004

Why is it important for a journalist to get information from more than one source?

It is important for a journalist to get information from more than one source because there is more than one side to every story. Journalists need to strive to not show bias and to present an objective opinion. In most cases, the greater the variety of sources a journalist uses, the less biased their piece will come across to their audience.

Also, predictably, the more individuals a journalist interviews, the greater the pool of information from which the journalist is able to select what they wish to include in their piece. By interviewing only one source, a journalist has a very limited amount of information they can use. If, by any chance, a journalist is confused by what one source says, perhaps talking to another source can clarify it for the journalist.

No matter the number of sources a journalist has interviewed for a piece, it is crucial that all of the sources be trusted and reliable. The validity of a journalist often rests on the validity of the sources they have used, so using sources that people trust is something that every journalist should strive to do when interviewing for a piece.

A journalist's credibility is a very important aspect of their career and they should strive not to jeopardize it. If a journalist continually produces stories that sound very much one-sided, the journalist's credibility can consequently suffer along with their validity. Journalism is all about examining stories and that examination entails many different sides and angles, not just one narrow viewpoint. More sources are needed for a broader view of a journalist's subject.

003

One of the criticisms of the news media that many people make is that journalists emphasize "bad news" rather than "good news." What do you think people mean by that? Do you agree? Do the news values listed in this chapter mean that journalists are more likely to look for "bad news" than "good news"?

I am aware that I personally avoid watching the news on television because I feel as if most of the stories are "bad news", and I do not spend much time watching television so I think I would rather watch The Soup or The Office and laugh instead of constantly being paranoid about being the victim of a rape, murder, or identity theft. In my Theories of Communication class in Fall 2008, I learned that "heavy" television viewers (those who watch 5 or more hours per day) view the world as a less safe place than those who view less television. This phenomenon has been called "Mean World Syndrome". I strive to not be a victim of this syndrome and live somewhat in blissful ignorance. I know it sounds selfish, but if something does not affect me, I will not think much about it. The world is not always a nice place, but do we constantly need to be reminded of that fact? "Bad news" tends to attract the attention of more people than "good news". By "bad news", I mean stories of unfortunate events that are fatal or scarring (emotionally or otherwise). Many people like to be scared and are fascinated by tragedy, and the media humors them. Hearing a heartwarming story about a kitten being rescued from a high tree branch by firefighters is less engrossing than hearing a story about...something I don't even want to imagine. Even to me, the eternal optimist who chooses to hide from the big, bad news stories, the tragedies are more engrossing. It is easier to be compelled to Google more about a tragic event than a heartwarming story. I believe that the bizarre and unusual are news values that play a significant role in the selection of "bad news" by journalists.