Rebecca Baker Reflects on World Journalism Conference in Seoul

     After traveling more than 6,000 miles to attend the World Journalists Conference in South Korea, I was prepared for culture shock. I was prepared to hear about the wide-ranging experiences journalists face in far-flung countries. I was prepared to hear stories far different from my own.
     What I wasn’t prepared for was learning how journalists around the world are all dealing with the same things: Layoffs and cutbacks. Concern about career opportunities. Annoying bosses and bureaucratic corporate culture. Frustration over government obfuscation.
     One of the most striking conversations was with female journalists from India, Australia and Iran, three of the most different places one can imagine. And yet we all shared a similar experience—sexist, misogynistic comments from trolls on our stories. In one case, a reporter was attacked for simply encouraging racial and gender diversity among financial advisors. Some were more severe than others, but what amazed me was how each moved past the disparaging remarks—and threats, in some cases—to continue doing important reporting on social issues. As the saying goes, nevertheless, they persisted.
     Despite our different backgrounds, we shared a passion for news stories, for uncovering wrongdoing, for affecting positive change. We had other traits in common—similar senses of humor, a healthy skepticism of authority and a general disdain of pomp and circumstance. It’s what bonded us, to some degree, and created friendships that I hope continue for years to come.
     I left the conference with a new appreciation of the work that journalists are doing in counties such as Serbia, Argentina and Italy. The journalists I met may not be aware of SPJ’s Code of Ethics, but they are meeting those standards every day. They are seeking truth and reporting it, acting independently; being accountable and transparent and minimizing harm. They reminded me of the importance of the work we do and the work that SPJ fights for and champions year after year.
     The journalists I met deserve a toast for their hard work and dedication. I raise a glass to them all.
—–

Rebecca Baker is managing editor of the New York Law Journal, the largest-circulation legal daily newspaper in the country. She has been a reporter for The (Bergen) Record in New Jersey, The Journal News in Westchester County, New York, and the New Haven Register in Connecticut.

She is a member of SPJ’s national board as Region 1 Director, overseeing all student and professional SPJ chapters in the Northeast. She is on the advisory council of The Deadline Club in New York City, where she also served as president, awards contest chairwoman and events chairwoman.

More than 90 journalists from over 55 countries gathered from April 2-8 for the World Journalists Conference in South Korea. The Society of Professional Journalists represented by Lynn Walsh, Rebecca Baker and Elle Toussi attended the conference. For more information about the conference and any other international journalism conferences please reach out to the SPJ International Community here.
Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Editorial Independence of VOA Threatened By New Law

Politico reported this week a provision included in the just-passed National Defense Authorization Act would get rid of the bipartisan board running Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other news outlets with a single CEO nominated by the president.

The Voice of America has had a long and strong reputation for presenting the news in a fair and balanced nature in spite of the political winds blowing in Washington. Efforts by administrations to slant the news or to not report events with the full vigor expected of journalists have all failed.

The independence of the VOA was first drafted in 1960 and then signed into law by Pres. Gerald R. Ford.

The Code of Ethics for VOA journalists is also very clear what their role is:

“VOA reporters and broadcasters must strive for accuracy and objectivity in all their work. They do not speak for the U.S. government. They accept no treatment or assistance from U.S. government officials or agencies that is more favorable or less favorable than that granted to staff of private-sector news agencies. Furthermore, VOA professionals, careful to preserve the integrity of their organization, strive for excellence and avoid imbalance or bias in their broadcasts.”

All this was possible because of the multi-party nature of the board of governors that controlled the VOA and other broadcast outlets. Now, according to the Political piece: “Essentially, Trump is finally getting his Trump TV — financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.”

The SPJ stood up for the reporters and editors of VOA when the George W. Bush Administration tried to prevent VOA from interviewing and airing its exclusive interviews with the leadership of the Taliban just as the Afghanistan war was starting.

Numerous VOA reporters received the highest awards the SPJ offered for reporting over the years.

All this could change because of a provision slipped into the authorization bill by House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce. He argued the CEO structure would make VOA more efficient.

What it also does is make the VOA susceptible to pressure from the White House to become a propaganda organ rather than an honest news organization.

 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Good to meet you: New officer Victoria Blake

Victoria Blake

Victoria Blake

Hello,

I am the new Social Media Manager for the Society of Professional Journalists International Community page. I hope to bring many new ideas to the organization to better this community with Elle Toussi and Dan Kubiske.

In the past few months I have had the honor to work in different organizations starting with Texan News Service at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas. While I am going to graduate in 2018, I enjoy volunteering and writing at any moment possible.

Since Texan News Service, I have begun working as the Content Editor at JTAC News, another student newspaper at my university. I also am a contributor for Kettle Magazine, writing for the culture, science, and now, politics sections.

I also was one of the Social Media Managers for SCARE for a Cure in Austin, Texas. While this was my first year volunteering with them, we raised money by hosting a haunted house for the Breast Cancer Resource Center. There, I helped put photos up of facts about Halloween, and direct questions to other volunteers about the haunt. In addition, I am the current Social Media Manager for Purrs N’ Spurs. An organization at my university that takes care of our feral cat colony.

This year I will also be serving as the Vice-Chair in Society of Professional Journalists Generation J. I hope to help the two communities work together in bringing forth better content and helping each other learn, and achieve goals from one another. I believe both places as well as others of SPJ are very unique, and have a lot to offer, and am pleased to be a part of that process.

I want to make this through collaboration an inclusive, more advanced organization. What was said by Dan Kubiske just yesterday that has stuck with me was that throughout the world our organization is looked to on ethics.

In my free time, I like traveling, rock climbing, and as of recently, art and photography. I have several goals I want to achieve this year, including:

  • I hope for this to not only be a great learning experience personally, but to do more with social media and reach new people to help out along the way.
  • I want to try using Instagram or Snapchat to show where international journalists are. What are you seeing? Where are you today? If you would like, I would love to read a blog post about it and learn more about what you are doing with your stories.
  • Bring up more opportunities with people and how to enhance skills for the betterment of ourselves and the industry.
  • Ask more of you what you would like to see in this organization, how could I along with with everyone else do more to improve in any aspect?
  • This year, the goal is to have an issue in the industry, or main topic for each month and a spotlight on a journalist and what they are doing later in the month. We have a unique community and that in itself that for what I have seen, should be recognized and I would love to read other Journalist’s work.I look forward to this experience to help progress this organization to the prime and best it can be while meeting new people along the way.
Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

The 2016 US Election and Global Journalism

American journalists and journalism prof Dan Gillmor gave the keynote address to the Congress of Journalists of Catalonia (Spain) last week. He chose as his theme free speech, the Donald Trump victory and the need for journalists to be activists.

And please note, this is a speech about a basic American value: Freedom of Speech/Press, presented by an American to a Spanish group of journalists. This is a discussion that is not limited to the States.

You can read the whole speech at Gillmor’s website.

Here are some key points:

I have three goals this morning.

First, to give you my impressions of how journalism performed during this election campaign. The short answer is that journalism failed, with some exceptions.

My second goal is to help you understand why I believe the Trump presidency could well be a turning point – a negative one – for free speech and other fundamental liberties in my country. That would have impact far beyond our shores.

Finally, I want to ask journalists – here and in America and everywhere – to be activists.

Activists for freedom of expression, among the liberties that are at the core of societies where freedom is an institution, not just a word.

Activists for media literacy, the foundation of which is critical thinking.


Our media organizations helped create the climate for someone like Trump to succeed. They’ve been selling fear for decades. For example, in America, at a time the lowest crime rates in many decades, our media have persuaded the public that the risk of being a victim is higher than ever. The risk of any individual person in America becoming a victim is terrorism is exceedingly low, but our media have persuaded the public that the opposite is true.


Trump drew audiences, which boosted ratings, and advertisers sent money. The head of CBS, one of the US media companies that profited wildly from Trump, will be infamous forever for what he said at a business conference early this year: “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

This leader of business said, most infamously, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

If American journalism dies in the next few years, those words should be carved on the tombstone marking the grave.


I emphasize that there was some great work. In fact, if you compiled all the excellent campaign journalism, you’d have a long list–including some work from newer online outlets–that would make you proud as a journalist. But the good stuff was swamped by the flood of mediocrity and awfulness that dominated.

I want to praise one journalist in particular. David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post gave a one-man demonstration of how journalism should work. He deserves and will win a 2017 Pulitzer Prize, unless the Pulitzer judges are sound asleep when they look at his work.


Many liberties are in jeopardy, but I will focus mostly here on ones that involve freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

It is clear that Trump actually loves media – when it’s helping to promote him or his business interests. But he plainly hates actual journalism about him, and has promised to do things – and has already done some of them — that would directly and indirectly threaten what journalists do. He has sued at least one journalist not because of inaccuracies but because he wanted to punish the writer financially by forcing him and his publisher to spend money on lawyers. He’s been clear that he’ll appoint judges who might sharply restrict journalistic freedom. There is much more, but I believe it is accurate to call Trump an enemy of journalism, and now he’s in a position where he can do extraordinary damage.


Journalists have to recognize that on some issues, they have to become activists. There is no alternative.

I recognize that in many parts of this world, journalists are activists by definition—because truth telling in repressive societies is an act designed to bring about change. I’m humbled by the people who risk their freedom, and sometimes their lives, to tell their fellow citizens and the rest of the world what is happening where they live.

In the western democracies with a more robust tradition of free speech and a free press, the idea of journalists as activists is often seen as taking sides, and violating journalistic norms. But there’s a long and honorable history of what we call “advocacy journalism” exposing injustices with the goal of of bringing about change.


Free speech starts at the edges of the networks, and ultimately that is where it is heard.

And – this is so important – we need to be spreading the concept of media literacy to everyone who will listen. This is, above all, about developing skills for critical thinking – being skeptical, using judgment, asking questions, ranging widely for information; and more. People need a refuge from the misinformation, and context to understand what is really going on.

Journalists should the leading teachers of media literacy. The ones who do journalism with integrity will be among the biggest beneficiaries, because they’ll foster much more trust in their own work – and one of the things people pay for in this world is products and services they trust.


Journalists, and journalism, are under attack around the world. I wasn’t happy with President Obama’s harsh attitude toward leaks that assisted essential national security journalism. But we’ll probably look back on his tenure as a time of overt support for journalism compared to the Trump regime.

Core freedoms – of expression, association, and more – should be everyone’s right. Media literacy is everyone’s duty. Journalists, and journalism educators like me, have a duty to be their active defenders, and explainers.

Otherwise we’ll live in a world of choke points and control by others – and Donald Trump surely craves control. Otherwise we’ll live in a world where lies are as plausible as truth because the public that doesn’t know how to tell the difference – and based on this campaign that’s the world Trump prefers, too.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

A couple of job openings in Singapore and UAE

Top News Editor, Asia
Thomson Reuters
Singapore

Qatar Correspondent – TR Construction
Thomson Reuters
Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Prejudice: One of the outcomes of censorship

This article was first posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

China Digital Times pulled a great item from an interview with Chinese publisher Bao Pu and writers Guo Xiaolu and Hao Qun (who goes by the pen name Murong Xuecun) from the June 3 issue of Foreign Policy.

The blockage of the Internet by the Chinese government means, said the authors and publisher, that people are not getting enough information to make rational decisions.

[R]elatively few people actually bypass censored information on the Internet. But why? Censorship in the long run breeds prejudice. Once you have this prejudice, you think you know everything, but you don’t. That’s why they’re not actively seeking — because they think there’s nothing out there. It’s a vicious cycle.

I have long argued that censorship means the people of a country will begin to rely more on rumors and prejudices than on cold hard facts. China’s rulers, however, say too much unregulated (censored) information leads to social instability.

What they really mean is that once people start thinking critically, the iron-heel rule of the Communist Party in China will be weakened.

And what goes for China goes for other dictatorships. Think Iran, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe. Even the leaders in proto-dictatorships such as Singapore and Malaysia want to control all forms of media to protect their hold on power.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Web Editor Needed in Cambodia

The Cambodia Daily

  • Location
    Phnom Penh, Cambodia
  • Sector
    Commercial
  • Experience
    Early Career / Mid Career

Position description

Manage the global presence of Cambodia’s most trusted newspaper. Engage an expanding online readership in hard-hitting coverage of current events in a rapidly changing country.

Required Education, Experience & Skills:

  • Bachelor’s degree or higher in journalism or related field
  • Working knowledge of WordPress, HTML and basic CSS; JavaScript and PHP a plus
  • Experience promoting content through social media and SEO
  • Strong writing ability with a sharp eye for syntax, grammar and punctuation
  • Ability to work in a fast-paced, high-stress environment

Duties & Responsibilities:

  • Update the English-language website every morning
  • Grow online audience through Facebook and Twitter; increase subscriber base
  • Monitor analytics and compile regular reports that identify strengths and weaknesses of web strategy
  • Design multimedia features such as cambodiadaily.com/squidinc and cambodiadaily.com/unprotectedareas
  • Report and write stories as time allows
  • Produce data visualizations and report data stories as time allows
  • Monitor digital subscriptions and online advertising

Application instructions

If interested, email a CV and cover letter to jobs@cambodiadaily.com or submit them to The Cambodia Daily office, #7, Street 228, Phnom Penh. Tel: 023 426 602/490

*Please be sure to indicate that you saw this position on Globaljobs.org*

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Kazakh Journalists Meet With Local SPJ Chapter

This item first appeared on the website of the Washington, DC, chapter of the SPJ

By Alice Ollstein

How do you distinguish between trustworthy news and propaganda? Is it ethical to accept gifts from a source? How can we keep publishing serious stories when our readers and editors are demanding clickbait?

Journalists from Kazakhstan meet with SPJ International Community Co-chair Dan Kubiske (center) and Washington, DC, SPJ board member Alice Ollstein (second from right)

Journalists from Kazakhstan meet with SPJ International Community Co-chair Dan Kubiske (center) and Washington, DC, SPJ board member Alice Ollstein (second from right)

These were some of the many questions tackled in a cross-cultural discussion in early June between SPJ members in DC and a team of four journalists from Kazakhstan who came to the U.S. on a study tour organized by the State Department. Dan Kubiske, the co-chair of the SPJ’s International Committee, and newly elected local board member Alice Ollstein represented the SPJ at the meeting.

The four Kazakh reporters, who work for various print, radio, TV and digital outlets, offered a window into their lives, including their experiences with government censorship.

“We have to use code words,” explained one. “For example, if the value of the currency is falling, we call it a ‘correction.’”

Another added she routinely gets angry calls from government officials who sometimes demand a critical story be taken down or a photo changed to one that’s more flattering. “”But at least we can post a critical report, and it will be up for a few hours before we are forced to take it down.”

Kazakhstan ranks poorly on press freedom indices by Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders. Journalists can be jailed or heavily fined for “defaming” the president or other elected officials, and dozens of reporters were charged in the last year alone. This has created an environment where outlets self-censor out of fear of legal retribution.

Kubiske told the Kazakh just about the only time reporters in the United States go to jail is to protect an anonymous source. Ollstein added denial of access is also a major problem reporters have covering the government.

Over all, the meeting focused ethical, economic, and organizational challenges that are universal to reporters in every country, from the allure of easy clickbait to the difference between the appearance of a conflict of interest and the genuine article. While the discussion revealed that what might be an ethical and normal practice in one country could be verboten in another, fairness and accuracy are valued across national borders.

Meetings such as these give U.S. journalists better insight into under-covered parts of the world and help dispel stereotypes about the U.S. and its press corp. In addition, they can foster invaluable connections and help build a strong international community of journalists all struggling for free and independent media.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

China’s Foreign Minister Berates Canadian Reporter For Legitimate Question

This was first posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi decided that any questions about China’s human rights record is not something he likes being asked. Likewise, he figures no one else should be asked about it either.

An old friend, Frank Ching in Hong Kong reported about a little dust up during a joint press conference Yi had with Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Stephane Dion.

Seems a reporter asked Dion aobut China’s human right’s record. Yi jumped in, preventing Dion from answering the question. Yi then proceeded to give the usual lies about how people in China enjoy all sorts of human rights, he then added no one but the Chinese people have a right to talk about the situation in the Middle Kingdom.

Yi then began berating the Canadian reporter for daring to ask a question about human rights in China.

  • “Do you understand China?
  • “Have you been to China?
  • “Do you know that China is now the world’s second-biggest economy, with US$8,000 per capita?”

Frank hits the nail on the head: “If that is the way China behaves when it is the world’s second-biggest economy, what is one to expect when it becomes No. 1?”

He is also right when he wrote:

The media’s response should be to keep peppering him with questions everywhere he travels about China’s treatment of human rights advocates, the Hong Kong booksellers, the imprisonment of the Canadian missionary Kevin Garratt and the South China Sea.

Since these are the questions Wang doesn’t like to hear, these are the questions that should be asked.

Over and over again until they get a proper airing.

The problem is that only reporters who never hope to get to China are the ones who can ask those questions.

Journalists already in China who push as Frank urges will find out their visas are suddenly “out of order” or will not be renewed when they expire. Journalists outside China who ask these kinds of questions will find they will not be able to get a visa to visit China, even as a tourist. And forget about being on any agreed-to list of journalists to cover any event that involves the Chinese government any where in the world.

Frank looks into the big picture of the Chinese attitude that it has the right to impose its form of press repression around the world. (Think China’s application for the 2022 Olympics.)

What minister’s outburst over human rights in China tells us

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Getting around the Great Firewall of China as June 4 approaches

June 4 is remembered as the day the Chinese government brutally shut down a peaceful demonstration in Tiananmen Square in Beijing that was calling for reforms in the ruling Communist Party and in the government.

One of the most famous scenes is the lone man with shopping bags standing up to a column of tanks.

While no official death toll has been released by the Chinese government, estimates are that hundreds died in the army attack on the demonstrators. An additional 10,000 or so were arrested.

Each year in Hong Kong there is a major commemoration ceremony — the only place in China that has such a thing, thanks to the protection of civil rights enshrined in the handover treaty of 1997.

Also each year the Chinese government tries to censor any reference to June 4 or the demonstration. And each year it fails, because the Netizens of China stay one step ahead of censors.

One of the earliest work arounds was a call to honor the dead of May 35. Or Remember the Square of 8. (For the math-phobic, 8×8=64 and 64=June 4)

The good people at China Digital Times have been keeping track of the code words and phrases the Chinese censors have banned on the Internet. One of the more humorous items is how the ban on “64” caused reporting on the Shanghai stock market fell 64.89 points. (Yes, that looks like 6/4/89) Rather than risk anyone thinking it was a Tiananmen remembrance, the government doctored the stock report for public consumption.

Here is the China Digital Times list. It is well worth the read.: Five Years of Sensitive Words on June Fourth

Be sure to pay close attention the ASCII cartoon of tanks rolling over a person.

 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ