Week 9 Abstracts

Rutger’s video about plagiarism  

This video gave a simple lesson on what constitutes plagiarism, followed by a real-world example of how to cite sources and an interactive quiz testing my knowledge of when it’s appropriate to cite a source. I scored four out of five on the quiz because I failed to recognize that highly lofty language could not possibly be a student’s own words and must be stolen from a more credible and intelligent source.

A video on plagiarism is a good thing for a journalist to watch. We all think, “Of course I know what plagiarism is, and I would never do it,” but it never hurts to be reminded. For instance, I did not know that reusing a paper for another class is considered plagiarism. I thought that if the paper satisfied the needs of both classes, then you were doing nothing wrong by submitting it to another professor. (Don’t tell my professors I said so, though.)

When writing a news story, it’s easy to get caught up in reporting the facts without attributing them to your sources. For the same reason academics must cite their sources in journal articles, journalists must consistently cite their sources to avoid losing credibility with the reader. I think a good rule of thumb would be to scroll over each sentence in a story and ask yourself, “How do I know that?” If the answer is anything other than, “That’s common knowledge,” you need to add attribution.

 Readers: Anonymous sources affect media credibility 

 I was glad to see that most readers agree that anonymous sourcing is sometimes necessary. I think that readers should be able to trust newspapers to use anonymous sources wisely and only when the story cannot be told any other way. If you trust a paper to say, “So-and-so said X,” then you should be able to trust the same paper to say, “An anonymous source said X.” Maybe I’m just optimistic about journalists’ ethics, but I believe stories based on anonymous sources are just as rigorously fact-checked as stories based on named sources. I just trust newspapers not to BS me.

That said, I think it’s important that papers not use anonymous sources when another source is available. Many people do not share my trust in newspapers and would feel comforted by a named source. For example, my grandfather recently referred to the New York Times story that quoted anonymous sources in accusing Sen. John McCain of granting favors to a female lobbyist. My grandfather called the Times a “rag” and said it’s the worst paper in America. I could not convince him otherwise.

As the article concludes, a set of criteria for using anonymous sources is helpful to avoid reader incredulity while being able to tell sensitive stories. I especially like the tip to think about the source’s motives for not speaking on record and including those in the story if possible. Asking yourself about someone’s motives is a helpful exercise for reporters and editors in general. For example, I recently approved a story for publication about an event happening on the UF campus. Later, after giving it more thought and doing a little research, I told the reporter to cancel the story because the event was created to promote a private business. While this example does not relate to the issue of anonymous sources, I believe it highlights the importance of questioning the motives of reporters and sources.

 How good is your word? This article on whether to grant confidentiality to sources left me with this main point: Newsrooms should discuss their sourcing policies well in advance of having to make any real-world decisions. Not only should reporters and editors know their organization’s stance on confidential sources but the publication would do well by its readers (and potential sources) to openly publish these policies. I think online forums would be a good way to let readers in on the discussion. That way, the organization is maximizing transparency and letting readers feel they have a stake in content. When a story is held or a source left unnamed, readers will be comforted to know why the paper has made these decisions.  

Knight Foundation Newsroom Diversity Report- (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union

 

The Times-Union reached its peak newsroom diversity in 1997, with 18.8 percent of the newsroom staff non-white. The latest data from 2004 showed 10.4 non-white staff. In the paper’s circulation area, 29 percent of the population is non-white. These figures combine to give the paper a 2004 diversity index score of 35 out of 100. The median score for all papers in its category is 64.