gender, religion and objectivity

The article “The Gender Gap: Women Are Still Missing as Sources for Journalists” gives statistics of the female representation as media sources, but doesn’t offer an explanation as to why women are not sought as primary sources as often as men. It’s puzzling why cable news is the least likely to portray female sources. Are women more likely to be taken seriously in print? The article also doesn’t mention a correlation between the sex of the reporter in relation to the sex of a chosen source. Are men more likely to pick men as sources, or are both sexes skewed towards a bias which leads male and female reporters to list a man as an authority on a subject?

The fact that “Help Wanted on the Religion Beat” was written by a woman gives a smack to the face of the previous article. Author Julia Duin considers herself an authority on religion, which is interesting since most monotheistic religions have traditionally viewed women as less capable, second-class citizens. In many religions, women were not allowed to study religious doctrines. “Help Wanted” begins with a passive sentence: “With concern about values registering high in exit polls last election, the question was raised as to why journalists didn’t shed more light on such concerns and the people who hold them.” She uses the rest of the article to answer that question and say that newspapers should hire experts on religion, not transfer writers from other departments “who know little about it.” Duin stresses the importance of hiring a knowledgeable writer to cover the religion beat.

The problem with having a religion beat is that religion is subjective. It’s difficult to write about objectively because it’s often based upon intangible ideas held as truths, not textbook facts. I have doubts that during the aforementioned election journalists didn’t report on values affecting an election because they were unknowledgeable about religion, as Duin claims. It doesn’t take someone with a Ph.D. in religion to interview a voter about the affect of his or her values on his decision and toss it into an article. Since religion is so subjective, newspapers are probably more at risk for liability since one religious group is bound to be offended.

In the article “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” Cliff Kincaid lists topics he thinks are unable to be written about objectively. The catch is that the whole article is written under the guise of objectivity. The Web site that the article is published on is aimg.org, which stands for “Accuracy in Media,” and its slogan is “For fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting.” This reeks of Fox News’ “Fair and balanced” slogan, concocted to counteract the fact that audiences know Fox News is blatantly skewed toward the conservative right. The first sentence of this article gives away Kincaid’s bias: “The old media, with their documented and demonstrable liberal bias, have lost much of their clout.”

One of the topics Kincaid thinks is impossible to be written about objectively is the theory of intelligent design. He claims since the theory has “possible religious implications” that the liberal media side automatically side with “secular humanists” who don’t want the theory discussed in schools.

Does this author ever reread his own work? It’s not that it could be “possible” that intelligent design is based on religious teachings, it just is. The theory is based on the idea that humans were designed by an intelligence—that intelligence being God. It’s stems from a Christian concept and to blame the media for not reporting on the theory as a legitimate alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution is also to say that the author favors Christianity. To teach a concept such as intelligent design in school, which originates from religious concept, is to blur the line between church and state and to impede upon other religious beliefs.

Another of Kincaid’s topics he says cannot be written about objectively is abortion. He says “the harmful effects of abortion” cannot be written about objectively since “abortion is considered a sacred right of women that should not be challenged.” Throwing the word “sacred” into the sentence implies ridicule, yet this claim is completely ridiculous. Of course the harmful effects of abortion can be written about objectively. I’m sure people would want to know the harmful effects. Yet this doesn’t mean it should be written in a manner as to sway public opinion on the right to undergo an abortion.

I understand that Kincaid would classify me as a part of the liberal media, but I’m not pretending to pass off this piece as objective. His story might have held more heft had Kincaid actually written a fair and balanced story, citing a female authority as a source when discussing abortion since an abortion is something he will never have. His biased views on intelligent design directly addresses the “Help Wanted” article in that it is difficult if at all possible to keep one’s personal views out of articles on religion. The last sentence of Kincaid’s article is: “The trouble is that the opinion journalism is being provided under the cover of objective reporting.”

Need I state the obvious?

 

Case Study: “Jimmy’s World”

I really didn’t have a problem with Jimmy’s language sounding too adult in this story. It’s probably unlikely that a kid who has been using heroin for 3 years would have a sharp mind, but I have known 8-year-olds to say grownup sounding things heard from adults. For example, Jimmy says, “So, I pretty much pay attention to math because I know I got to keep up when I finally get me something to sell.” In my experience, young children tend to repeat things that sound positive. It’s quite possible that Jimmy could have heard about needing math from someone passing through the house, trying to give Jimmy an incentive to learn.

Still, so many other parts to the story do not make sense. As Professor Rodgers mentioned in class, why would an adult who paid for heroin shoot it into a child? Isn’t that throwing money down the drain? And in school, we students have always been taught that you can get addicted to heroin from using it once. Why did it take Jimmy six months to form an addiction?

Story idea:
Gainesville tap water tastes like chlorine. Is it safe to drink? The New York Times published a story on the safety of drinking hot tap water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/health/29real.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin

College students often don’t see a need to buy a filtration system. This story could be on the importance of drinking filtered water and safety hazards of drinking unfiltered and hot tap water. Older homes and apartments use lead pipes, which increases lead in water.

According to the Times story which cited the Environmental Protection Agency, boiling water doesn’t remove lead and can actually increase the concentration.

To be an effective story, the focus would have to be on the harmful effects of drinking tap water. A sidebar would be useful to draw in readers and add visual interest.

The reporter should begin chasing contacts for this story by calling the Gainesville Water Department at 770-538-2466.

The Web site for the UF Water Reclamation Facility appeared to be dated, but a quick walk over to the center could provide some helpful resources and leads to people sources.