Comments on: Defining quality in journalism http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:28:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By:   Photojournalism Ethics is an ivory tower. by andydickinson.net http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-377578   Photojournalism Ethics is an ivory tower. by andydickinson.net Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:59:09 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-377578 [...] Defining quality in journalism [via Zemanta] [...] [...] Defining quality in journalism [via Zemanta] [...]

]]> By: Stone soup « Content Ninja’s Weblog http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-375427 Stone soup « Content Ninja’s Weblog Wed, 21 May 2008 21:53:04 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-375427 [...] Defining quality in journalism [via Zemanta] [...] [...] Defining quality in journalism [via Zemanta] [...]

]]> By: Nieuwe spelregels, nieuwe definities van kwaliteit — Jaap Stronks’ onderwijsblog http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373972 Nieuwe spelregels, nieuwe definities van kwaliteit — Jaap Stronks’ onderwijsblog Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:31:12 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373972 [...] uitstekende blogpost van Jeff Jarvis, Defining qualtiy in journalism, die nauw aansluit op de onderwerpen die ik in het college van vrijdag behandelde: For online [...] [...] uitstekende blogpost van Jeff Jarvis, Defining qualtiy in journalism, die nauw aansluit op de onderwerpen die ik in het college van vrijdag behandelde: For online [...]

]]> By: links for 2008-04-28 « Mediating Conflict http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373970 links for 2008-04-28 « Mediating Conflict Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:56:28 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373970 [...] BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Defining quality in journalism What is quality? (tags: JeffJarvis journalism) [...] [...] BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Defining quality in journalism What is quality? (tags: JeffJarvis journalism) [...]

]]> By: Melle Gloerich http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373964 Melle Gloerich Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:01:20 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373964 In my opinion, quality is expertise plus time. I regard all kinds of people as experts, if one has no formal education or can't even read but has a lot of hands on experience with ducks, this person will probably be an duck-expert. Sure, it might take a while to understand this kind of expertise because it has taken a path wildly different from what most people in the media-profession have taken, namely schooling. That's expertise, but it takes expertise of expression to publish this expertise and it will take time to reflect on ones opinion. If this is done properly, quality will be produced. Transparency should never replace objectivity, it's a condition of objectivity. Transparency without objectivity is by itself not a bad thing but should only serve as a flag warning an opinion as biased or without expertise at best. Since objectivity is an ideal and something which can never be fully reached, every article that is published as objective should be transparent. That's why scientific research references every building block of its argument. In most quality journalism, like for example the Wall Street Journal, we assume objectivity and I believe it's what they strife for as well, but I would like to see their resources more prominent. More scientific if you like. In my opinion, quality is expertise plus time. I regard all kinds of people as experts, if one has no formal education or can’t even read but has a lot of hands on experience with ducks, this person will probably be an duck-expert. Sure, it might take a while to understand this kind of expertise because it has taken a path wildly different from what most people in the media-profession have taken, namely schooling.

That’s expertise, but it takes expertise of expression to publish this expertise and it will take time to reflect on ones opinion. If this is done properly, quality will be produced.

Transparency should never replace objectivity, it’s a condition of objectivity. Transparency without objectivity is by itself not a bad thing but should only serve as a flag warning an opinion as biased or without expertise at best. Since objectivity is an ideal and something which can never be fully reached, every article that is published as objective should be transparent. That’s why scientific research references every building block of its argument.
In most quality journalism, like for example the Wall Street Journal, we assume objectivity and I believe it’s what they strife for as well, but I would like to see their resources more prominent. More scientific if you like.

]]> By: Jay Rosen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373955 Jay Rosen Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:23:57 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373955 Those Norwegian journalists visited NYU too! (But they didn't ask me this question, which is a good question.) I would say that one definition of "quality" for me has to do with aggregation. A "quality" story is aware of what else is on the Web that bears on that story, and does not pretend to be the first, last and only words on the subject. Collect in one place what's out there, <i>and then add something original to it</i>: that's quality. Or as you so have sometimes put it (quoting someone else, maybe?) "do what you do best and link to the rest." Those Norwegian journalists visited NYU too! (But they didn’t ask me this question, which is a good question.) I would say that one definition of “quality” for me has to do with aggregation. A “quality” story is aware of what else is on the Web that bears on that story, and does not pretend to be the first, last and only words on the subject. Collect in one place what’s out there, and then add something original to it: that’s quality. Or as you so have sometimes put it (quoting someone else, maybe?) “do what you do best and link to the rest.”

]]> By: Murray Dick http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373950 Murray Dick Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:12:40 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/04/27/defining-quality-in-journalism/#comment-373950 Hi Jeff, Not intending to start up a trans-atlantic stramash here, but I have to say I sincerely hope that transparency never overtakes objectivity (for want of specificity, I'd prefer to use 'even-handedness') as a quality standard in the UK broadsheet press, whether hard-copy or online. Whether you agree that Gerri Peev was right to publish Samantha Power's 'off the record' remarks about Hilary Clinton in the Scotsman, or find it monsterous (!) that she did so, this issue speaks to the vulnerability of transparency as a journalistic standard. Where journalists betray the public interest in publishing remarks made in the heat of the moment, even-handedness becomes even more important in terms of redressing the pursuit of truth. Especially given the ever-increasing sophistication and spread of methods used to control public discourse on key political issues. Like 'terrorism': http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1209316196-l7TwcbwUxCjKHgUoLQRxvA&oref=slogin Hi Jeff,

Not intending to start up a trans-atlantic stramash here, but I have to say I sincerely hope that transparency never overtakes objectivity (for want of specificity, I’d prefer to use ‘even-handedness’) as a quality standard in the UK broadsheet press, whether hard-copy or online.

Whether you agree that Gerri Peev was right to publish Samantha Power’s ‘off the record’ remarks about Hilary Clinton in the Scotsman, or find it monsterous (!) that she did so, this issue speaks to the vulnerability of transparency as a journalistic standard.

Where journalists betray the public interest in publishing remarks made in the heat of the moment, even-handedness becomes even more important in terms of redressing the pursuit of truth.

Especially given the ever-increasing sophistication and spread of methods used to control public discourse on key political issues.

Like ‘terrorism’:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1209316196-l7TwcbwUxCjKHgUoLQRxvA&oref=slogin

]]>