 |
"Good Story"�But How Good? Notes Toward a Rhetoric of Journalism
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
1
Leo Bogart, "Reflections on Content Quality in Newspapers," Newspaper Research Journal 25, no. 1 Winter
(2004): 40, 44.
2
Howard Gardner, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and William Damon, Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics
Meet (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 291.
3
See (James W. Carey, "A plea for the university tradition," Journalism Quarterly 55, no. 4 (1978) James W.
Carey, "Some personal notes on US journalism education," Journalism 1, no. 1 April (2000): 12-23. David Skinner, Mike J. Gasher, and James Compton, "Putting theory to practice: A critical approach to journalism studies," Journalism 2, no. 3 December (2001): 341-360.
4
For various perspectives on these questions, see: John C. Merrill, "Journalistic Professionalism: Dangers to
Freedom and Pluralism," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 2 Spring/Summer (1986): 56-60. Jay Black and Ralph D. Barney, "The Case Against Mass Media Codes of Ethics," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 1 Fall Winter (1985-86): 27-36. Stephen A. Banning, "The Professionalization of Journalism," Journalism History 24, no. 4 Winter (1998/99) Louis W. Hodges, "The Journalist and Professionalism," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 2 Spring/Summer (1986): 32-36. Lisa H. Newton, Louis Hodges, and Susan Keith, "Accountability in the Professions: Accountability in Journalism," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 19, no. 3 (2004): 166-190. Risto Kunelius, "Good Journalism: On the evaluation criteria of some interested and experienced actors," Journalism Studies 7, no. 5 (2006)
5
While instructors in journalism classrooms have often been schooled in newsrooms, they must currently find
their evaluation tools largely within the academy. Within this context, instructors seek informally to emulate what they perceive as, in effect, de facto newsroom standards. The current absence of a shared assessment framework makes it difficult to assess with confidence the degree to which classroom evaluation standards do (or should) accurately represent those in the workplace.
6
As Shapiro, Albanese and Doyle reported, many awards programs “simply don’t have judging guidelines,
while those of others consist mostly of lists of terms, without explanation or illustration. The Pulitzer Prizes, for instance, provide ‘... no set criteria for the judging of the Prizes. The definitions of each category . . . are the only guidelines. It is left up to the Nominating Juries and The Pulitzer Prize Board to determine exactly what makes a work “distinguished”.’ Jurors in journalism awards programs are reluctant to name specific indicators, but rather refer to their professional experience or tastes. ("‘I can’t really describe it. We don’t deconstruct it. I don’t look at it that way. Do they compel me? Do they draw me in?” said one judge. Another said: “If it gets my attention, keeps me reading, and I forget that I’m judging, then it’s worthwhile. It comes down to how the writer speaks to me.”
(Ivor Shapiro, Patrizia Albanese, and Leigh Doyle, "What Makes
Journalism "Excellent"? Criteria Identified by Judges in Two Leading Awards Programs," Canadian Journal of Communication 31, no. 2 (2006): 1-16., cf. "Resources: Pulitzer Prize FAQ," [cited 2008]. Available from http://pulitzer.org.)
7
Journalists might be excused for fearing the advent of a clearer framework for assessment of their work,
since it could provide ammunition to libel plaintiffs. But this horse is out of the barn. In a growing number of jurisdictions, journalists' work is examined by courts of law in light of standards of practice that, if journalists do not draw them up, will be drawn up for them by outsiders. Since the 1999 House of Lords ruling on Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited, affirmed and expanded in the 2006 case of Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, British courts accept a defence of "responsible" journalistic practice similar to one long accepted in U.S. jurisdictions. Canadian courts appear to be following suit—see the 2007 Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in Cusson v. Quan.
8
Peter Dixon, Rhetoric (London: Methuen, 1971), 17.
9
John Calhoun Merrill, The elite press: great newspapers of the world (New York: Pitman, 1968)
|
| |
| |
|
|
1
Leo Bogart, "Reflections on Content Quality in Newspapers," Newspaper Research Journal 25, no. 1 Winter
(2004): 40, 44.
2
Howard Gardner, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and William Damon, Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics
Meet (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 291.
3
See (James W. Carey, "A plea for the university tradition," Journalism Quarterly 55, no. 4 (1978) James W.
Carey, "Some personal notes on US journalism education," Journalism 1, no. 1 April (2000): 12-23. David
Skinner, Mike J. Gasher, and James Compton, "Putting theory to practice: A critical approach to journalism
studies," Journalism 2, no. 3 December (2001): 341-360.
4
For various perspectives on these questions, see: John C. Merrill, "Journalistic Professionalism: Dangers to
Freedom and Pluralism," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 2 Spring/Summer (1986): 56-60. Jay Black and
Ralph D. Barney, "The Case Against Mass Media Codes of Ethics," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 1
Fall Winter (1985-86): 27-36. Stephen A. Banning, "The Professionalization of Journalism," Journalism
History 24, no. 4 Winter (1998/99) Louis W. Hodges, "The Journalist and Professionalism," Journal of Mass
Media Ethics 1, no. 2 Spring/Summer (1986): 32-36. Lisa H. Newton, Louis Hodges, and Susan Keith,
"Accountability in the Professions: Accountability in Journalism," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 19, no. 3
(2004): 166-190. Risto Kunelius, "Good Journalism: On the evaluation criteria of some interested and
experienced actors," Journalism Studies 7, no. 5 (2006)
5
While instructors in journalism classrooms have often been schooled in newsrooms, they must currently find
their evaluation tools largely within the academy. Within this context, instructors seek informally to emulate
what they perceive as, in effect, de facto newsroom standards. The current absence of a shared assessment
framework makes it difficult to assess with confidence the degree to which classroom evaluation standards do
(or should) accurately represent those in the workplace.
6
As Shapiro, Albanese and Doyle reported, many awards programs “simply don’t have judging guidelines,
while those of others consist mostly of lists of terms, without explanation or illustration. The Pulitzer Prizes,
for instance, provide ‘... no set criteria for the judging of the Prizes. The definitions of each category . . . are
the only guidelines. It is left up to the Nominating Juries and The Pulitzer Prize Board to determine exactly
what makes a work “distinguished”.’ Jurors in journalism awards programs are reluctant to name specific
indicators, but rather refer to their professional experience or tastes. ("‘I can’t really describe it. We don’t
deconstruct it. I don’t look at it that way. Do they compel me? Do they draw me in?” said one judge. Another
said: “If it gets my attention, keeps me reading, and I forget that I’m judging, then it’s worthwhile. It comes
down to how the writer speaks to me.”
(Ivor Shapiro, Patrizia Albanese, and Leigh Doyle, "What Makes
Journalism "Excellent"? Criteria Identified by Judges in Two Leading Awards Programs," Canadian Journal
of Communication 31, no. 2 (2006): 1-16., cf. "Resources: Pulitzer Prize FAQ," [cited 2008]. Available from
http://pulitzer.org.)
7
Journalists might be excused for fearing the advent of a clearer framework for assessment of their work,
since it could provide ammunition to libel plaintiffs. But this horse is out of the barn. In a growing number of
jurisdictions, journalists' work is examined by courts of law in light of standards of practice that, if journalists
do not draw them up, will be drawn up for them by outsiders. Since the 1999 House of Lords ruling on
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited, affirmed and expanded in the 2006 case of Jameel v. Wall Street
Journal Europe Sprl, British courts accept a defence of "responsible" journalistic practice similar to one long
accepted in U.S. jurisdictions. Canadian courts appear to be following suit—see the 2007 Ontario Court of
Appeal ruling in Cusson v. Quan.
8
Peter Dixon, Rhetoric (London: Methuen, 1971), 17.
9
John Calhoun Merrill, The elite press: great newspapers of the world (New York: Pitman, 1968)
|
|
 Convention | | Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
