“The best ways for publisher to build credibility through transparency” by: Craig Silverman
This article gives five key areas to show transparency and credibility in one’s work:
- Show the reporting and sources that support your work
- Collaborate with the audience
- Curate and attribute information responsibly
- Offer disclosures and statements of values
- Correct website and social media errors effectively
The article goes on to state why transparency is so important. “If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too — that they be truth presenters..” that is a comment I really agree with. Audiences have a trust in journalists and it is there responsibility deceit them.
“Do Times Journalists Pay Attention to Readers’ Comments?” by: Margaret Sullivan
The general agreement of this article is that for hot-topic issues (religion included) journalists do not always read their comments due to commenters not being insightful in their message. Comments are a great way for journalists and readers to connect and should be used, maybe not always, but for the most part.
“Do You Trust Rolling Stone” by: Andrew Seaman
I agree with the statement Sheila Coronel made that each story should be based on its merits. I think if a news source is constantly getting stories incorrect, then you should move to a new source, but if it is a rare occurrence, then judging on an individual basis is what should be done.
The article mentions how the author of the UVA rape article continues to work for Rolling Stone. In my opinion, mistakes happen and as long as they are admitted and dealt with appropriately, a second chance should be given.
The article states how Rolling stones should implement change. I believe they must have. The magazine does not want something to happen like the rape article to happen again. Because of this, they had to have made some change to their editing system.
“Lyin’ Williams” by: Mike Sisak
I 100% do not understand this guy… One simply does mistake the fact they were (or in this case was not) in the middle of an air attack. His excuse of him having a fogged memory is actually laughable. I’m having trouble writing about this because I think it is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of.
On the case of Mike Sisak’s reporting of the story (on a blog maybe?). I think he did a great job, as it was easy to read, but gave readers multiple examples of Brian Williams lying about this.
“What We Should Ask About Williams’ Mistake” by: Andrew Seaman
The author gives the possible medical reason – each time he tells the story he is retrieving it, and there was errors in the memory retrieval.
The author also explores the ethical reason of how you expect your news to have accuracy and be credible, and Williams was not either.
At the end of the article we are told that Williams was suspended for six months without pay. I think that is justified for them to do. I just do no understand how someone can tell a lie that bad to so many people. I predict that the trust of viewers for William’s stories are going to go down, as they should.
We discussed race in the media in class. To be honest, this was one of the most uncomfortable classes I have been in. I feel like this topic is necessary, but I don’t know how much it was covered more than cops in the media (which is also an important topic). I disagreed with a few things said, mostly a comment about “new segregation.” I disagree with how this was brought up. I think the term I’d go with is the poverty cycle. I think the poverty cycle is a huge problem today, and for that I support and have spent time volunteering at different organizations that have the goal to help people break out of the cycle (Boys and Girls Club & YWCA for example). But, I would disagree with the fact that it is “segregation.” If anything, more of a class issue, than a race one.