By Emma Krupp

Last week, SEC filings revealed Michael Ferro, the beleaguered former chairman of Tronc, had sold his stake in the company to the tune of $208.6 million. The billionaire-turned-media mogul stepped down from his position in late March amid sexual harassment allegations first reported by Fortune magazine.

Logistics aside — there’s still the small issue of the $5 million yearly paycheck he’ll receive until 2020 as a contracted consultant for the company, for instance — Ferro’s ouster is a welcome change for journalists at The Chicago Tribune and Tronc’s collection of media properties in nine other cities, who have watched with apprehension over the past two years as the 51-year-old businessman set out to “save” journalism.

Originally a tech entrepreneur, Ferro stepped into the news business in 2011 as the lead investor in Wrapports, a holding company that left him in charge of the Chicago Sun-Times. As part of Wrapports, Ferro coasted through a sputtering reign that involved a handful of shiny and largely ineffectual new ventures, including hiring a cachet of celebrity writers and launching the news content aggregator Sun Times Network, which former managing editor Craig Newman called “a unmitigated disaster.”

But in early 2016, Ferro donated his Wrapports stock to an unnamed charity and crossed the river to assume his role as chairman of Tronc — then still “Tribune Publishing” — with a newfound verve for the industry.

“Instead of playing golf and doing stuff, this is my project — journalism,” Ferro told the Tribune in an interview at the time. “We all want to do something great in life. Just because you made money, is that what your kids are going to remember you for? Journalism is important to save right now.”

Journalism is important to save right now. What, exactly, does it mean to “save journalism,” and why did Michael Ferro — with a background in tech and one other botched media venture —  imagine himself qualified to do so? Ferro, the Tribune’s self-proclaimed knight in shining armor, steamrolled forward with a collection of misguided attempts at rebranding, among them talks of using artificial intelligence to publish thousands of videos a day and, most infamously, creating the bizarre portmanteau “tronc.”

Wealthy investors and entrepreneurs have long been involved in news ownership, and reporters are no strangers to the corporatization of their industry —  Amazon’s Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post in 2013 for a cool $250 million, and Joe Ricketts, whose relative unobtrusiveness was often touted as his best quality as the owner of the hyperlocal news outlets Gothamist and DNAinfo, shuttered the websites last year with no prior notice to writers and staff.

But while it’s one thing for a newsroom to be subjected to the capricious whims of investment and capitalism, it’s another entirely for those whims to be executed in the name of saving journalism. In painting himself as some kind of journalistic martyr with a multimillion dollar salary, Ferro spat on the work of those whose reporting he professed to be so desperate to save — particularly amid simultaneous waves of layoffs and downsizing within Tronc newsrooms.

Ferro’s right about one thing: the media industry faces innumerable uphill battles, and journalism remains important to save right now and always. Indeed, as the Tribune’s newsroom moves forward with efforts to unionize, one of its key goals is to push back against the strictures of corporate ownership. To save the news, it seems, we’ll have to do so ourselves.

by Lia Davis

Journalism is a career that forces you to always remain on the clock. You must maintain a level of awareness at all times for local, national and even international news and events. We are faced with ethical problems in our work and personal life, and must make decisions on a daily basis. We must also be aware of the choices we make and the messages that these choices are sending out. How can we determine when we will take on our role as citizen versus our role as a journalist? Is it possible to do your job as a journalist, while also staying true to who you are as a citizen?

An issue that journalists are faced with that could create an ethical problem is voting. The idea of voting in a primary is making known your preference for one party over another. Some journalists choose not to vote because it could lead to seeming bias. It is important to stop and think about whether or not these choices and preferences you make in your personal life could be translated to your professional life. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with voting as long as that bias does not translate into your work. You should only state the facts and nothing more. But besides reporting on the facts, it is our duty to remain objective. If we cannot remain objective then we cannot truly do our job. The decisions we make in circumstances like this can affect how our audience will receive us.

But as journalists where do we draw the line between what is personal and what is political? Openly campaigning for someone, in my opinion, is a political decision, whereas voting seems to be more of a personal decision. Campaigning would put your opinion in the public eye, so how can you expect your audience to know that your bias is removed from your work when your political opinion is public. Voting is different because you are not publicly broadcasting what you are doing, but instead making the decision to say I am a citizen so I am going to use my right to vote. In our Advanced Reporting class, we talked about if someone was to go back and pull one of your primary ballots, and Carol Marin brought up an important point when she said that she has voted both Democratic and Republican. You should vote for the person and what they stand for and not a specific party.

It is possible to do your job as a journalist while also staying true to who you are as a citizen. In this age of “fake news” it is important now more than ever to be a trusted source of information that people can rely on. Your credibility should be the sole focus of why you make the decisions that you do. There should be a line drawn between being a journalist and being a private citizen. Being a journalist means that majority of the time your duties are different than any other person’s, and that your personal opinion should never cross over into your work.  As journalists we have to remember that we are also human, but we have to work even harder to keep our bias out of our work.

or local, national and even international news and events. We are faced with ethical problems in our work and personal life, and must make decisions on a daily basis. We must also be aware of the choices we make and the messages that these choices are sending out. How can we determine when we will take on our role as citizen versus our role as a journalist? Is it possible to do your job as a journalist, while also staying true to who you are as a citizen?

An issue that journalists are faced with that could create an ethical problem is voting. The idea of voting in a primary is making known your preference for one party over another. Some journalists choose not to vote because it could lead to seeming bias. It is important to stop and think about whether or not these choices and preferences you make in your personal life could be translated to your professional life. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with voting as long as that bias does not translate into your work. You should only state the facts and nothing more. But besides reporting on the facts, it is our duty to remain objective. If we cannot remain objective then we cannot truly do our job. The decisions we make in circumstances like this can affect how our audience will receive us.

But as journalists where do we draw the line between what is personal and what is political? Openly campaigning for someone, in my opinion, is a political decision, whereas voting seems to be more of a personal decision. Campaigning would put your opinion in the public eye, so how can you expect your audience to know that your bias is removed from your work when your political opinion is public. Voting is different because you are not publicly broadcasting what you are doing, but instead making the decision to say I am a citizen so I am going to use my right to vote. In our Advanced Reporting class, we talked about if someone was to go back and pull one of your primary ballots, and Carol Marin brought up an important point when she said that she has voted both Democratic and Republican. You should vote for the person and what they stand for and not a specific party.

It is possible to do your job as a journalist while also staying true to who you are as a citizen. In this age of “fake news” it is important now more than ever to be a trusted source of information that people can rely on. Your credibility should be the sole focus of why you make the decisions that you do. There should be a line drawn between being a journalist and being a private citizen. Being a journalist means that majority of the time your duties are different than any other person’s, and that your personal opinion should never cross over into your work.  As journalists we have to remember that we are also human, but we have to work even harder to keep our bias out of our work.

-30-

By

Ylldes Mustafa

“If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out,” is an old phrase upheld by many journalists. Since the beginning of my freshman year, I have been reminded again and again about the importance of this phrase. For those that may not be familiar with this saying, it means to fact check everything—even if it’s something as simple as your mother telling you that she loves you. In a world filled with facts, fiction and “alternative facts,” it is important to be skeptical and an avid seeker of the truth.

As a journalist, it is my duty to find and report the facts when working on a story. Leaving out any bias I may have on any particular issue is what my audience deserves from me, but what happens when my audience does not believe the facts presented? What happens when the viewer doubts me and decides that their beliefs are what’s true and what I have just reported is “fake news?”

There are a plethora of issues surrounding this idea of “fake news” today. Though it may be a viable argument to say that articles written by specific websites and other news media outlets may not be entirely credible, it is not viable to argue that something is “fake news” just because it does not fit one’s belief, or opinion. There seems to be this preconceived notion that because a person does not like or disagrees with a specific statement that it is a lie. “The media lies to us,” is something we hear time and time again. While there have been instances where a story was deemed untrue, it does not justify the slander of the press and journalists as a whole.

To confront this issue and seek the truth, “fact-checking” has become a very popular trend since the 2016 presidential election. News publications and other news organizations such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have published numerous articles confirming or correcting what candidates have stated as “fact.” Correcting statistics seemed to be, and still is, something that journalists strive to provide for readers, viewers and listeners, but what’s right isn’t always welcomed.

What causes people to deem fact(s) as fiction? After all, a difference of opinion does not take away from a fact being a fact. Many will turn to the President of the United States of America when arguing this claim. Because there is someone in a high position of power and authority, many feel as though his or her words are spoken truths and those who oppose these “spoken truths” are the bearers of “fake news.” This is referred to by social scientists as a “confirmation bias.” Through confirmation bias, people tend to interpret news and facts in a way that fits their feelings.

In an interview with Kellyanne Conway, the Counselor to the President of the United States, Chuck Todd, NBC’s Meet the Press’ moderator, asks Conway about “falsehoods” President Trump specifically asked then press secretary, Sean Spicer, to say in a White House press briefing. Conway states that these are simply “alternative facts” and Todd fires back by stating that, “Alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.” This phrase gained traction and has since then been used to discredit truthful information.

If we take Conway and look at her comments about President Trump’s inauguration crowd size and the “alternative facts,” it is obvious that these comments were made to discredit the media and their reports about the inauguration and to give credibility to the administration’s story on the event. This type of language is devised to make lies sound like facts and discredit any opposition, which in this situation is the press.

Journalists and those involved in the current news media have the responsibility to publish factual, and only factual, information free from bias. It should be the responsibility of the viewer, reader or listener to understand, or learn how to spot, when this information is true or untrue. With all things considered, reporters have a duty to present truths as they are, free from bias and citizens are responsible for what they believe and how they perceive these beliefs. It is essential that we are skeptical of the stories we hear and sources we hear from, but also skeptical of these alternative facts that veer us from the truth. It is important to doubt, and always remember: “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

###

By William Sullivan

The Internet Has Raised Questions on Publishing Mug Shots

A central principle of justice in the United States is that someone is innocent until proven guilty.  However, in the United States, mug shots of people arrested are usually considered public documents, even though the people in the photos have not been convicted or charged.

News outlets like the Chicago Tribune, NBC 5 Chicago and the Tampa Bay Times publish them on their websites, expanding the number of people who can see them.  Publishing mug shots raises serious ethical questions for the media.

Online, search engines can pull up results in fractions of a second.  When media outlets publish a mug shot a Google search will easily turn it up and it creates an online record of someone’s arrest.  That raises ethical questions.  By publishing names and photos of people arrested, is a media outlet jumping to judgment?  What if the crime was not a newsworthy event, like someone driving with a suspended license?

These questions do not have convenient answers.  With the advent of the internet, when mug shots are published online by media outlets, that information is readily found by the friends, family, potential landlords and employers of the arrested.  And information published on the internet is difficult or impossible to remove.  That makes the stakes very high for publishing mug shots.

The Chicago Tribune has a section on its website called Mugs in the News.  In it, the Tribune posts mug shots of people accused of crimes from stories they report.  The crimes people with mug shots are accused of range from homicide to road rage to marijuana possession.

Below every name, the Tribune has a disclaimer: “Arrest does not imply guilt, and criminal charges are merely accusations. A defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty and convicted.” On the slideshow view of the photos however, that text is in gray, on a dark gray background, which discourages viewers from reading the text.

NBC 5 Chicago has its own gallery, called Mug Shots in the News.  NBC does not even have a disclaimer that the people in the mug shots shown are merely accused.  NBC has not added mug shots since 2011, which raises questions about whether NBC journalists have been checking to see if those accused have been charged, convicted or found not guilty.

The Tampa Bay Times publishes mug shots on their website. They post mug shots of everyone arrested in four counties in the Tampa Bay Area.  They are able to do that because those four counties’ sheriffs put every mug shot online.  However, doing Google searches for the names of those arrested does not show their mug shots from the sheriff’s website, it shows their mug shot from the Tampa Bay Times. By publishing those mug shots, the Tampa Bay Times increases their visibility in search results.

In a 2016 lawsuit, three men in Illinois sued a website called mug shots.com and their sister website unpublisharrest.com, according to the New York Times. Unpublisharrest.com charges $399 to remove arrest photos and records from non-law enforcement sources on the internet. That includes from its sister site. A lawyer for the site used the Chicago Tribune’s Mugs in the News feature to defend the business practices of the sites.

Some in the media argue that mug shots should be released to the media and published.  In 2013 the Detroit Free press sued the Justice Department to get mug shots.  They were supported by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.  They lost their case in Federal Court, with the judge arguing that people have a “non-trivial privacy interest” in their mug shots.

A lawyer with The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argued that releasing mug shots is a demonstration of open government principles and captures an important moment in the criminal process, that of arrest.  Yet that does not take into consideration the effects that releasing these mug shots, some from arrests for minor crimes, have on the people arrested.

If media outlets are going to publish mug shots, in the spirit of reporting correctly, they need to emphasize that the people in the mug shots are accused, not convicted.  And to be technically correct, they should differentiate between people who are arrested and people who are charged.  Not everyone who gets a mug shot photo taken is actually charged with a crime.

If media outlets are not explicit about this, they risk suggesting that the people in the mug shots they publish are guilty of the crime they were arrested for.

Even if mug shots are publicly available, that does not mean that media outlets should publish them.  There is a standard of whether or not a crime is newsworthy. Someone driving with a suspended license is not likely to be something worthy of media coverage.

There is a difference between the media publishing a mug shot of someone accused in a major news event, like a terrorist attack or a murder, and someone who was selling drugs on a small scale or driving with a suspended license.   Or if someone was found not guilty of a crime, their mug shot could slip through the cracks and remain on a media outlets website.

When the media was mostly in physical newsprint or on TV, publishing a mug shot was different. It was not possible to see the mug shot of someone arrested for a minor crime years ago with a quick search.  With the internet, what is published is more easily discovered, more permanent, and has more potential to damage the lives of private individuals who are arrested.  That requires media outlets to reevaluate how they handle the publication of mug shots.

By Varvara Makarevich

The media should do this! The media must do that! In the midst of accusations of reporting fake news, we hear it all the time. Dozens of communication scholars and current reporters discuss how the media should report, and what to do to change the audience’s perception.

However, I came across an interesting reaction last to a proposal I made to a possible subject of a story I was working on. I contacted a person whose experience I saw as a unique one, and who seemed to be the perfect match. The chosen topic for the story was related to legal immigration. Meaning, it could be a sensitive subject for the interviewee.

Taking this into consideration, I was nevertheless surprised when I was told that the interview was possible on the condition of showing the final draft to the interviewee and providing the opportunity to make changes. I believe this person had good intentions in mind, but the instincts of protecting the family and the fear of being portrayed subjectively did their job.

So, it seems that on the one hand the audience wants us, the reporters, to be more transparent, credible, trustworthy and reliable. On the other, when they are given a chance to become a part of the reporting process, people would like to be able to control the flow of the story and its outcome. Why? I believe I might be able to answer this question.

Apparently, the public doesn’t know exactly what reporting means, what ethical code we reporters should follow, or what the workflow looks like. Thus, some people may become victims of irresponsible and unethical reporters who ruin their trust forever. And by the time I come to interview them, they’re already afraid that the story would be biased, or/and that they won’t look good in the story.

But journalism isn’t about making people look good. It’s about telling their stories objectively without putting them in danger.

I believe, that like every two-way communication, journalism should have clear rules observed by both parties — the audience and the reporters. We know our job, so how can we build trust and educate people about what journalism is?

There might be a simple answer. We teach children about the Constitution and our system of government, and since the media is considered to be The Fourth Estate, why don’t we teach kids in schools how it works? I bet if you ask a regular person, he or she won’t be able to tell you in detail what it takes to report on a seemingly regular story. Not even mentioning the investigative pieces.

Let’s invite kids and their parents to our newsrooms, let’s promote opportunities to have a cup of coffee with a journalist for contest winners (it’s not that hard for a news outlet to have a contest on its Instagram or Twitter account), and let’s encourage people to look closer at our work. Let’s make them see we’re here to serve them, not to threaten them.

Yet still our job for some people looks crooked and somewhat parasitical. This is despite the fact that reporters hold elected politicians accountable, go to war zones to let us know what is happening — thus giving us more context than just an official’s statement — or do seemingly simple local stories that can change the life landscape of a whole neighborhood or even a town.

We’re not pursuing these stories just for our own self-interest, but in the interests of the people that read newspapers, watch TV, listen to the radio or surf the Web. In other words, in the interests of everyone. Let’s build our relationship based on mutual respect, not rivalry.

By Arman Rahman

It is a strange and wondrous time for journalism. It is even more strange and wondrous to tell others you are going into journalism. A mix of excitement and pity swirls their face. “Ohhh, well you certainly chose the right time, there’s so many changes! With Trump and Fake News maybe you can be one of the better ones.”

Suddenly after Trump assumed the Presidency befuddling all in his wake, journalists became failed sages. Their mysterious rituals gave them the wrong prophecy, causing their audiences to turn to other sage tribes for an outlook they could agree with, in this case fake news.

The metaphor of “mysterious rituals,” while a sarcastic jab at critics, is worth noting. Only now are readers and viewers beginning to question and want to know more about the information others are producing for them. Hence the bottom line here: it’s time for journalism to evolve. It’s time for reporters to evolve and facilitate this evolution. It’s time for journalism to evolve in concrete, tangible ways, similar to those listed by Tom Rosenstiel in his Brookings Institute article from 2016. Rosenstiel lists a total of seven ways journalism must change post the 2016 Election, yet the most important and encompassing is the need for clearer and more open reporting. Only through this evolution can journalism begin reaching minds more quickly, with trust.

Reporting methods must not only be completely transparent, but they must involve the public, a process Rosenstiel calls “collaborative intelligence.” Gone are the days of “multiple sources indicate,” “an anonymous White House employee leaked,” or “studies show.” While before the public might have acknowledged these as legitimate, some news outlets have abused those attributions, or cited sources while siding with them wholeheartedly. For example, FOX News, in a March 3rd story, reported an Immigrations Customs and Enforcement raid in

California that was shut down by the state’s mayor. The headline read: “Violent criminals among illegal immigrants caught in California raid derailed by Dem mayor.” The only evidence to support the claim that “violent criminals” were among those arrested was a statement from ICE Director Tom Homan, who’s one and only job is to support his organization in its efforts against illegal immigration–an organization whose credibility has been repeatedly called into question. Meanwhile they ripped apart the Democratic mayor, discussing whether she “obstructed justice.”

On the flip side, MSNBC hardly reported the event at all as of the eve of March 3rd, and all stories listed under their “Immigration Policy” tab attack and negatively frame President Trump and/or his administration. While these may seem like two extremes, both were reflected in the outlets’ broadcasts, both of which sit at the top of the list of most watched cable news programs of the past month, according to TV Newser.

Almost all Americans subscribe to and agree with one outlet or the other, labeling “their opponent” as not reporting fairly, or not having good sources, or having a bias–all of which are completely valid for both when examined side to side. This disparity is so large that all journalists must discipline themselves to clearly set the standard. Stories should clearly display both sides of the argument or issue. Sources should only be used if they are credible and legitimate, otherwise any holes in their credibility or legitimacy should also be clearly displayed. A reader must be able to know, trust, and easily research any sources used in a story. Along with full transparency, the reader should not feel isolated from journalism, the basis for Rosenstiel’s concept of “collaborative intelligence.”

In the era of social media, journalists now have a powerful tool: more citizens who are there. If someone was able to get cellphone video, reach out to him to get more in better quality if you cannot shoot from the scene directly. If someone set up a crime watch Twitter page or blog for their neighborhood or area, follow that blog and ask them to remain extra vigilant and reveal anything they find on the blog or to you. Employ the use of unbiased social media polls in your work, such as Facebook or Twitter polls. All the while, be aware of the potential bias of who you are reaching out to. Bottom line, trust will be re-established with the public if they see journalists actively enlisting their support and actively watching out for biases. It will also cause more people to keep watch for the genuine truth in their daily lives.

All in all, it is pivotal to remember that journalists are not sages or mystical wordsmiths toying with information. They are average citizens in search of the truth, a journey everyone embarks on. With every journey, there is newer and harder terrain to traverse, new tools to use in different ways. It’s now time for journalism to invent new tools and use old tools in new ways. The truth will always need to work its way to the public, and journalism will always need to take it there. This isn’t even its final form.

Shining a light through confusion and ambiguity

by

Karyn Lacey

Imagine this: A journalist and a citizen are waiting for the evening bus. They are sitting next to each other, on the bench, when the journalist decides to spark a conversation about today’s news.

The journalist turns slightly to the citizen and says, “Hi, excuse me. Did you catch the news today? I was just wondering what were your thoughts on…”

He is abruptly interrupted by the citizen. The woman asserts, “NO, NO, NO…I don’t watch the news.”

The journalist is puzzled…very puzzled. On the inside, he is screaming. He can’t believe or even fathom that she chooses not to watch the news.  So, he thinks to himself, ‘How do you not watch the news? The journalist calmly asks, “What do you mean you don’t watch the news?”               “I just don’t. It’s too sad. It’s always something about murder or negative stuff that makes me sad. Or everything is about Donald Trump. So, I just don’t watch it,” said the woman.

The irritated journalist says, “I’m sorry, but that’s a cop out. News is essential to our everyday life. And you know another thing…” He decides not to indulge in a journalistic rant, thus he says “Never mind. Have a good night ma’am.”

The journalist decides to walk home instead of taking the bus. As he walks, he ponders the baffling conversation he just had with the woman. You see, the journalist doesn’t understand how complacent and accepting she is about not watching the news, as if he asked her about the latest reality television show that burns your brain cells. He doesn’t understand why she was “OK” with that.

—-

This is a conversation some journalists have encountered and observed many times throughout their journalism career. Whether it’s with a group of friends on a Friday night or at the dinner table with family members on Thanksgiving, there is always someone who expresses their disdain for the news.

Surely, there is plenty of bad news to go around: the dramatics of the 2016 presidential election, Russia, North Korea, gun violence, immigration, local township scandals, the Flint water crisis, corrupt politicians. However, the job of journalists is not about delivering “bad news.” The true purpose is to make individuals within communities, nations and the world aware and knowledgeable of the things around them.

Because of the climate of journalism, the comments of President Donald Trump and his supporters, citizens are leery of believing news outlets nowadays. Understandably, not knowing what to believe is troubling. Still, journalists aren’t here to tell people what to believe. Only the public can decide what to presume as the truth. Journalists are merely here to gather and deliver the facts.

Just as citizens would check the weather channel or weather app to find out if they can wear shorts and flip-flops or a winter coat, check the news. Watch the local newscast to find out what the local school board is up to, if there are robberies being reported in the neighborhood, or who is running to be the next elected official.

With that said, should the journalist having the conversation with the woman just walk away or try to be her news savior and bring her to the journalism altar? Should the journalist debate their point about why it’s important to watch the news?  Or simply let them continue to go about their lives unaware of the world? I mean, the public is who journalists serve, right?

Yes, they are serving those individuals who are avid readers and watchers of the news. But what about the people who are disengaged intentionally? Today, the news is easy to obtain because it’s everywhere. Therefore, it is no excuse to deliberately be unaware of the world.

All in all, no, journalists should not be “OK” with individuals not watching, reading, or even caring about what’s in the news. Surely, it is frustrating to hear people say they don’t read or watch the news. Nevertheless, a journalist’s job is make the public aware about what’s occurring in their backyards. If someone is unaware of what’s going on in their neighborhood, then it is the journalists job to enlighten them. They are the shining light through confusion and ambiguity.

Therefore, journalists must persist in the good fight until their last sleepless night. Because news is a necessity, not an option.

Democracy does not function properly without freedom of the press. The public must be informed in order to operate within our government and the press plays an essential role in our everyday life as citizens. Yet, for journalism to truly contribute to the type of democracy we aim to have, it must incorporate the tenets of democracy in its newsrooms. As an industry, we must strive toward newsgathering that reaches outside of the newsroom and plants itself in the center of our communities and asks the questions: What do you want to see on the news? What are we not covering and why are we missing it? How can we help create a well-informed population that is able to advocate for themselves? The old timey saying “the news is what the editor sees on his way to work” is not only dated but irresponsible. It is our jobs as journalists to search the far corners of our communities for injustice and ask our readership what they would like to see covered. Journalism is an opportunity to represent moments in time, governmental decisions and the state of the world, for others. It takes a close look at how our democracy functions, holds those in power accountable and creates opportunities for the public to have a platform.

Engagement cannot be reduced to a Google Analytics number of online clicks, instead it must be a relationship between newsrooms and their local community. Insular thinking has no place in newsgathering, reporting or publishing. Journalism must be inclusive, accessible and open to engaging in a dialogue with its surroundings. In our digital age, the increase of open source data, digital journalism and process-oriented reporting we are able to chip away at the false notion that journalism is something for the elite. In reality, journalism is something that happens on the ground that highlights the stories of real people. This sort of democratic thinking is being applied in our newsrooms through the use of digital resources that increase reach and accessibility. For example, the New York Times 2015 investigation on nail salons across New York was published in English, Korean, Vietnamese and Spanish. This editorial decision to include complete translations of the piece made it accessible to the communities disproportionately impacted by these kinds of abuses. In the recent emphasis on transparency in the news, the use of Document Cloud has allowed our readership to look into court cases, legal files and criminal records for themselves. The effects are that not only does our process become more accessible and understandable, but our readers are able to draw their own conclusions and trust the legwork done before a piece is published. Increasingly, I have seen numerous startups like Gather and Github aim to create a community of open sourcing and knowledge exchange between journalists, the public and coders alike. It opens up the space so we are able to address the concerns of the public as a collective, sharing expertise and innovating the use of data every step of the way.

As a young multimedia journalist, thinking digitally and democratically has become an integral part of my reporting process. I am ardently dedicated to not just accuracy, but public engagement and transparency in my work. I have physically put myself in the spaces I write about, whether that be a prison or a courtroom, and gone out into my DePaul community and asked, What would you like to see in your student magazine? I have found that when young people feel ignored, marginalized or frustrated by their administration, student media can play a critical role in educating and engaging our student body.

By now you’ve probably seen the face of Marilou Danley, the girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, plastered across various media platforms. On Tuesday, Sheriff Joseph Lombardo of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department addressed the media naming Danley a “person of interest” in the investigation of the attack her former boyfriend carried out Sunday, leaving 58 people dead and hundreds wounded on the Las Vegas Strip.

Whether or not Danley knew anything about Paddock’s plans to commit a mass murder still remains unclear. In fact, she was out of the country when the attack took place. Danley had been in the Philippines from Monday, Sept. 25 until Tuesday night when she arrived in Los Angeles from Manila, according to Antonette Mangrobang, a spokeswoman for the Philippine Immigration Bureau.

According to the New York Times, “person of interest” is a loose term that does not necessarily specify that the person is suspected of committing a crime. This is the problem. At this point in the investigation, Marilou Danley has not been charged with any crime; therefore, she is innocent until proven guilty.

So, how should we as reporters approach a situation like this? Do we call a person of interest’s character into question by plastering their face all over the news, potentially depicting them as a suspect or criminal? Or do we wait until they are charged with a crime?

Marilou Danley could be guilty, but she very well could be innocent. It is not the media’s job to decide that or put that idea in the minds of the public. However, it is the media’s job to think ethically about how this is going to affect her, especially if she truly did not have any part in this horrific act.

So many times, people are brought into a narrative that they never asked to be a part of, and so many times, we act before we think. As journalists, we must realize that our actions affect the lives of others. Unless we are sure, then we should not run a story that could ruin someone’s reputation.

If she is innocent, every time a google search is done on her, her face is still going to be tied to this terrible incident. Every time she goes out to the grocery store, people will look at her differently. People are now going to remember her as Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend. That is her new reputation.

On the other hand, if she is guilty, well maybe it does not matter now that we released her photos and information because it was bound to happen anyway, but how can we be so sure to act before we actually know.

This is a big story with many moving parts. It is understandable that people want to know everything that is going on, but we cannot paint people to be one way or the other. It is not the media’s job to decide whether someone is guilty or innocent.

It is the media’s job to report the facts. That very well could have been done without releasing her pictures. We must be sensitive to the lives of others because one mistake on our part could have lasting repercussions.

Sometimes tragedy is inescapable.

Like hurricanes Maria and Irma that decimated Puerto Rico, leaving thousands homeless and without power. Or, more recently, the mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas that resulted in 58 dead and over 500 injured. As reporters, we are often thrown into these situations to deal with the aftermath  — the tears, the bloodshed and the stories.

But when people are most in need, how do we stretch out our arms only to hold a microphone? Reporting on these events can be seen as spreading crucial news to the public, but can also be seen as insensitive towards others when most vulnerable.

[Embed video of CNN coverage here]

Take CNN’s recent coverage of Hurricane Harvey in Texas. During a live interview, a Houston mother criticized CNN reporter Rosa Flores and her coverage of the aftermath after being questioned about current conditions following the storm.

“People[s] are really breaking down and ya’ll sitting here with cameras and microphones trying to ask what… is wrong with us,” the woman responded.

The newscast quickly cut from the interview as Flores calmly apologized to the woman. CNN later issued a statement saying “The people of Houston are going through a very difficult time… Our reporter handled the situation graciously.”

In these circumstances, people are exposed and hurting. Journalists cannot disregard these emotions when reporting. We must balance the line between respect for people’s current position and asking often uncomfortable questions. As journalists, we must understand that sources hold the rights to their experiences and should avoid pushing people for the sake of a story.

Reporting tragedy is a journalists responsibility, though, especially when the events have a larger impact on the surrounding community and public. According to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, reporters should show compassion, avoid lurid details and recognize that gathering information can initially cause harm or discomfort to others. SPJ also notes that stories involving victims and grief should work to minimize harm and treat “sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.”

Yet, do reporters have a moral responsibility to be actively involved with aid? Only when a source is in direct harm. For example, photojournalist Kevin Carter sparked controversy after snapping an image of a starving Sudanese girl being stalked by a vulture for the New York Times. The 1994 Pulitzer Prize-winning photo resulted in the questioning of Carter’s journalistic ethics after he watched the pair for twenty minutes, waiting for the best shot.

When reporting tragedies, we are journalists first and citizens second. Our initial impulse may be to drop the pen, set down the camera and help, but remembering the reason for our being in these situations should remain forefront  — to capture history through storytelling.

Thus by sharing these stories journalism can begin to shape itself as a means of respectful social activism. We can only hope that through our coverage these stories will touch a larger audience, acting as a catalyst for compassion, support and change.