Wake of Echoes

Are modern-day journalists watchdogs or guard dogs? What's the difference? Watchdogs have their eye on public interests, sniffing out corruption or controversy and holding people accountable. But guard dogs protect, keeping people out, shielding preferred ideologies from closer inspection. When I was at Arizona State University, Bill Moyers visited campus to receive the Walter Cronkite School’s Excellence in Journalism Award. During a Q&A session, Moyers called on me. I asked him: “Is it possible for a conservative to have a successful career in Journalism?” Moyers shifted in his chair. I got the impression he was either uncomfortable or irritated with my question, but he quickly said “Yes. Yes, of course.” Then he started ticking names off his fingers. But here’s thing: I didn’t recognize any of the journalists he named and he never got to his fifth finger. I asked the question because I was concerned that I would find it difficult to work in the field I...

I've been suffering from migraines all week, so I need to keep today's post short and sweet. Last week , I cited studies that found that a liberal bias does exist in American mainstream media. But was that the whole story? No, of course not. First of all, there are other kinds of bias out there. Does anyone detect a corporate bias in the media? I do! I'll talk about that sometime soon. And what about accuracy? A good friend brought this up this week: various outlets may be biased to the left or the right, but which ones are the most accurate in their reporting? Good question! I hope to address that sometime soon too. But for today, since I'm hurting, I want to simply answer an argument that I came up with myself. (Now that I think about it, arguing with myself might have something to do with my migraines. Hmm.) Jennifer of last week: There's a liberal media bias. Here's the data, here are my conclusions. Ha! (Drop the mic.) Jennifer of this week: Yea...

When Norma Desmond famously declares “ I’m ready for my close-up ” at the end of Sunset Boulevard , she’s full-on crazy pants and headed for a padded room, which means she’ll probably never know how "those wonderful people out there in the dark" truly see her. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been labeled “crazy” during this election season (it’s attached to Trump more often, while other adjectives plague the former First Lady) but how they are truly seen by the public depends to a large extent on the “close-up” photos shared by the media. Today we are going to talk about images and how they can be used to manipulate people into viewing a political figure either positively or negatively. Say Cheese! Let’s start with photos our candidates love to share – the ones on their bio pages. For a politician, nothing says “I love this country!” more than having their photo taken in front of the stars and stripes.  Can’t you just hear the fireworks?  ...

News this weekend included floods in the gulf coast , a fire and knife attack on a Swiss train, an elderly woman who was accidentally shot by police in Florida, and a Washington woman who crashed her car upside down into a Starbucks drive-thru. So why were these stories in the news? And what stories might have been rejected so these stories could be featured? Newsworthiness is the term I learned back in J school that expresses all the possible components of an event that could qualify it for coverage by the media. Today I will define each term, give examples and then talk about how they might be manipulated to create bias. Newsworthiness isn’t an equation or a checklist. An event doesn’t have to meet three out of seven criteria to be considered newsworthy, for example. Neither does ONE element typically make something newsworthy. It’s usually a combination of these elements that has to be judged by editorial staff. On a slow news day, the top story might be a pol...