As the line between news and opinion blurs, journalists must clarify

By: Lacey Latch

The 24-hour news cycle has completely transformed the journalism industry since its widespread implementation in the 1980s. Three decades later, nonstop cable news has become commonplace and so too has its programming and the personalities that lead it. At the same time though, this process has eroded the divide between news and opinion that was once separated by specifically marked newspaper sections or had very little presence on television altogether. Now, Americans are bombarded with more news-related content than ever before, but their ability to sift through that content has come into question.

“The causes of America’s deepening political divide are many and much disputed, but the differences between an opinion show and a news show might be difficult for people to discern,” Paul Farhi of the Washington Post wrote in 2017. “The reason: Programs such as [Sean] Hannity’s and others on cable news are often a mix of many things — news, commentary, analysis and pure, unadulterated opinion.”

In the fall of 2018, the American Press Institute released a report analyzing a survey of American citizens about their news consumption and this exact question: Can people tell the difference between news and opinion? It turns out that for the most part, the answer is no. Their surveys found that “just over half of Americans say it’s easy to distinguish news from opinion in news media in general.”

This statistic is certainly alarming in its own right but the implications of this reality are far-reaching. With a President who routinely dismisses the press as creators of “fake news,” the American public is already more inclined to question what they’re reading and seeing. That is only compounded by the fact that when they turn on “the news,” there really is no saying what they’ll get in terms of punditry, analysis or hard reporting and there is rarely any label indicating which of those categories the program falls into.

The consumer is of course to some extent responsible for their own media literacy but journalism as an industry also plays a critical role in the formation of that literacy. In another survey the American Press Institute found that “Fully half of the U.S. public is unfamiliar with the term ‘op-ed,’ and nearly three in 10 said they were unfamiliar with the difference between an editorial and news story (27 percent) or a reporter and columnist (28 percent).”

This clearly indicates that there is a disconnect between journalists and the population we are supposed to be serving, one that directly impacts the efficacy and trust placed in our work. It also further erodes the public’s trust in journalism as a whole. Commentators who offer opinions but are presented as reporters reporting fact only support the perception that journalists are inherently biased.

Notably, an overwhelming majority of journalists surveyed about this issue correctly believe that “most people misunderstand the difference between news and opinion content.” But despite the fact that journalists might be aware of the problem, fixing it has become something of a nonstarter in the industry.

While touring newsrooms in New York City in December, I asked DePaul graduate and MSNBC producer Kat McCullough if the network feels it is responsible for making the distinction between news and commentary clear for viewers. While she acknowledged this issue is something the industry needs to reckon with, MSNBC, like so many of their counterparts, has yet to determine the best way to start that process.

Journalists exist to serve and inform the American public. However, that mission can’t be accomplished if readers and viewers don’t know how to interpret what is being presented to them and journalists are responsible for making that easier. By labeling content and defining what those labels mean, journalists will be better suited to do their job because they will be reporting on and for a more media literate audience. Overall, if reporters and the public develop a better understanding of each other, both parties will benefit indefinitely.

by Kayla Molander

“Stop reading the news.”

That search term on Google delivered 1,570,000,000 results in 0.31 seconds

I did not have to type my entire inquiry into the box. I merely typed “stop read” and “stop reading the news” was the first suggestion.

“Stop reading comments” was last.

Perhaps this means that Americans find news to be more useless and harmful than comments. I like to think that not reading the comments is so obvious by now people don’t need to search for it anymore. There’s no way to know for sure.

What is certain, from the search results, is there is an anti-news movement in this country. Those who believe in purging news from their lives are passionate enough to write essays about it. Hundreds of people comment on those essays. They converse about why my entire industry should stop existing.

This anti-news movement, as I have chosen to call it, is different from the cries of “fake news,” “media elite” or “corporate news.” All of those terms imply that a certain type of news is wrong. News itself is good, journalists are simply doing it incorrectly.

The anti-news movement claims news is a poison that lowers quality of life.

In his essay “This is what happens when you stop reading the news” for Medium, Nick Maccarone writes, “I’m happier, calmer, and still somehow know enough to be informed.”

Martjin Schirp agrees that the news is useless on HighExistence.com in his article titled “Why avoiding the news makes you smarter.” “Almost all news is irrelevant,” he writes, in a sentiment woven through all of these articles.

These authors argue that news should have a direct affect on your day-to-day life, and if it doesn’t, it’s a waste of your time and emotional energy.

Nat Eliason says it best in “The news is a waste of your time”:

“You might feel like it’s important to know what’s going on with ISIS, but you’re not going to do anything about it unless you’re in the military or politics, so stop worrying yourself. Don’t waste your time on it.”

The articles make the point that everything you need to know you can get from word of mouth. The emphasis is smaller, more local.

The problem with that thinking is when people place no value in journalism, the first news outlets to die are the local ones. Nearly 2,000 local papers have died in the last 15 years.

In October 2019, the Boston Globe told the story of Biddeford, Maine, where the local paper, the Journal Tribune, shut down publication after 135 years.

“The three city leaders are distressed. That said, none of them was subscribing to the paper when it published its last issue,” author Zoe Greenberg writes.

Those city leaders were not alone in not subscribing. Although the newspaper served a community of 40,000, there were only 2,000 paying subscribers at the time it closed.

The people of Biddeford are not anti-newsers – at least not all of them. Many mourned the loss of their local paper. Many care about the news – just not enough to dish out a little bit of cash for it.

Now Biddeford is what is increasingly common around the country – a news desert. There is no one sitting in their town hall meetings, digging through court records, and asking tough questions. No one is going to take a peek at the city’s financials to see if anything is out of whack.

The people of Biddeford made that choice. They decided that journalists were not worth the price tag. One-by-one communities around the country will have to make that same decision. America is approaching a day when it must decide whether or not journalism is something worth fighting for.

The people of Biddeford are proof that this is, indeed a fight. Biddeford didn’t burn the Journal Tribune down. The Journal Tribune died a slow, tragic death at the hands of indifference.

It’s not enough to not be anti-news. It’s not enough to like the idea of the First Amendment. It’s not enough to bounce around news outlets and browsers until you hit a paywall. If we want journalism to survive, we have to pay for it, just like we pay for other things we value, like college, doctors, and Starbucks.

As America ponders journalism’s worth, I send out resumes for jobs that may not exist in twenty years. Planning for retirement is hard when you don’t know what will last longer, your career or your industry.

I’ve been told that journalists are not supposed to make predictions, so I will not guess about the fate of my profession. I can only Google “stop reading the news,” and hope to one day find different results.

By Brian Pearlman

Journalism as an industry is facing a turbulent period of growth and change. As local newsrooms in smaller markets shut their doors and news organizations grapple with the best ways to fund their work, there’s a push to engage audiences in new ways — the infamous “pivot to video” or “pivot to audio.”

It’s in this sense that some have suggested podcasts hold the key to journalism’s future.

Podcasts are downloadable, episodic segments of audio content that are made for on-demand listening at the user’s convenience. The audience for podcasts is young — the Reuters Institute’s 2019 Digital News Report found that half of those surveyed who were under the age of 35 had listened to a podcast within the past month. Users are most likely to listen on smartphones, where they can download podcasts for free from apps like the Google Play store or Apple Podcasts app.

But while much has been made of success stories like New York Times’ “The Daily,” a 20-to-30-minute program that features original audio reporting from the national newspaper and claims a listenership of millions, the fact remains that podcasts have a long way to go before they truly inform a broad swath of the U.S. population.

While over half of Americans over the age of twelve have listened to at least one podcasts, the core pool of listeners is relatively small and niche. And the ad revenue generated pales in comparison to FM radio, movies and television shows.

Surprisingly, people also aren’t listening to podcasts in significant numbers on ubiquitous smart speakers like the Google Home and Amazon Alexa. According to a report from the Reuters Institute, while a tenth of the U.S. population now uses such devices, only one-fifth actually listens to them for news.

And in Nieman Labs’ 2019 “Predictions for Journalism” series,

Latoya Drake of Google News Lab and Juleyka Lantigua-Williams of production company Lantigua Williams & Co. both warned that many podcasts are still marked by a white, East Coast bias that entrenches them away from the diverse American populace — and a broader listenership.

Despite these hurdles, the intimacy and portability of podcasts can be powerful for news organizations who want to grab the attention of listeners.

“I think we’re entering a new age where we’re going to see a wider variety of content,” podcasting industry analyst Dave Zohrob told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Antony Funnell in March. We’re going to see more people listening, and really binging on that content like they do a new Netflix show.”

It’s intimate experiences like these, with audiences who are passionate about the shows they listen to and the companies that produce them, that have the potential to plant headphones on peoples’ ears and leave them there for 45 minutes or more.

The trick is to craft meaningful, compelling listening experiences, which is tough for smaller news organizations. Many of the top podcasts are produced by major companies like Gimlet, iHeartRadio and Wondery, the latter of which has found great success in turning newspaper series like the L.A. Times’ reporting on the Golden State Killer and New York Magazine’s reporting on convicted animal wrangler Joe Exotic into successful shows.

While podcasts may not be the panacea for the future of journalism, their continued growth shows that people do crave great stories — and great stories are what good news organizations have in spades.

A Journalist’s Balance Between Building Sources and Standing Ground

by Mariam Mackar

When I first entered the world of Journalism, one of the most striking things I was told was that a journalist can’t be afraid of being disliked. This idea made sense to me in theory: a reporter can’t be afraid to ask the tough questions to get the right answers and a reporter definitely can’t be scared of nagging to get an interview that will make or break a story. For a notorious people pleaser like myself, I had a bit of a mental back and forth with myself after hearing this from many, if not all, of my professors at DePaul. This internal game of ping-pong consisted of a lot of questions of whether or not I was capable of going the lengths for each story or if my desire to be ‘liked’ swallowed that. Like many who first enter the fast-paced and demanding world of reporting, I wasn’t sure I had what it takes.

I quickly accepted that I needed to step out of my head and push myself further than I was used to in order to become the journalist I hoped to be. Throughout my time reporting I have learned to be okay with asking for interviews, speaking to people who are much more successful than I am, and doing whatever needs to be done to get the right components of each story. I did not allow myself to get lost in the thought of whether or not the people I was speaking to would find me agitating; after all I didn’t enter this profession to be liked, I entered it to learn how to find the truth.

Learning how to be bold in this way is something that every reporter learns how to do, but as I began to come to terms with this factor of the field, I found a new obstacle.

As the saying goes, a journalist is only as good as his or her sources.

All the best journalists have a network of sources that expand throughout their entire career. A good relationship with a source is another tool in your tool belt to utilize for future stories.

So where is the balance?  What is the priority?

“This is a relationship business.” Jenna Goudreau, writer for Forbes, says in her article “10 Tips for Young Aspiring Journalists.” “Good relationships with sources and subjects will make you better at your job. Do not underestimate or shortchange your relationships.”

This is especially important for young journalists like me who are just starting out in the field. I don’t exactly have the “clout” to be creating enemies with the little credibility and network I have. Building those sources and relationships are critical for young journalists like myself as I begin my professional life.

So, if a journalist can’t get held up by wanting to be liked, but must be liked enough to build their network, where is the line and where should it be set?

Building relationships with sources and keeping journalistic integrity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it often takes a journalist’s ethical integrity and honesty to show a source that they are someone to be trusted both in the moment and in the future.

In his article “Defining the Delicate and Often Difficult Relationship Between Reporters and Sources,” Pro- Publica journalist Steve Mills states that transparency is crucial in fostering a reporter’s relationship with their sources.

“A good journalist explains to that kind of source the risks of cooperating with a story — either by being a source of information or a subject of a story. Journalism can be a sort of hit-and-run business: get information from the source, write the story, never talk to the source again. That approach can be a bit unkind, I think, and shortsighted. I keep in touch with some sources who haven’t provided me with information that led to a story in several years. You never know when they’ll have a story for you.”

A journalist’s goal is to report with integrity and not to create a personal fan-base or new friend. However, this does not mean that one needs to foster a standoffish demeanor or unkind behavior to succeed, but instead to keep the bigger picture in mind at all times and understand that, no matter what they do, they can’t make everyone happy.

As Mills says, a journalist can’t be afraid to go against a source if it means reporting the truth of a story.

“[Journalists] must also be willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if that means angering a source with a story that’s tough on them — even if that makes getting information from the source in the future more difficult.”

At its core, the solution seems to be simple: be a reliable person. Just as every journalist wants to be able to depend on their source’s credibility, sources would like to feel the same with journalists. Report with integrity, honesty, and transparency. Go the extra mile to find the right sources that will expose the nitty gritty of each story.

This is certainly much easier said than done and mistakes are, of course, inevitable. The field of journalism is one that requires opening the door to one’s comfort zone and stepping outside of it indefinitely. What I have learned from the rigorous reporting my colleagues and professors have accomplished is that a reporter should never get comfortable. Each story should make them better in some way, whether that’s by learning how to ask better questions, knowing where to look for answers or learning something new about a person, place or thing.

A reporter can’t live with the worry of being disliked, because the nature of the job transcends the desire of being loved by everyone. By being ethical, reliable, and driven by the goal of getting the job done the right way, the tension between building relationships with sources and being a good reporter disappears on its own.

By Meredith Melland

Journalism is for the people, and barriers of access, reporter bias and loftiness should not exclude anyone from it.

In 2018, the Center for Media Engagement of the University of Texas at Austin released a survey of Chicagoans in collaboration with City Bureau that contained multiple revelations on how citizens view news coverage of their communities. It found that residents on the South and West sides were more likely to see coverage of their neighborhood as too negative or too often quoting the wrong people, less likely to have interacted with a reporter and more likely than North Side residents to volunteer to report on a public meeting (for more on public meeting reporting, see City Bureau’s Documenters program).

The survey answers show a clear disconnect between reporters and their subjects, often divided along the city’s segregation lines. To address this disconnect and reconcile ways for South and West side residents to see themselves reflected accurately in reporting, Chicago journalists need to seek out feedback and stay in conversation with these communities about what kind of news makes an impact in their lives.

As a journalist, I need to be intentional in making my coverage helpful, equitable and representative, so that my work is useful and relevant to people in all of Chicago. I see three steps reporters and editors can take to achieve this: we can engage communities to find their information needs, prioritize diverse sources and stories and make news as accessible as possible.

City Bureau co-founder Harry Backlund argues that the media in general needs a new structural way to rank news value in “Is Your Journalism a Luxury or a Necessity?” Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Backlund and colleagues sketched out an information pyramid where stories covering basic physiological needs stretch along the bottom and abstract ideals occupy the top triangle. They realized that journalistic institutions tended to pass over basic reporting on food and shelter and instead prioritized higher needs like ‘smarter living’ recommendations and legislation updates.

“These things matter, for sure, but they are abstract—something we engage with only when we have the time to think past our basic needs,” Backlund writes. “Yes, democracy dies in darkness. But so do people. Which are we prioritizing?”

This a bleak view, to be sure, but I think it’s valid to criticize journalists for only consistently meeting the information needs of communities that we assume can support journalism economically. We often create stories on things that will only directly impact the lives of the few and not the many. I’m not innocent here – my stories have often covered the top part of pyramid, or only one city community or have not reflected the racial and socioeconomic diversity of Chicagoans.

I recently performed an audit of my story sources – I looked over all of my reported stories in the last year and noted the gender, race, and role of each interviewee in a spreadsheet. Though I frequently think about the lack of diverse representation in newsrooms and stories, my sources skewed female and white. I never made a real plan to stop defaulting to easily accessible white sources and encourage diversity in my source selection, and change is hard to implement without one. Now, I have developed a plan to seek out sources of color at the start of my reporting to prioritize them from the start. This is an attempt both to produce equitable reporting in a city and nation that is systemically stacked against people of color and avoid boxing my work into my own little one-dimensional world.

It would easy to insulate myself within the subject areas on the North Side or DePaul; they are familiar to me and easy to get to. No matter what I’m reporting on or who my audience is, restricting my worldview to one part of the city would be a disservice because important stories happen all over and are captured most accurately in person.

Former DePaul CJIE student and current women’s health freelancer Ivana Rihter wrote in her blog that “the old timey saying ‘the news is what the editor sees on his way to work’ is not only dated but irresponsible.” This is especially true if most reporters and editors are coming from the same place and look the same. I look the same as a lot of journalists, but I can at least try to take the paths less travelled, gain community input and feature voices of people underrepresented in the media.

Once the news is in tune with the needs of citizens and reporters and editors are diversifying their sources, the next step to achieving meaningful reporting is to make news accessible. The roles of distribution, circulation and publishing are sometimes distanced from journalists because their responsibility is to the business, not the public. However, the model that journalism is produced in directly affects how many and which people receive it.

I think journalism has the most room for impact when it’s free and easy to find. Like Dan Sinker with his free impeachment newsletter, we will only be able to accomplish this if we think of new creative ways to fill an audience’s need that also produce some economic sustainability.

As journalism continues constantly vaulting forward, we need to think about which stories need to be told and how to tell them. I know I will be more fulfilled if people actually find value in my work, and I think that will happen if I provide information that they can access and use in everyday life. I don’t have all the answers, but I believe prioritizing the people is a start.

By Natalie Wade

Today, the world of journalism no longer manifests between the pages of the print newspaper delivered to your doorstep. Like the abundance of cat videos and fashion blogs, journalism of 2019 has found refuge in the internet, where most of the world has turned its attention. This may mean a blurring of opinion and commentary, the insatiability of online advertisement revenue and an “always-on,” 24/7 social media news culture. However, there exists a silver lining to what some reporters have called “the death of journalism.” The power of multimedia and the expanded set of tools reporters can call on to create compelling and multifaceted stories have emerged within the new age of internet-based journalism.

Contemporary online reporting can spread stories across the world in seconds, but grabbing the attention of readers and holding it long enough to read 800 words is harder than ever. As a result, many publications have expanded their digital efforts to produce stories with audio and visual components that are captivating, eye-opening and immersive. The rise of the new embrace of digital media often is credited to The New York Times, hired its first social media editor in 2009, and later, in 2012 , produced Snow Fall, one of the first breakthrough pieces that opened the eyes of journalists to using video, topographical mapping and data visualization together. Soon, the role of the journalist expanded to include photography, videography, video editing, and social media proficiency, while journalists’ multimedia skills made their way into the newsroom. This has also led to new positions in the newsroom, such as multimedia editors, community engagement editors, and social media editors.

There are many great examples of work that showcases how creators have elevated online stories. Take a moment to read, watch and listen to Life Without Power. The story combines video, audio, and digital design with powerful narratives to share the story of post-hurricane Maria. This interactive documentary-style article reminds me that we don’t have to limit ourselves to a single format. In fact, we should not limit the media we use to tell a story. Life Without Power includes maps, infographics, and added sounds, such as the hum of a power generator as audiences flick through different story elements at their own pace. This story exemplifies the combining of different elements in a way that is effective, honest and artistic. Unfortunately, not all users of multimedia create a product of similar honesty and impact. Multimedia is a double-edged sword and must be used with the understanding that users are sharing a story, not creating one.

The internet, like the variety of multimedia options at our disposal, is a tool that should be used to broaden reach, create more accessible information, and draw in audiences for longer periods. Like any tool, it’s neither inherently good nor evil. In this case, the journalist holds the power to decide how they use the internet in their reporting.

As many other multimedia journalists have noticed, documentary filmmaker David Leeson saw, “new ethical challenges emerging for him and other newspaper photojournalists like him as they made the multimedia metamorphosis” (Winslow). Multimedia ethical challenges should be a major concern to journalists, and similarly to the SPJ code of ethics, there should exist a set of rules and guidelines that mirror the progressing of the field.

“While all the ethical guidelines that apply to still photography, graphics, and news writing would largely apply to video,” Leeson said, “motion and sound set the medium apart.” Because multimedia has so many components, so many more “moving parts” than just still photography, there are more opportunities for unethical lapses.

– David Leeson

There’s no denying that these tools could potentially be used to produce “fake news” or to create a cocktail of something that is one-part news, two-parts entertainment. That is the very reason the journalistic the code of ethics is as important as ever.

This never-ending wave of digital revolutionization has made it much easier for the public to dismiss information as lies. Even something as simple as slowing down the speed of a video, using basic photoshop techniques, or sharing information on social media that is misinformed or out of context adds to this distrust. The New York Times’ Claire Wardle, an expert in online manipulation, responds to a recent phenomenon called ‘deep fakes.’ In a clearly labeled opinion piece produced by The New York Times, she discusses how these advanced digital effects have even triggered fears for national security, and that this “weaponization of context” (Wardle) is not new at all. She explains how manipulation and the spread of false information can be much simpler and doesn’t require AI technology to be pervasive.

“When anything can be fake, it becomes much easier for the guilty to dismiss the truth as fake,” says Wardle. In her opinion, this “liar’s dividend,” is what people should be worried about.

The ethical grey area where multimedia seems to reside is something that journalists need to be aware of going forward. A reporter could easily find themselves not living up to the standards most journalists strive to uphold, and it could become much harder to do your job – as you’re forced to interrogate each piece of media you come across. However, with this digital renaissance, individuals now have the power to identify the faces of neo-Nazis through camera footage or to watch as miles of Arctic Ice melts into the sea, and that might make a difference.

References:

• Branch, John. “Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek – Multimedia Feature.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Dec. 2012, www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html#/?part=tunnel-creek.
• Chadwick, Nicole. “Revolutionizing the Newsroom: How Online and Mobile Technologies Have Changed Broadcast Journalism.” Elon Journal Of Undergraduate Research In Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1–3.
• Luz, Sin. “Life without Power in Puerto Rico – and No End in Sight.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/puerto-rico-life-without-power/.
• Saltzis, Konstantinos, and Roger Dickinson. “Inside the Changing Newsroom: Journalists’ Responses to Media Convergence.” Aslib Proceedings, vol. 60, no. 3, 2008, pp. 216–228., doi:10.1108/00012530810879097.
• Wardle, Claire. “This Video May Not Be Real.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Aug. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/deepfakes-adele-disinformation.html.

Lack of diversity makes it harder for young Latino journalists

By Rosbelis Quinonez

When that unapologetic, yet small woman came into the classroom, I felt relieved. Maria Hinojosa is this incredible story of success. Her family moved from Mexico to Chicago when she was still a baby. With tons of work and persistence, overtime that child became an award-winning journalist who has worked for PBS, CBS, WNBC, CNN and NPR.

“I was the first Latina walking into the newsroom at NPR,” said Maria Hinojosa, who repeated that experience in several newsrooms in the country. “But we’re in a different place now.”

Today, she runs her own media company: The Futuro Media Group.

That first day of class, I met a Latino journalist I consider a role model. Her story tells me that my Latinity has a place in the media of this country. Do not get me wrong. As a graduate journalism student at DePaul, I have had amazing mentors, but it was hard for me to relate to their experiences. They are mostly white Americans, and I am as Venezuelan as it gets.

When Hinojosa referred to a different place, she was talking about the changes in the media industry during the last decades. As far as diversity in the newsroom is concerned, since 1978 the percentage of people of color employed in daily newspapers increased 10 percent.

According to the American Society of News Editor in 2014, minorities represented 13.24 percent in those organizations.  The same year, the Radio Television Digital News Association estimated minorities made up 22.4 percent of journalists in television and 13 percent of journalists in radio.

Despite the progress, those numbers still do not represent the American population landscape.  Hispanics compile 18.1 percent of the people in the US– almost 60 million. A trend that keeps growing and the Census Bureau projected it to reach 28.6 percent by 2060.

With my graduation around the corner, job hunting has taught me some things. Certainly, all young journalists have to be persistent and savvy to get an entry-level position. But, in this fierce competition, skin color is a natural advantage. In other words, being white helps a great deal.

Last year, the Pew Research Center data showed that about 77 percent of newsrooms employees were white, and 61 percent were men. That is a scary context for a young Latina or any reporter of color.

However, the conflict starts long before jumping completely into the labor market. During a recent job fair at Columbia College Chicago, Teri Arvesu, Vice President of Content for Univision Communications said she only considers applicants with at least two internships in their resume. Several students left the room after those comments.

News directors and all those who hire journalists often value the type of internships and experiences that are hard to get if you are part of a minority group.

Alex T. Williams found in a 2015 research study that minorities are less likely to complete unpaid internships, do not have the same connections than white students–consider that newsrooms are primarily white– and were less likely to engage in all-white college newspapers. Williams, who was getting his doctoral degree at the University of Pennsylvania, discovered a direct relationship between these three factors and the socioeconomic status of Latino students, who often times had to work while in college.

Williams concluded that “newsrooms should try to interview a variety of candidates. If a job candidate is a solid, curious writer with drive and a good work ethic, they deserve consideration.”

Who hires journalists shapes the appearance of the newsrooms. New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, who is a person of color, said to DePaul students during a recent visit to the University that “[he wants] the newsroom to look more and more like the country.”

“When I look at the people who surround me, it’s a range of people,” said Baquet. “My goal is to be even less elitist.”

Here is a tip for young journalists looking for their first job: Look for the people of color in positions of power. They may be of some help.

Sadly, there are not enough Baquets in the industry or even within The New York Times. Almost 80 percent of the people in positions of power in that news organization are white according to a report from last year. The situation is similar across the industry in the U.S.

Diversity in newsrooms bring a large number of benefits for the media organizations and society. For instance, Latinos offer a different perspective to the newsroom because of their cultural background. Award-winner WGN Chicago investigative reporter Lourdes Duarte said often she has additional knowledge regarding some communities and consider facts in a different way. “I may pay attention to things that other people don’t and that’s important.”

Last January, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists criticized The New York Times podcast “The Daily” saying that reporters staged a border crossing into Mexico in the first episode of the series “Dispatches From the Border.” For many in the Latino community, the report failed to convey the reality of what is happening at the border with Mexico and the tragedy of thousands of immigrants’ families.  “The report [“Dispatches From the Border, episode one”] takes a joking and apathetic tone. In an ignorant attempt to understand border crossings, the clip excludes immigrant voices and any further context about the journey for those immigrants before and after crossing the river,” said the National Association of Hispanic Journalists in a statement.

While part of the society distrusts the media in the U.S., Hispanics value journalists and their work. Last March, the Pew Research Institute found in a study that 48 percent of people from predominantly Hispanic areas believe journalism has a lot of influence, and 43 percent are more likely to talk to a journalist. Ironically, 82 percent of those people have not spoken with local journalists.

Hispanics communities — $1.7 trillion purchasing power — are such fertile ground for Latino reporters and news organizations! Covering what happens and issues for these communities of color is not only part of the media social responsibility, but there is also potential revenue in the task. That is why bilingualism, cultural awareness and all Latino reporters’ skill set is so needed in newsrooms across the country.

Our job hunting is a matter of more than persistence, good portfolios and experience with college publications. “Overall, only 49 percent of minority graduates that specialized in print or broadcasting found a full-time job, compared to 66 percent of white graduates,” wrote Williams. To get a place in the newsroom, we need a well-defined strategy to market our talents, and the confidence to know our value.

Many Latinos are already changing the media industry in this country, but the new generations have the duty to keep opening spaces. It paves the way for future generations of journalists to worry more about reporting the stories that matter for all, and less about the color of their skin.

-30-

by Stacey Sheridan

“It is disheartening when people don’t vote”

During the 2019 runoff election, Chicagoans witnessed history in the making as two African American women vied to become the city’s first female mayor of color. On April 2, voters elected Lori Lightfoot, making her not only the city’s first black female mayor, but also its first openly gay mayor. And yet, the excitement surrounding the historic election appeared to have little to no bearing on voter turnout. Only 32 percent of Chicago’s registered voters cast ballots. Prior to the runoff, only 33 percent of 1.5 million registered voters actually voted. By all accounts, it was an utterly dismal turnout. However, low voter turnout is not unique to Chicago. Poor turnout is plaguing elections across the nation. So, who or what is to blame? Whose responsibility is it to fix it?

With the rise of so-called “fake news,” it seems almost fashionable to point the finger of blame at journalists. If journalists fail to provide citizens with adequate information regarding not only the election itself, but the platform issues of the running candidates, the voting public will be unable to develop an educated opinion and, without an educated opinion, may abstain from voting on the grounds of being uninformed. However, it isn’t that simple. News outlets report on races indefatigably, informing the public on everything related to the candidates, their platforms and the election itself. So, when people fail to show up on election day, it can be discouraging, not only for politicians and election judges, but for journalists too.

“It is disheartening when people don’t vote,” The New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said in an intimate panel put on by the DePaul Center for Journalism Integrity & Excellence. “I’m always disappointed that people don’t understand how big a deal an election is and we’re in an election cycle that’s unlike any election cycle in modern times. These are really big deal, important elections. If you choose not to vote because that’s your choice that’s fine, but it’s up to me to make it clear that it’s a big deal, to make it interesting, to make it compelling.”

To do just that, journalists are now going out of their way to come up with inventive ways to get people involved in elections, in addition to traditional election reporting. Paula Friedrich, an interactive producer at WBEZ radio, came up with a simple, but innovative tool for Chicagoans during the mayoral race. Before Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle made the runoff ballot, there was a staggering 14 people running for Chicago mayor. It is justifiably difficult for the average civilian to wade through that large pool to find the candidate that aligns most closely to his or her political beliefs. For many people, spending a few hours reading up on candidates and their platforms, although important, does not rank high on to-do lists when they have jobs and other responsibilities that demand their time and attention.

Friedrich understood this predicament and created an online yes-or-no quiz that matched the quiz-taker with the candidate that shared views on issues. Quiz-takers were given an efficient and fun way to whittle down the 14 candidates to just one, without poring over questionnaires, interviews and biographies. But if those taking the quiz wanted to read up on candidates or issues, they could with ease. WBEZ provided the link to the written responses the candidates submitted that were compiled to create the quiz. Each question also included a link that directed those who clicked on it to a page with supplementary information on the pertaining topic.

Journalism outlets don’t have to use slick digital devices to be effective in conveying the importance of elections, while also making the election process easier on people. In fact, one of the best instances of innovation was completely devoid of technology. Ithaca Times, a New York-based weekly newspaper, gained national attention when it put a fully-functional blank voter registration form on the front page of its August 21, 2018 issue. Marshall Hopkins, the production director and designer whose idea it was to put the form on the front page, in lieu of the week’s top stories, received an honorable mention at the 2018 Better Newspaper Contest for the cover. Most importantly, it made registering to vote simple; all readers had to do was cut the form out, write in their information and then mail it out.

Both WBEZ and the Ithaca Times did an excellent job in simplifying the process for the public, and it is likely that publications and media outlets will continue to employ innovative approaches to simplify the process of participating in elections, but journalists cannot be held responsible for fixing the nation’s poor turnout. Journalists can do everything in their power to make the voting process easier on the public, but, when it comes down to it, we cannot frog-march people to their specific polling station and make them cast a ballot. Just like you can lead a horse to water, you can lead a voter to the polls, but you can’t make that horse drink or that voter vote. As disheartening as low turnout is, the role of a journalist is not to mother; journalists can’t force you to eat your vegetables and do your civic duty. All we, as journalists, can do is deliver the information required for citizens to make an educated opinion and maybe try to simplify the process as much as possible. It is the responsibility of the individual to decide for whom or what, or even if, to vote.

By: Marissa De La Cerda                      

Newsrooms can build trust with audiences by showing reporting process and inviting audiences to participate.

When talking to family or friends about the journalism industry or stories I’ve worked on, theyare always more amazed by the reporting process and less about the story topics themselves. They often ask questions such as, “How did you get this source to call you back?” “Why did you frame your shot this way?” “Can you walk me through the order in which you wrote, shot and edited the story?” I’m always happy to answer their questions because I want them to know how long and tedious the reporting process is for a story but more than anything, I want to help rebuild their trust with the media they’ve grown so skeptical of. By laying out the processes for them and allowing them to see how hard journalists work on creating stories for the public, they have learned to trust news a little more.

It isn’t just a matter of letting audiences in on the reporting process, however. It’s also about inviting them to participate. This can be referred to as engagement reporting. Engagement reporting, according to Mediashift, is when journalists combine community engagement with traditional news reporting. It isn’t as much about increasing how much audiences engage with their content as it is about inviting them to be a part of the reporting process. The goal of their collaboration is to serve the community and authentically reflect their needs and interests while also giving them insight into the reporting process itself. This transparency helps build trust (which has decreased by 70 percent over the past decade, according to a Gallup study) but it also allows newsrooms to learn from their audiences and boost story relevance by catering to their needs.

There are various ways newsrooms can successfully allow audiences to participate in the reporting process. The structure usually depends on the newsroom and the individual community’s needs but always revolves around putting the interests of the audience at the forefront of the work. Social media outreach, specifically, plays a huge role in engagement reporting. Journalists can tweet something as simple as “Chicagoans! What are some issues we should be paying more attention to?” and receive a dozen replies from community members expressing what they’d like to see reported. Outlets like Block Club Chicago and The Chicago Reader are exceptionally good at this outreach and have developed strong relationships with their readers. Since Block Club focuses on neighborhood reporting, the individual reporters ask what specific issues different neighborhoods want covered.

Aside from social media outreach, newsrooms and outlets can use social media to show the behind the scenes of their reporting process. The New York Times, for example, uses Instagram stories to lay out the process of their longer form stories in a more interactive way. It allows users to tap through their story to see the behind the scenes of stories while linking to the actual story itself. They’ve even had videos that give insight into how the paper itself is printed. All of this gives readers more of an in into the journalism industry. Another thing I’ve seen broadcast journalists do that helps build trust with the public is they post their own videos from the field or the studio giving viewers insight into what goes into shooting their packages. This may also help promote the story once it’s out.

Other methods newsrooms have used for engagement reporting are public newsrooms. City Bureau hosts weekly public newsrooms which is essentially a space for the public and journalists to gather to discuss ideas with one another. It’s “a place to find and shape stories in direct conversation with Readers,” according to the City Bureauwebsite. ProPublica Illinois has held workshops throughout the state in the past to listen to what matters most to communities. Above all, both the public newsroom and the ProPublica workshops seek to help journalists build relationships with people. This will allow them to reach out to them in the future for other stories or similar beats.

Engagement reporting doesn’t need to include an event, however. It can be as simple as sending out a questionnaire or posting a tweet. It only requires that the goal be focused on bringing the community’s wants and needs into focus and working with them on crafting stories to benefit the community, the media, and strengthen the relationship between the public and the media.

-30-

Emily McTavish

May 10, 2019

On any given weekday, I receive about five newsletters to my inbox. These are not from the blogs or businesses I follow but are from news organizations. Newsletters are increasingly my first source for news when I wake up and check my phone in the morning.

Hunter Clauss, writer of WBEZ’s The Rundown, said he, too, observed a surge in newsletter offerings and thinks it is in part due to a shift by social media platforms.

“Part of the reason you’re probably noticing it more is because it’s a way to get around Facebook and Twitter and their ever-changing algorithms,” Clauss said. “…Newsletters are becoming more important as a way to reach people when these social media companies are grappling with their own problems.”

A study commissioned by Powerinbox, an email platform company, found 60 percent of American adults subscribe to at least one email newsletter. Additionally, the top reason for subscribing is the trust in the publisher, according to the study. Analysts also found only 34 percent of participants trusted social media as a valid news source.

WBEZ launched The Rundown in July 2018. Less than 40 percent of radio stations offer a newsletter, according to data analyzed by the Tow Center for Digital Journalismat Columbia University. In comparison, 65 percent of daily newspapers surveyed had newsletter options.

Clauss said WBEZ’s strategy was to reach readers on their commute home rather than compete against the influx of early morning emails. He picks the five top stories of the day, which do not always include a story produced by the WBEZ, to share in a short, digestible summary with links.

The WBEZ reporter added that curating and sourcing stories can be challenging with more news sites limiting access for non-members.

“We are mindful that not everyone has a subscription to all these places,” Clauss said. “We will try and stay away from things that have paywalls when we can.”

Clauss also said integrating his own personality into The Rundown can be tricky. He said WBEZ wanted to have a tone reflecting how someone would explain the news to a friend.

One of the first email newsletters to go truly viral for its conversational style was The Daily Skimm. The operation was created by former NBC News producers, Carly Zakin and Danielle Weisberg, in 2012.

The Skimm now reaches more than 7 million readers each weekday morning and has expanded into a podcast, lifestyle blog, massive social media following and a forthcoming book.

However, The Skimm has drawn criticism over the casual writing targeting millennial women. In 2017, Christina Cauterucci compared the newsletter to Ivanka Trump in an article for Slate. Cauterucci argued the language used in The Skimm undermined the readers’ intelligence and knowledge about the world and news events.

“The newsletter keeps readers’ attention by peppering serious news items with conversational quips, like a thirsty high-school history teacher rapping about current events,” Cauterucci wrote.

As an example, Cauterucci included an excerpt from the newsletter describing the news of Chelsea Manning finishing her prison sentence for leaking State Department documents to WikiLeaks.

“What to say when your friend asks what time you can get drinks after work…I’ll be free earlier than expected. Just like Chelsea Manning,” appeared in The Skimm in May 2017.

In contrast to Slate, New York-based journalist Kaitlin Ugolik defended The Skimmfor the Columbia Journal Review. Ugolik said there isn’t one way to consume news and that it would be dangerous to alienate an entire demographic.

“What we as journalists haven’t yet seemed to grasp is that to reach more people—whether in a factory in Kentucky or at a cocktail party in Manhattan—our approach may need to change,” Ugolik wrote. “The goal can’t be to turn everyone into a newshound. If we want people to get more comfortable with the news, we have to get more comfortable meeting them where they are.”

While The Skimm may attract some readers and turn off others, their model for gathering the top news stories is valid, and the humanized style is crucial for newsletter writing.

Editors at The Seattle Times took the time to reexamine their automated newsletters during a digital redesign in 2015. Now their Morning Brief newsletter, for example, is written by reporters and editors.

Last year, The Desert Sun’s Executive Editor Julie Makinen announcedthe paper’s newsletters would be written by staff members rather than culled by artificial intelligence and algorithms. Makinen said their goal is to push out more informative and comprehensive news, and she noted this change would initiate an increase in dialogue between the newsroom and readers.

Newsletters have the added value of both bringing more information to a conversation and connecting to a community. These types of emails will continue to be an effective way to reach readers and be primary sources as the digital landscape changes.

###