Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Music journalism: The ethical considerations

This past weekend, I was fortunate enough to be able to cover the Pygmalion Music Festival, which took place in Champaign-Urbana, Ill. I had applied for a press pass a few weeks before for The Daily Illini, and the organizer of the event granted me it (shameless plug: my coverage can be found at this site).

This is not the first time I have covered a music festival or concert. In fact, as of late, I have been making more and more plans for myself to cover music, through interviews, album reviews and concert reviews (I really tested this out this summer, when I sent away to record labels and band's managements for advance copies of albums. It worked 95 percent of the time).

This summer, one isolated instance got me thinking about the most objective way of covering a concert. I was in the photo pit for at set by The Roots at the Summer Camp Music Festival in Chillicothe, Ill. At the end of the show, the percussionist in the band threw out a drum stick. Another "journalist" in the pit caught it, so proud of what he did. I looked at him, and said "You can't do that, you are a member of the press." The guy looked at me, smiling and just walked away (My blog about it, including a few comments, can be found here. The subsequent blog post to clarify it can be found here).

It is kind of funny to read the comments now, but at the time they really did bug me. Looking back, maybe I did make a big deal out of nothing, but I still believe in what I wrote. That person catching a drum stick in the photo pit made him part of the show, which is essentially the same as being part of the story. As a journalist (with some exceptions, I know), we are taught to stay out of the story, as becoming it can alter what will happen.

As a music journalist (at least for concert reviews and coverage), I think the best way to approach it is to take a few steps back and just observe. Whatever happens will happen, and the reporter will be there to document it. The closer one gets, the better chance they have to get into the story. Doing something like catching a drum stick makes one a part of the story, which, for the most part, is not what the reader needs to know...It is a privilege to be able to cover these sorts of events, and the privilege must not be abused.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Collide and Crash

This is not the first time I have run into this predicament. Still, it came up in class on Monday, and while I was night editing at The Daily Illini on Wednesday.

The Associated Press says that to use "collide" or "collision," both objects must be in motion. This showed up in a fake news story the class edited on Monday, when a person crashed into a pole. The original version of the story said the man "collided with the pole," when in fact, the pole was not in motion.

On Tuesday night at The Daily Illini, we had a photo on the front cover of a car hitting the back of the bus. The copy editor and I spent a few minutes looking at the photo, wondering if we could call this a "collision." After all, we determined that both autos were moving at the time they struck each other. Still, the photo made it clear that the car rear-ended the bus.

We decided to play it safe and use "hits" instead. Even though the photo's caption said "collided," we still wanted to play it safe for a photo headline. The car and the bus were not heading towards each other in this case, so our instict was to not call it a collision.

This is a hazy rule in that case though. Do two things have to be heading towards each other for it to be considered a collision, or do they just have to be in motion? The Associated Press does not clarify this one...

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

It's Britney B**ch: One Year Later

In the past year, the news outlets have filled their coverage with celebrity doings. This may not be a new development, but I feel that the last year has been particularly inundated. "Breaking news" about Lindsay Lohan, Amy Winehouse, and kingpin Britney Spears. These outlets have gravitated towards everything going on in their lives, with the emphasis being put on the bad.

Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I am not, at all, condoning or supporting any actions that any celebrity has taken that has ended up in the newspapers. I may agree with some choices and I may disagree with others. That is not the point of this post. The point of this post is to comment on the tabloidization of the news media.

I guess the debate that rages in my head is the one between the news media and the people. Are the news media giving the people what they want, or are the people getting what the news media thinks they want? I'd have to go with the former.

If people were not interested, and did not react to this type of "news," the news media would not report on it. Instead, however, they do, so the news media continues to report on it. In 2008, it is just as likely for a story about a celebrity to run on A1 than a story about an important city council decision.

In a lot of ways, I think that is sad. This kind of proves that people value what is fun to them as much as what is important. In a way I think that is okay, but on the other hand it is sad. I do believe that there is a place for the tabloid-esque articles, just not on the cover of a newspaper.

The best way to explain it is in one sentence: The news media ought to give the people what they need to know, not what they ought to know. If that means bumping the story about Britney's new look to B6, then so be it.

Note: I suppose I should explain my post's title. I view Britney Spears's performance on MTV's Video Music Awards as a starting point for the year I have been referring to. If you can recall, the performance was talked about a lot in the news media, and the relentlessness continued from there. I thought the title was appropriate, and I do not mean to overstep any boundaries.