...If you’re applying a data-driven lens, as Jeff Sonderman highlighted at the Poynter Institute, you’ll need to ask a series of basic questions.“In every situation you face, there will be unique considerations about whether and how to publish a set of data,” he wrote. “Don’t assume data is inherently accurate, fair and objective. Don’t mistake your access to data or your right to publish it as a legitimate rationale for doing so. Think critically about the public good and potential harm, the context surrounding the data and its relevance to your other reporting. Then decide whether your data publishing is journalism.”...
Research and publish the best content.
Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
Already have an account: Login
Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight
443.6K views |
+3 today
Social marketing, PR insight & thought leadership - from The PR Coach
Curated by
Jeff Domansky
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Reporters wrong to share drafts with sources.
Should reporters allow their sources to alter a quote after it has been spoken, or even to review drafts of their stories before publication?
In the former, I say usually no. In the latter, I say “Hell, no.”
...After a reporting trip to Austin, de Vise shared two drafts of his article with UT officials prior to publication. They didn’t like the first version, saying that its tone and thrust were unfair to the university. Among the more embarrassing e-mails was one by de Vise that accompanied his second draft, saying, “I’d like to know of any phrases in the piece that you think are too harsh or over-hyped. . . . Everything here is negotiable.”
De Vise is a fair-minded, conscientious and thorough reporter. But he made a mistake.
He forgot that Post reporters write for readers, not for sources....
[Great conversation around sources, ethics and journalistic integrity which apply to business too - JD] 
Scoop.it!
From
gawker
Mike Daisey has been roundly and justly castigated for selling his bullshit stories about visiting the Foxconn complex in Shenzhen, China, to This American Life.
But even some of his harshest critics are buying into the idea that, in some contexts—just not "journalistic ones"—it's OK to tell little lies in service of a "larger truth."
This is dreck. All truths are the same size....
|
Scoop.it!
When Reuters now-suspended deputy social media editor Matthew Keys was indicted over allegedly helping members of Anonymous deface the LA Times, using credentials that he provided, it was a surprise.
How Keys intends to defend himself is now in the open: His lawyers claim that he was an undercover journalist. As reported by the Huffington Post, his lawyer said the following: “This is sort of an undercover-type, investigative journalism thing, and I know undercover — I’m using that term loosely [...] This is a guy who went where he needed to go to get the story. He went into the sort of dark corners of the Internet. He’s being prosecuted for that, for going to get the story.”.--
Jeff Domansky's insight:
This story has more twists and turns than the Magic Mountain ride at Six Flags...
Scoop.it!
Dan Rather says the practice of reporters letting candidates review their quotes furthers politicians' interests, but not the public's.
A New York Times front-page article Monday detailed a new phenomenon in news coverage of the presidential campaign: candidates insisting on "quote approval," telling reporters what they can and cannot use in some stories. And, stunningly, reporters agreeing to it.
[Does journalism still have integrity? - JD]
|
Ethics in journalism has always been very important and will continue to be important. Data journalism is no different. You must follow your code of ethics and make sure that you don't cross any lines of privacy while researching for your story and while writing it.