The Journalism Story

The Standard....a Austrian news publication....put out an interesting piece.  The Press Council of Austria....which is a club of sorts for all members of the press....to hang out, establishing new trends in news reporting....has come to produce an odd checklist.  It's a checklist suggesting the way that you report on refugee stories.

What is contained within this is the idea that news stories are emotional and filled with controversial themes.  The public reacts to the way that you write the story.  So, you before you write this....you should ask some questions:

- "Would I report on a misconduct even if it was not set by a foreigner / asylum seeker / migrant?"

- "Have I researched the subject sufficiently, my sources go beyond mere (Internet) rumors?"

- "Have I presented those facts that are necessary for a comprehensive and balanced presentation of my subject?"

- "Have I checked whether my reporting / my word choice / my photo selection prejudices are reinforced?"

- "Have I examined whether I can omit information that might stir up prejudices without altering the meaning and truthfulness of the story or affecting the understanding of the readers?"

- "Have I checked whether certain information does not counteract other intentions (eg no mention of origin, but naming a first name for a foreigner)?"

- "Did I consider whether my reporting / my word choice / my photo selection someone could be offended or offended?"

- "Am I aware of the intentions of my guides / research sources?"

- "Can I open an Internet forum on the subject without fear of the discussion being derailed?"

-  "Am I certain that I have no extra-journalistic reasons to take up this issue?"

(source: Standard, APA, 29.11.2016)

The thing is....after you examine these ten questions....why limit it to only immigration and refugee stories?  Why not ask myself about the intentions of political insiders passing me stories for publication?  Why not think about the photo of foreign leaders that I might use and why it might be a very unflattering picture?  Might I tell an woeful economic story which would stir up anger with the general public?

Then I come to this curious question at the end of this piece....can I tell a story that won't be derailed by the general public and revamped into an entirely different discussion.  Yeah....you built a story to focus on one single story and one single discussion, and oddly....some lobby group, focus group, or just one single individual takes your story and asks another question of a different variety?  If you have such an irrational fear....then don't write a story.

Fake news?  No.  The source is at the top and embedded.  You can read the story yourself.

If you were a junior reporter in Austria, then your boss would bring to the pub after work.....read off the ten questions, and give you a brief summary of what you should or should not write. You'd look at this and just figure....why bother writing a single story on refugees....positive or negative....because it'll just bring in three or four peer reviews on a story and make this into a time-consuming process.  Just write about beer, horse-racing, fancy fashion trends, and ski-trips to Italy.  Make it simple.

All of this will simply make a normal guy look at any story told, and ask if filters were used to lessen the story.  Did you get the full story, or did some guy use the 10-question filter to remove half the information? It's a sad trend, if you ask me....but a sign of the times.

Fake, Fraudulent, or Misleading News

"Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls – things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms and we have to learn to deal with them.” 

--Chancellor Merkel in a public comment this week.

There is a growing trend in the usage of fake news within the German news media, intellectual forums, and political talks.

What's going on?

Up until the 1930s....a lot of "swing" on public voting was accomplished by local newspapers who would take a side with one particular party.  Success in an election was based on hype by the newspapers of Germany.

In the 1930s.....along came radio, and the newspapers whined about this new toy which seemed to take away half of the dynamics on German politics.

In the 1960s....along came TV, and the radio/newspaper crowd whined about this new toy which took away a lot of the authority that was enjoyed by the newspapers and radio personalities.

Around a decade ago....along came the internet and you could sense that German TV, radio and newspapers were annoyed by this new toy.

So, in the last three years....here comes social media, which threatens the regular internet crowd, the TV news figures, the newspapers, and the remains of the radio commentary.

If you look at the primary users of the TV political forums....it's mostly those Germans over the age of forty.  If you look at the primary users of Facebook, Huff-Post, Twitter, etc.....it's mostly those under the age of forty.....who don't frequent state-run TV very much.

With the right platform and message.....one could probably go and attract somewhere around fifteen to twenty percent of German society now.  This disrupts the common dynamics accepted over the past couple of decades.

The threat of disrupting fake or false news?  If I were state-run TV or the German newspaper crowd....I'd be worried that as much as the social media message might be fake.....a fair portion of the regular news might fall into the fake or misleading category as well.

How this German battle will play out?  It's hard to say.  Merkel might bring up some commission to advise her on this.  Or maybe she'll just draft the news media to identify the fake news themselves.....which would make most of the public laugh over the accusations.

In the end, as much as fake, fraudulent and misleading news might be an issue.....the public may decide that fake, fraudulent, and misleading politics are also an issue, and trigger massive negativity about the Berlin political game.