Ole-Miss coverage a "hit" or "miss"?

Of the more than 60,000 articles on Friday night's presidential debate, many discussed the venue. Now, I didn't read all of the articles, but those I read made a point to acknowledge the history of race-relations at the University of Mississippi (the venue). That was good journalism at work.

However, the educational and political purposes for choosing that venue aside (and we know how I feel about schools and politics), what made this university the best choice?

Some articles suggested the progress the university has made since of the university over the years made it a worthy choice. Others reported that little has changed, which arguably makes it a more worthy choice. (Maybe seeing non-white, northern-bred individuals in an intellectual light will prove positive for the campus.)

Still, little coverage exists on why this school was actually chosen. Why was it even a candidate? The nickname, traditions and mascot scream disrespect and denial to a nation united and Black Americans. Yet, someone (CPD) saw fit to have the most historic of all presidential debate seasons begin here!

Does the public know how a location is chosen? The application, which lists criteria for consideration, is available online. But the criteria used to make the actual selection must be hidden on the DEEP web. (I think it's the bottom-line, noted on pages 2 and 10 of the application...but that's just me).

So where is the coverage of why a debate costs so much and how a location is chosen? If you find that in the news, let me know how "Ole-Miss" measures up! That's great journalism. So far, I'm not impressed by the University of Mississippi or the media (large student body/sponsorship and all)!

Coverage of Politics on Campus

Most agree that a college campus should primarily serve to promote higher learning, but few question the validity of political candidates debating and campaigning on college campuses. Should we simply accept this as commonplace or should more people question the appropiateness of it?

How does having a political debate on a college campus promote higher learning? Shouldn't the point for a college be to teach students about the issues and where to find information on a political platform? If that's true, allowing candidates to debate, campaign and promote a party or agenda does not align with the purpose of higher learning.

One might argue that politicians are often the best orators, but should their political platforms and ideas really be showcased by learning institutions?

I have yet to see media coverage on why politicians of a certain party visit particular campuses. I suspect that's because to do so would make it seem as though the ideals of some schools align with a particular political party.

We cover the politics of it all, but there's a story in what seems commonplace. Some journalists should include the possible reasons a campus would open its doors to politicians.

As a journalist, I'd like to see a change in journals. I'm just not hot enough to work for one.

It seems logical that staffers for prestigious academic journals and trade journals would have one goal -- getting published. However, most on the staff of these publications spend most of their time critiquing and publishing the work of others rather than actually writing.

Meanwhile, those fueled by a desire to be published know that quality journalism plays second fiddle to: unique, one-of-a-kind topics that have little or no prior coverage and/or narrowly-tailored subject matter that has a very small audience.

Yet, readers subscribe to journals. Journals, especially medical and financial, maintain their prestige. The general population, however, would struggle to find information of personal significance in a journal.

So, it seems journal articles and print or broadcast coverage of an event differ greatly. One might argue that journalists have specific topics they cover or sections of the paper they write. So, this might force them to find either a new topic or to tailor their writing to a specific audience. But, no matter what section of the paper or segment of a news broadcast one finds coverage, it should always be fair and balanced. (If you read the paper or watch the news and find yourself agreeing with something, it had better be a column or a editorial piece.)

However, a vital difference exists, between journals and other media outlets, that is evident in the final product. Since a journal usually has more time to provide depth and detailed research of a topic it is expected that more aspects of the subject will receive coverage. What I find disturbing, though, is the underlying stance that many journal articles take. It could come from the climate of the publication (heavy-handed, conservative editing or a liberal, politically-correct publisher's refusal to print information contrary to popular belief). Or the passion the writer often has in the subject matter may cause the coverage to take on a subtle opinion. Whatever the reason, I have yet to read a journal article that did not take a position; like a medical journal article that dismisses holistic alternatives for treatment of an ailment or a trade journal article that downplayed the need for consumer protections in coverage of a new high-dollar-trend.

I recognize the importance of taking a stand and finding ways to support that stand. Still, I find the public's right to make an educated decision free of my slant (or any slant for that matter) more important. Journals often have the time, manpower and prestige to give readers a depth of information, background and context that other media outlets cannot afford to offer.

So, I ask myself, "Why don't journals use their power to offer readers multiple angles without an angle?" Then I remembered, those that work for a journal rarely get published. Those that get published, often have to conform to do so.

On the bright side, journals do introduce readers to unique ideas, the latest research or buzz on a topic, and support of an argument. Still, journals lack the unbiased, dual-sided coverage that good journalism (especially civic journalism) provides. Am I the only one that finds this ironic?

Practice Makes Perfect

So, my first podcast is below. Not sure it's too hot, but here it goes.

Powered by Podbean.com

Is it old news even if we don't know about it?

Earlier this year, law-student and pageant beauty Kumari Fulbright made national headlines. Fulbright, who at the time had a prestigious clerkship, allegedly kidnapped and tortured her former boyfriend with the help of three other men. (The good news is, concerned citizens didn't close their eyes to the fiasco.)

After two hours of searching, the most recent news I could find on the case was an article published back in May. Surely, the pending case is not at a stand still, but its news coverage definitely is.

Another case, that of a University of Arkansas law professor suing his students, made national headlines. The students have graduated, but the drama and the court case has not ended, yet coverage of the suit by mainstream media seemingly has. In this case, the media failed to even provide all sides of the case or to stay on top of the schools response to the action.

These stories only serve as examples of many events that make national news, and then without resolve, vanish from the pages of the paper -- even the weird news section or the online outlet. This irritates me. If an event is newsworthy and the outcome pending, what makes it no longer news? Does something cease being important to the public when all of the media outlets have covered it at the onset? Does the rebuttal of other involved parties not matter? This doesn't seem fair, but it does seem accurate.

In thinking about why these and other stories have died, I've come up with several theories: 1) the impact of the event is not far reaching, 2) no end to the event or case seems possible, 3) the initial coverage received no feedback, and finally 4) maybe the media does not deem the location, subject, resolution or continuation of the coverage valuable to the public. Even with all of my theories, I see no good reason to introduce an on-going event or pending situation to the public and never follow-up on the unanswered issues.

While I realize that part of an issue's news value depends upon timing, the lapse of time or the lengthiness of an event should not kill the media's coverage of it. To cease coverage of an event that the public continues to have questions about is to close up shop prematurely.

One can only hope that media higher-ups would be receptive to reporters and editors that want to follow a story until its end...and by one, I'll be honest, I hope I'll have that chance.

The media has the power to agenda-set, but its responsibility to maintain that agenda is equally compelling. When I get my chance, let this post remind me of that power and responsibility...that is if my curiosity ever allows me to let go of a story.