'Retro' References

The following is a list of pop culture references made by New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd. Try to see how many you know.

1. "Nosey Parker"
2. "Ma Barker"
3. "Norma Desmond"
4. "Palin’s Imelda Marcos moment"
5. "Hillary’s inner Eve Harrington"

I'm guessing you recognized the same number of references as me: zero. That's because they refer to TV shows, movies or celebrities from at least 20 or 30 years ago. Most people under 40-years-old have little chance of knowing them.

An article by Ralph Keyes details this problem. Keyes describes the use of outdated references, which he calls "retrotalk." He believes that it alienates young readers and immigrants. As he discribes in the artitle:

"Falling back on retro-references this way can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do?"

Many journalists are guilty of this behavior. In his article he lists examples from a variety of newspapers: Minneapolis Star Tribune, New York Times and Washington Post. The OP-Ed pages of the New York Times, which Keyes calls the "citadel of retrotalk", is especially bad.

While editing we should mindful of obscure references. Just because we get a reference, doesn't mean the readers will. Journalists should strive to make their writing as clear as possible. When writing contians these references, it's doing the readers a disservice.

Government Bailouts for Newspapers

In her final article before starting a job with the Pentagon, Los Angeles Times columnist, Rosa Brooks, suggests government bailout for newspapers as a solution to the failing journalism industry. Brooks writes that newspapers deserve bailouts just as much as any of the other numerous industries that received them. As she describes it:

"If we're willing to use taxpayer money to build roads, pay teachers and maintain a military; if we're willing to bail out banks and insurance companies and failing automakers, we should be willing to part with some public funds to keep journalism alive too."

Not everyone in the journalism industry is on board. Brooks' article is debated on the Testy Copy Editors messages boards. Many people who posted are concerned that if newspapers receive money for the government, it will influence what they write about. The role of the Fourth Estate in the United States has always been to police the government and it might interfere with that process.

However, according to Brooks, saving newspapers will strengthen newspaper's watchdog role. In the article she writes, that a "decimated, demoralized and under-resourced press corp" did not question the war in Iraq. Government funding will strengthen the media and keep politicians honest.

I don't know if government bailouts is the best solution to save newspapers. But, I do think it's good that people are discussing this problem and reminding people about the importance of journalism.

Should readers expect less from online news?

In the American Journalism Review article, The Quality-Control Quandary, the writer explores the challenges newspapers face now that they are increasing Web content but have to reduce the numbers of editors. Many online articles receive little or no editing before they are posted.

I know times are hard in the newspaper industry, but cutting back on accuracy is not a solution. I don't understand why articles online should be any less accurate than those in print. Readers don't understand the difference in the editing process between the two. And why should they? They should be able to trust that any information coming from the paper is accurate.

Aside from the ethics of the issues, legal repercussions should be enough to make the papers strive for accuracy everywhere. In the article, the editor of the Baltimore Sun, John E. McIntyre, says that editors protect papers from printing libelous work. Having a well-staffed group of editors is a lot cheaper than court costs and huge settlements from libel lawsuits.

So what should newspapers do? The article describes how some newspapers are putting more of an emphasis on reporters editing their own work and having them follow guidelines to reduce errors. However, I believe that neither of these practices will replace the eyes of a well-staffed group of editors.

Balance vs. Bias

Balance vs. bias in the media was the topic of discussion in this edition of the NPR show, Talk of the Nation. The program was fairly long so I'll give a very brief summary. Michel Martin, the host; Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR ombudsman; Brent Cunningham, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review; and Jeff Jarvis, media executive and blogger at buzzmachine.com, discuss how balance is not just a left-wing, right-wing issue, but that there are multiple sides to every story. Listeners want news to reflect their bias - whatever it might be.

They also discussed the problems caused by attempting to be impartial. According to Dvorkin, listeners want journalists to draw conclusions for them. However, journalists are often wary about making these connections because they believe it will be considered bias.

Jarvis argues the best way to overcome this problem is by being transparent about your biases. According to Jarvis, just because a reporter openly says they are for or against the Iraq war does not mean they cannot be impartial. It merely lets the reader know the possible bias in what they are reading.

The part of the discussion about journalist not drawing conclusions is extremely relevant for editors. It is the editor’s job to help lead the writer and point out parts of the story they are missing. Even though it might be seen as bias, editors should push writers to make these connections. By ignore them, they are doing a disservice to the reader.

Newspapers Influence on Society in South Africa

I am writing a paper on xenophobia in South Africa. While researching this topic, I came across an article about the influence of South African newspapers on the issue. According to this article, South African newspapers have an anti-immigration bias. Articles that discussed immigration issues were usually conservative and used little factual information. The South African newspapers were also more likely to mention that a criminal was illegally in the country if they were black.

The part of the article I found most interesting was when it described the newspaper's bias use of words. A majority of the newspapers used the term "illegals" when describing immigrants that illegally entered the country. This term has a negative connotation and could be describing perfectly law abiding people who had to leave their country for completely understandable reasons, such as escaping political unrest.

The article also discussed how articles use sensational headlines like: "Illegals in SA add to decay of cities" and "Africa floods into Cape Town." The headlines often used aquatic or mob metaphors, such as "hordes," "floods," and "streaming."

Even though South Africa is a very different country from the United States, lessons learned there can easily be applied here. American newspapers should be weary about the effects of sensational headlines and their use of words.

Weasel Words

As all good journalism students know, bias should be avoided as much as possible. One way writers slip bias into stories is using "weasel words." According to Wikipedia,"Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication." The term derives from the way weasels suck the yolk out of eggs, but leave the shell intact. Similar to the weasel-eaten eggs, weasel words look plausible, but are empty upon further analysis.

Araminta Matthews presents a good example in her article "What are weasel words?" Matthews describes an article about a elementary school professor convicted of sexual assault on several of his students.

"The very first article read something to this effect: 'The jury apparently believed the testimony of the three girls from [school district] today...' I forget exactly how the phrasing went, but I distinctly remember the first part of the sentence, 'the jury apparently believed.' Consider the tone of this sentence with specific regard to the use of the word 'apparently.' What opinion do you suppose the author of this story has of the conviction of this music teacher?"

In this context "apparently" is a weasel word because it has no basis in fact. It is used to devalue the girl's testimony and the jury's decision.

When writing or editing articles, it is important to watch for weasel words. Not only do they reflected poorly on the writer, but on the entire newspaper and staff. For more examples of weasel words, check out www.weaselwords.com.au

Future of copy editing

In class we watched a video about the end of the Rocky Mountain News. In almost all my journalism classes we have discussed the poor state of the newspaper industry. The internet and blogs are often considered the culprit for the sorry state of American newspapers. Why pay for a newspaper when you can find it online for free?

During this period of cutbacks and layoffs many are questioning the role of copy editors. The media journalist and blogger, Patrick Thornton, writes on his blog that the position of copy editor is outdated and obsolete. With blogs, there is no need to shorten stories or do page layout. He believes there should be some copy editors at newspapers, but more pressure needs to be put on writers to catch the majority of their mistakes and create their own headlines.

Self proclaimed "Web content guru," Karen G. Anderson, also writes about the role of copy editors during the age of the blog. From her experience as a writer and editor, she believes there will always be a need for copy editors. Computers will never find all the errors as well as a professional copy editor. She also questions the lowered standards for online content.

"Lack of copy editing in the world of web writing makes the 'old school' writer in me completely crazy. I think of my demanding copy editing professor at journalism school, Irv Horowitz, who used to tell complaining students that he wanted us to learn the craft at its highest level. 'You can always lower your standards later,' he'd growl.

Well, it's later. And we have. Does anyone (except us) notice?"