|
For starters, Dean Lemann addressed the larger, sticky question of how an Ivy League institution such as Columbia impacts ethics in the hurly-burly, on-the-ground world of journalism. Well, the answer is not by offering a course in ethics. Given the “criminal costs” of professional schools – ranging over $35,000 for tuition and fees and close to $55,000 for overall expenses in a 10 month program – it just is not financially justifiable to offer a course to teach journalism students what “their mommas should have taught them,” suggested Dean Lemann. Students do not need to pay thousands of dollars to hear a professor tell them: “Don’t lie, don’t misrepresent yourself, and don’t pretend to be where you haven’t been.” So what can be done? Lemann suggested that a professional school such as his can elevate journalism by: Example, as when its practitioner/professors produce the kind of reporting and writing its students should emulate. By focused reinforcement, as when Columbia gives “lots and lots” of prizes to news organizations and individuals for the types of journalistic practices the school hopes will proliferate. And by making use of the luxury afforded by academe to raise issues and offer criticisms that those under pressures of financial and daily deadlines do not have. The practitioners have told Lemann that they welcome and appreciate this sort of standard setting, even if – or especially since – they don’t have time to do it themselves. The latest approach to standard setting comes through "The Campaign Desk" a website set up by the Columbia Journalism Review that monitors the political campaign trail in “real time,” offering critiques of both the campaigners and the press coverage of the campaign. It picks up and corrects errors of fact: So exactly how many times did Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards vote for or against President Bush’s tax cuts? It documents the votes and goes on to wag a finger at newspapers that quoted the candidates without checking the facts. Lemann believes that the website was influential in cutting short (though not short enough) the overreporting of candidate Dean’s now-famous roaring Iowa caucus concession speech, and for extracting a lengthy on air "mea culpa" from ABC's Diane Sawyer for the the way networks, including her own covered the event. He later told League President Anne Herman that it might be possible to continue evaluating media coverage beyond the election. “It’s certainly possible, if we can get funding,” he said. Hands shot up as soon as Lemann concluded his formal talk. Audience members peppered him with questions, including the following: So what’s happened to grammar – all those singular subjects with plural pronouns make me cringe, said Patty O’Brien, who complimented the speaker on his own subject-verb agreement. Lemann concurred that students were appearing at graduate school without the basic grounding in grammar. Many require extra tutoring, he reported. “Who do you think was [Watergate era] Deep Throat?” asked another attendee. Dean Lemman offered journalist David Gergen as his best guess, “for what it’s worth,” though he made clear he had no special knowledge to back up his choice. “What happened at USA Today?” was another query about a top journalist having fabricated stories. Lemann suggested that the newspapers could benefit from an investment – even a small investment – in fact checkers. The better-funded magazines, such as Lemann's former employers, The New Yorker or The Atlantic Monthly, employ staff that contacts interviewees and makes sure the reporter got the story straight. If reporters knew there was a chance – even a small chance – of being caught in exaggerating or fabricating a story, there would be a higher level of self-policing, Lemann asserted. And what about the New York Times, where reporter Jayson Blair was fired for "creative reporting" and the paper published lengthy coverage of the case and its aftermath? Executive editor Howell Raines was right to accept major responsibility and to resign, indicated Lemann. Lemann faulted editors, Raines included, who seek the “Holy Sh--!” article to splash across their front page. When writers come up with a sensational story – particularly an exclusive – there may be greater incentives to get the story out than to insure each element is verifiable. As the question-and-answer period ended, Lemann was surrounded with attendees eager to ask one more question or make one more point.
“I thought it was great,” said Nick Lemann in his wrap up of the evening. “I was amazed at how many people were there and how engaged they were. It was a total delight.” League President Herman concurred. The evening was
aimed both to engage the community and to raise funds for
the League’s activities, she explained. “We were
absolutely thrilled at the splendid turnout of around 125
guests, which
should be enough to cover the costs of voter guides for the
next two contested elections, “ she estimated. “We
thought 'journalism and ethics' was a topic of
importance to the community – and the turnout and audience
reaction seemed to confirm that,” she concluded.
|
|
||||||||||||||
Front
Page | Terms of Service
| Contact
Us | About
Us | Guiding Principles
LARCHMONTGAZETTE.COM - Copyright © 2002-2009 Larchmont Gazette LLC- All Rights Reserved |
||||||||||||||||
(February
10, 2004) Local League of Women Voters members and supporters
turned out on Sunday evening, February 8
for
an opportunity
to
hear from Nicholas Lemann, the new dean of Columbia University’s
Graduate School of Journalism and to pose their burning
questions, such as: What’s happened to grammar in
the news business? Who was Deep Throat? What’s going
on at USA Today?
And, can anything be done to improve the state of ethics in journalism?
Print This Article--For best results, highlight text, print selection