started ranting about how the local media was in the pocket of the county freeholders. I mean, I could have stayed, but I would have been rude, an my mama taught me never to be rude in church.
That particular rant made me wonder if these media bashers actually read. Or maybe if they can read. Ok, enough kvetching. I'm sure we don't always communicate as well as we should. Especially considering we are communicators. It's basically because we don't take the time. We should, every year, on or about March 16, present a public forum to explain what we are doing to any of the public who wants to listen.
Of course, there's the rub. Does anybody want to hear? Will they listen? I guess that part of it is not our problem.
It would be great if media literacy was a required course in high school. Maybe a semester course like financial literacy. It's more complicated today. A generation ago, kids saw their parents picking up the paper off the driveway every morning. They trusted whoever their parents trusted. At first.
Some media was known to be liberal. Some was known to be conservative. But the newspapers, for the most part, were trusted.
Today, the media is bifurcated. Maybe shredded.
Creating a media literacy course would not be impossible. It would start at the level of the high school journalism class. Presumably, the students are learning about news already. A group of professionals and teachers can create a syllabus. (This may be going a little far afield for these columns, but, not too far.) We could use the ethics code as a starting point and include journalism history. Creating a pre-informed public can only help.
Ethical journalism means taking responsiblity for one's work and explaining one's decisions to the public. We are exhorted to "explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practice, coverage and news content."
Well, we can try. We can also learn to duck when the "audience" starts every conversation with media bashing. It's getting so you can't walk into a room without somebody jumping on the anti-media bandwagon. Not long ago, I had to walk out of a church fellowship hour because a woman from my church started ranting about how the local media was in the pocket of the county freeholders. I mean, I could have stayed, but I would have been rude, an my mama taught me never to be rude in church.
That particular rant made me wonder if these media bashers actually read. Or maybe if they can read. Ok, enough kvetching. I'm sure we don't always communicate as well as we should. Especially considering we are communicators. It's basically because we don't take the time. We should, every year, on or about March 16, present a public forum to explain what we are doing to any of the public who wants to listen.
Of course, there's the rub. Does anybody want to hear? Will they listen? I guess that part of it is not our problem.
It would be great if media literacy was a required course in high school. Maybe a semester course like financial literacy. It's more complicated today. A generation ago, kids saw their parents picking up the paper off the driveway every morning. They trusted whoever their parents trusted. At first.
Some media was known to be liberal. Some was known to be conservative. But the newspapers, for the most part, were trusted.
Today, the media is bifurcated. Maybe shredded.
Creating a media literacy course would not be impossible. It would start at the level of the high school journalism class. Presumably, the students are learning about news already. A group of professionals and teachers can create a syllabus. (This may be going a little far afield for these columns, but, not too far.) We could use the ethics code as a starting point and include journalism history. Creating a pre-informed public can only help.
11 December 2014
Like Caesar's Wife
We live in the real world and yet, journalists are expected to be pure as Caesar's Wife. The revisions to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics caution us about the pitfalls.
"Act independently," the code says. That's sort of ingrained in the DNA of the average journalist, actually.
"Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts."
As with many other items in the revised code, this calls for a little common sense. You don't cover the town you live in. If something happens there and you are the only one there, or the first, just do your job.
It's inevitable. You walk into a rally and an old friend from high school is carrying a placard and a megaphone. So, look for another spokesperson, even though he's following you around. With the megaphone.
We are also admonished to "refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or may damage credibility.
The idea of gifts or favors in this day and age is pretty outrageous. Nobody offers anything of value. But, if they should, you say no.
Now, if Oma Trautheimer brings in a basket of plum Danish, I wouldn't suggested turning her down. You never know about those German grandmothers.
With the hours most of us work, getting involved in anything doesn't seem even possible. Even sleep doesn't often seem possible. Or regular meals. Nonetheless, remember, we have to stay away from politics, which, trust me, includes the PTA. I had a deal with my friend Kathleen. She went to PTA meetings and let me know if there was anything I needed to know.
I taught Sunday School. That was pretty safe.
Still, people bug you. No, I can't put a campaign sign on my lawn. I can't speak out at a town meeting. Yes, I'll provide refreshments for the cub scout pack meeting. Unfortunately, it's not always that simple.
The code also cautions us to be wary of sources offering information for favors or money. I was never asked, but if somebody asks, you say no.
Special interests and/or advertisers are always asking for quid pro quo. But that's a problem for the publisher. Sometimes it's nice not to be an executive.
"Act independently," the code says. That's sort of ingrained in the DNA of the average journalist, actually.
"Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts."
As with many other items in the revised code, this calls for a little common sense. You don't cover the town you live in. If something happens there and you are the only one there, or the first, just do your job.
It's inevitable. You walk into a rally and an old friend from high school is carrying a placard and a megaphone. So, look for another spokesperson, even though he's following you around. With the megaphone.
We are also admonished to "refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or may damage credibility.
The idea of gifts or favors in this day and age is pretty outrageous. Nobody offers anything of value. But, if they should, you say no.
Now, if Oma Trautheimer brings in a basket of plum Danish, I wouldn't suggested turning her down. You never know about those German grandmothers.
With the hours most of us work, getting involved in anything doesn't seem even possible. Even sleep doesn't often seem possible. Or regular meals. Nonetheless, remember, we have to stay away from politics, which, trust me, includes the PTA. I had a deal with my friend Kathleen. She went to PTA meetings and let me know if there was anything I needed to know.
I taught Sunday School. That was pretty safe.
Still, people bug you. No, I can't put a campaign sign on my lawn. I can't speak out at a town meeting. Yes, I'll provide refreshments for the cub scout pack meeting. Unfortunately, it's not always that simple.
The code also cautions us to be wary of sources offering information for favors or money. I was never asked, but if somebody asks, you say no.
Special interests and/or advertisers are always asking for quid pro quo. But that's a problem for the publisher. Sometimes it's nice not to be an executive.
10 December 2014
Why Do I Even Have to Write This One?
Yet another column in my series on the newly revised Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
A column I don't think I should have to write.
A statement I don't think I, or anyone else, should ever have to make: Never plagiarize.
It still amazes me every time I hear of an instance of plagiarism. Maybe I'm naive, but I keep believing each case I hear of will be the last.
Not so much how can people continue to plagiarize when it's so easy to catch them. People still rob liquor stores when they have to know there are security cameras.
But how can people continue to plagiarize. Period. How can you do it? How can you steal like that?
Do these people routinely slip Chap-stiks in their pockets at the Wawa? Do they cheat on their taxes? Do they cheat on their spouses?
Is it generational? Are young people today more careless? Do they have a less developed sense of morality? Do they not understand the importance of facts? Of honesty? And, how can that be? Not just because they went into journalism, because they went to kindergarten.
Maybe we were more idealistic back in the Last Ice Age. We believed in peace, love and rock and roll. We were the children brought up on President Kennedy's exhortation: "ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country." We saw men walking on the moon and we knew we could do anything. We came of age as a few good journalists brought down a criminal presidency.
Have young people grown so cynical they not only don't search for truth, they don't care?
Even more confusing, if possible, is the motive to plagiarize.
Why would someone steal another's words? Where does a person's pride go? I guess it's simply they don't have any pride to begin with -- but how does that happen?
What does a person think he or she can gain from plagiarizing? It's not like stealing a car where at least you can drive around a little until you're caught?
Janet Cooke got a Pulitzer for her made-up stories, but she had it stripped from her. She had to have known she wouldn't get away with her egregious infractions forever.
Don't even get me started on Jayson Blair. Crazy? Yes, dangerously so, in my opinion.
So, perhaps it is necessary for the ethics code to say "never plagiarize."
A column I don't think I should have to write.
A statement I don't think I, or anyone else, should ever have to make: Never plagiarize.
It still amazes me every time I hear of an instance of plagiarism. Maybe I'm naive, but I keep believing each case I hear of will be the last.
Not so much how can people continue to plagiarize when it's so easy to catch them. People still rob liquor stores when they have to know there are security cameras.
But how can people continue to plagiarize. Period. How can you do it? How can you steal like that?
Do these people routinely slip Chap-stiks in their pockets at the Wawa? Do they cheat on their taxes? Do they cheat on their spouses?
Is it generational? Are young people today more careless? Do they have a less developed sense of morality? Do they not understand the importance of facts? Of honesty? And, how can that be? Not just because they went into journalism, because they went to kindergarten.
Maybe we were more idealistic back in the Last Ice Age. We believed in peace, love and rock and roll. We were the children brought up on President Kennedy's exhortation: "ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country." We saw men walking on the moon and we knew we could do anything. We came of age as a few good journalists brought down a criminal presidency.
Have young people grown so cynical they not only don't search for truth, they don't care?
Even more confusing, if possible, is the motive to plagiarize.
Why would someone steal another's words? Where does a person's pride go? I guess it's simply they don't have any pride to begin with -- but how does that happen?
What does a person think he or she can gain from plagiarizing? It's not like stealing a car where at least you can drive around a little until you're caught?
Janet Cooke got a Pulitzer for her made-up stories, but she had it stripped from her. She had to have known she wouldn't get away with her egregious infractions forever.
Don't even get me started on Jayson Blair. Crazy? Yes, dangerously so, in my opinion.
So, perhaps it is necessary for the ethics code to say "never plagiarize."
08 December 2014
Labels are for Pickel Jars. . .
. . .and for opinion pieces, commentary, editorials, advocacy.
Everybody dreams of being a columnist they say (whoever "they" are). Actually, I got my first column because an editor wanted to throw somebody else off the editorial page. Can you say cutthroat?
That column was pretty loose. sort of like this blog, which I prefer to call a column because it gives it more gravitas.
Still, of course, it was labeled. It had a standing head, a byline and a mug shot. Because that's what you do.
Some years ago we started doing analysis pieces. These aren't the same as opinion pieces or columns. No standing heads. No mug shots. No commentary. Just a deeper look at the story. Reporters can do this because we are very often the only ones who attend the meetings, ask the questions, dig into the archives, read the reports. We are often the ones who have seen it before, met the people, memorized the laws, deciphered the jargon. So, we can write an analysis to let the reader know how the system works. Or doesn't.
Editorials -- unsigned -- and signed op-ed pieces are also labeled as what they are.
Pros know all this. But there are so many things posted on the internet these days that are obviously opinion but not labeled as such. They don't deal with facts, but are posted to look like news. Which is harmful to the reader.
Everybody dreams of being a columnist they say (whoever "they" are). Actually, I got my first column because an editor wanted to throw somebody else off the editorial page. Can you say cutthroat?
That column was pretty loose. sort of like this blog, which I prefer to call a column because it gives it more gravitas.
Still, of course, it was labeled. It had a standing head, a byline and a mug shot. Because that's what you do.
Some years ago we started doing analysis pieces. These aren't the same as opinion pieces or columns. No standing heads. No mug shots. No commentary. Just a deeper look at the story. Reporters can do this because we are very often the only ones who attend the meetings, ask the questions, dig into the archives, read the reports. We are often the ones who have seen it before, met the people, memorized the laws, deciphered the jargon. So, we can write an analysis to let the reader know how the system works. Or doesn't.
Editorials -- unsigned -- and signed op-ed pieces are also labeled as what they are.
Pros know all this. But there are so many things posted on the internet these days that are obviously opinion but not labeled as such. They don't deal with facts, but are posted to look like news. Which is harmful to the reader.
01 December 2014
Rule 23
In the television show NCIS the lead character, Gibbs, played by that heartthrob of my youth, Mark Harmon, has "rules." Rule 23 is "never get between a Marine ans his coffee." Or, in the case of my niece, "her coffee."
That can pretty much be applied to journalists as well (as can Rule 9, always carry a knife and Rule 10, don't get personally involved, but those are fodder for another column).
However, not all journalists are addicted to caffeine (although some of us have a problem with those who aren't). These days most don't chain smoke and many don't swig their Maker's Mark or George Dickel straight. We, are, of course, all workaholics.
The point is, we know from stereotyping. And we understand why the SPJ Code of Ethics urges us to avoid stereotyping. We also know why we must, even when we are feeling a little childish on the subject.
The code goes on to say: "Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting."
Well now, isn't this the key? Or one of them?
We all have our own experiences that no one else has. Here I am with NYC Italian relatives who are basically the cast of "Moonstruck" on one side of the family and a group of North Carolina Quakers who are somewhere in betweeen "Steel Magnolias" and "Driving Miss Daisy" on the other. I know from loud, loving and a bit self-destructive. I know from hugs, laughs, "gimme some sugah" and getting up in the middle of the night to watch a calf being born. It's a great combination, maybe an amazing one. But, it gives me certain prejudices based on what I have seen.
I've see Southerners are more honest about race than Yankees. They are more direct. I've learned you can get almost anything with a smile and that wearing a string of pearls makes you feel particularly beautiful. I've learned to feel comfortable surrounded by family, no matter how crazy and that the best way to handle crazy in the family is to celebrate it.
I've seen that love can manifest itself as yelling or laughing or cooking. I've learned that clothes are an important statement. Colors are vital. They let you fake it. I've learned that family is more important than anything. And, you can learn more from kids -- your own and others -- than you may want to admit.
But all these things also put me in a certain box.
We all live in these boxes.
In spite of what we learn in these boxes and what we believe and what we feel, we have to put those things aside and avoid inserting our values into the people we cover. That is not an easy task.
My elegant Southern mother, right, at a crazy Italian graduation party. It's all about the lovin'
That can pretty much be applied to journalists as well (as can Rule 9, always carry a knife and Rule 10, don't get personally involved, but those are fodder for another column).
However, not all journalists are addicted to caffeine (although some of us have a problem with those who aren't). These days most don't chain smoke and many don't swig their Maker's Mark or George Dickel straight. We, are, of course, all workaholics.
The point is, we know from stereotyping. And we understand why the SPJ Code of Ethics urges us to avoid stereotyping. We also know why we must, even when we are feeling a little childish on the subject.
The code goes on to say: "Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting."
Well now, isn't this the key? Or one of them?
We all have our own experiences that no one else has. Here I am with NYC Italian relatives who are basically the cast of "Moonstruck" on one side of the family and a group of North Carolina Quakers who are somewhere in betweeen "Steel Magnolias" and "Driving Miss Daisy" on the other. I know from loud, loving and a bit self-destructive. I know from hugs, laughs, "gimme some sugah" and getting up in the middle of the night to watch a calf being born. It's a great combination, maybe an amazing one. But, it gives me certain prejudices based on what I have seen.
I've see Southerners are more honest about race than Yankees. They are more direct. I've learned you can get almost anything with a smile and that wearing a string of pearls makes you feel particularly beautiful. I've learned to feel comfortable surrounded by family, no matter how crazy and that the best way to handle crazy in the family is to celebrate it.
I've seen that love can manifest itself as yelling or laughing or cooking. I've learned that clothes are an important statement. Colors are vital. They let you fake it. I've learned that family is more important than anything. And, you can learn more from kids -- your own and others -- than you may want to admit.
But all these things also put me in a certain box.
We all live in these boxes.
In spite of what we learn in these boxes and what we believe and what we feel, we have to put those things aside and avoid inserting our values into the people we cover. That is not an easy task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)