Janie BoschmaWhen I first grabbed a copy of The Riverfront Review, I figured it would be a conservative version of The Flip Side, but with a stronger emphasis on political debates on contemporary, national and world issues. I was enjoying the concept because I do get sick of reading the same viewpoint over and over from different people.
What I didn’t know, however, was that by its second issue, The Review would tear apart any standards of journalism ethics it claimed to protect and uphold. As a journalist – not as any sort of official voice for The Spectator – that is the biggest problem I see with the Review. Forget about the paper’s politics for a second, regardless of what you believe or which side of the political spectrum you lean toward. It doesn’t matter if you’re liberal or conservative – a breach in ethics is wrong no matter what side of the fence you’re on. Journalism major or not, a lot of the mistakes should be common sense to the average person.
When deciding to make a newspaper or entering the mass media marketplace of ideas, a group should have a clear definition of its purpose, some sort of standard operating procedure to establish credibility and a way to convey a message in a manner that will keep people interested in what that group has to say. Unfortunately, I saw none of these things when paging through The Review and it could affect how people view the overall credibility of other campus media outlets.
People will see the damage The Review has done to journalism ethics and may think that’s how all newspapers operate, which is about as far from the truth as you can get.
First off, taking news articles from another newspaper or news network without permission and putting it in another publication is universally illegal, even if you re-word some of the article and keep the original quotes. Not only is it illegal, but it’s plagiarism and is incredibly unethical. And even then, the Review shouldn’t have used Fox News if it’s claiming to hold itself to a high standard of journalism ethics. Of all the news networks, the Review chose the one that touts itself as a conservative source of media. Suffice to say that doesn’t really help their objective cause.
The only reason The Spectator uses news wire stories is because it pays for the rights to use the articles and pictures along with them. Even though it’s limited in its access to certain stories and newspapers, The Spectator cannot just go to the Washington Post’s Web site and re-print one of its articles not found on the wire service because it’s unethical and The Spectator doesn’t have the money for a lawsuit. In the future, if the Review still strives to become a credible news source while wishing to re-print a wire story, it should find a way to legally to publish that article.
As the paper says itself, no one on the staff is a journalism major or minor, so it’s safe to assume they haven’t had much experience in reporting, organizing or laying out a newspaper. Let’s put this situation into perspective for a minute.
The closest thing I’ve taken to a business class is microeconomics, but if I wanted to start a business I wouldn’t do it alone or with people who are journalism majors. I’d probably ask for at least some advice from business majors, professors and others who know a little bit more about the field than I do. It seems like a pretty logical thing to do, right?
The people behind the Review think all that goes into a newspaper are opinions, printing paper, a disclaimer and ink. If you have all that, you’ve got yourself a source of media. If you believe that, please stop reading now. Even the average person who is involved in politics and the news world knows some of the common sense ethics newspapers employ.
On the opposite page, there’s a disclaimer from senior editor in chief Kristy LeTourneau on top of a disclaimer from sophomore editorial editor Sean McCormick. McCormick states that the paper is “committed to reporting news and events with objectivity” and “when it comes to reporting, we leave our agendas at the door.” The irony here involves a letter from “Joey H.” to the left of the disclaimers and a letter from English professor Jon Loomis on letters page.
Loomis’ letter is an obvious jab at the Review and I’ll give the Review credit for publishing a dissenting voice. However, the letter from “Joey H.” (it’s very evident that this letter is from one of the Review’s staff members) is a rebuttal to Loomis’ letter. This is a quintessential no-no in the journalism community.
Newspapers cannot comment online or in print on criticisms from their readers, especially in the form of an “average” student, which Joey H. isn’t. This is evident in the fact that his last name is kept hidden (along with all the other letters to the editor) and only staff members would have seen Loomis’ letter before it went to print. I’ve never commented on a criticism from a reader about a column I wrote because it’s their right to have an opposite viewpoint and the job of journalists is not to argue with readers – that’s just journalistic etiquette plain and simple.
The Review may like having the last say, but really it just makes the publication look like a joke, which is what Loomis had said in his letter, ironically. The Review also chose to keep the supportive letters they received in a type of anonymity by only publishing first names, whereas Loomis’ letter included his first and last name and his affiliation with the university as a professor. Clearly this was to single out the lone dissenter and only furthers the argument that the Review has no concept of journalism ethics.
College is a time of learning experiences based off of your mistakes, but a newspaper isn’t something you can treat like a term paper. I take what journalists do seriously and for people to come and ignorantly believe there aren’t guidelines or rules just like anything else is insulting.
Before claiming to strive for an objective coverage of news while at the same time slapping “Success in Iraq” on the front page coupled with blatant plagiarism from Fox News, I would suggest the Review open a journalism textbook or ask for some advice – they might actually get on a path that leads somewhere other than ridicule.
