Student guest post: The role of editing in public diplomacy

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the 14th of those posts. Melissa Tolentino is a senior double major in journalism (editing and graphic design) and Japanese studies. As a former intern at the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, she has a passion for public diplomacy, particularly with youth. She also loves pugs. In the fall, she is moving to Tokyo to attend graduate school for international communications.

The relationship between the government and the media has always been a tricky one. In the three years I’ve been taking classes in the journalism school, I’ve heard time and time again that journalists are supposed to act as the government’s watchdog—though sometimes, that role changes to lapdog, depending on the issue. Regardless of the role, we’ve seen how government scandals and officials have been handled by all kinds of media. Just look at the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks and Valerie Plame’s outing as an undercover CIA agent in The Washington Post.

But let’s take a step back from the notion of bureaucracy for a second. There’s another aspect of government that the media has to deal with every day, and it doesn’t carry the same stiff reputation. It’s called public diplomacy, which is a more grassroots form of diplomacy that relies on fostering mutual understanding among countries through international communication. Rather than do this through bureaucratic channels, though, public diplomacy relies on the people, which is why it’s often called “the people’s diplomacy.”

The most important word in that definition is communication. Any form of international relations would not exist without it, and the media is the perfect channel through which such communication should occur. No matter the region or the culture, newspapers, blogs and news broadcasts carry the same purpose: to inform.

But the way an event is interpreted by the American media may not be the way it is interpreted by media outlets in Argentina or Laos. This is why editing is so important. I don’t just mean editing for style and grammar, I mean editing for the audience, which may be the most difficult job of all. There are so many questions to ask:

• Is the information presented in the news piece biased toward Americans?
• Does it make any cultural faux pas that could potentially be damaging to international relations?
• How can I word this to make it sound neutral and not hurtful to any other people?

Granted, this isn’t usually a job for the typical journalist, especially one who works at a local newspaper. But if you work at a more prominent U.S. newspaper, especially one with international desks, this is something to keep in mind, as the consequences could build into something irreversible.

As an example of this, I spent my senior year writing an honors thesis that looked at how Filipino women are portrayed by Philippine and Japanese media sources, particularly newspapers. The articles I analyzed were rife with negative images, most of which were based on stereotypes, and all for the sake of familiarity and convenience. Most of the images weren’t even obvious — many were subtle, sneaked into a paragraph through a well-placed word or the absence of another. And the prominence of these constructions give the media power to subordinate minority groups.

This is something we have to avoid. Though I know it’s difficult (and much easier said than done), I want journalists to strive not only to inform their main audience, but the global audience beyond, in a way that really and truly promotes people-to-people communication rather than blind bias. Luckily, the U.S. Department of State is helping local and international journalists with that, as they have several journalism-oriented exchange programs, one of which — the Edward R. Murrow Program — is partly held at UNC’s own j-school.

I know the snag in the road is that there is no such thing as truly bias-free media. But I also believe that there is a point we can reach in our journalistic practices and pieces that can communicate the U.S.’ news and messages to the rest of the world in a way that promotes cross-cultural understanding rather than breaks it. Journalism is no longer — and has never been, really — a narrow, bounded industry. It was meant to be globalized and to globalize. We just have to find the right way to do it.

Student guest post: Catastrophe, photography and media ethics

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the 13th of those posts. Kinsey Sullivan enjoys studying and writing about international arts and culture. In May, she will graduate from UNC-CH’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, after which she is excited to move to London for work. Follow her on Twitter at @misskinseylane.

We were still reeling from the news of the bombing at the Boston Marathon on Monday when we learned another devastating explosion had occurred near Waco, Texas, in the early hours of Thursday morning. Images of burning buildings and of the wounded ran constantly, a byproduct of the 24-hour news cycle.

As we cope with these catastrophes, it is critical that we evaluate not only what we information we create and consume, but how we create and consume it. Specifically, we must consider the ethics of photo editing in conflict situations, because of the graphic and exposing nature of these images.

Photos are valuable in conflict situations because they do help viewers understand and contextualize the information they receive; they help tell the story more effectively.

Think to the photographs circulating post-9/11, with which the New York Times did an exceptional job. Those images helped people around the world conceptualize the utter devastation and heart-wrenching grief, as well as the resilience and strength of the human spirit. Both aspects of conflict situations are vital to understand, and photography allows an unprecedented closeness to both extremes.

Journalists often walk a fine line between documenting and exploiting in sensitive situations, and this is particularly true of photos and film.

Photographs offer a seemingly unbiased and unmediated perspective on these events. In essence, they offer the illusion of objectivity. However, objectivity, even in photography, is impossible.

The framing of the photo, the perspective, the focus and the proximity all affect how we interpret the image; all of these elements are determined by a photographer. This fact, combined with the potentially disturbing nature of such photos, means that we must tread very delicately as reporters and editors.

As we edit such images, we must question the ethics of images and avoid exploiting the situation or the victims at all costs. Since such editing is subjective, it comes back to editing and taste. A few things to consider:

• Does the image help propel the story and aid readers, while avoiding sensationalism?
• Is the image respectful of the situation and the victims?
• Does the image present an accurate depiction of the situation?
• As a photographer or editor, would you be willing to be in the image?

Some examples from CNN’s coverage of the bombing at the Boston Marathon will help illustrate the potential problems. Though it isn’t graphic, this CNN slideshow does not propel the story and seems gratuitous.

However, this slideshow includes many graphic images that are both troublesome and seem to lack sensitivity. Additionally, viewers are not warned about the upcoming graphic images. While photograph four does seem to express the chaos of the situation while being deferential to the victims, photograph seven shows, I think, extremely poor taste in editing.

As we deal with the news of the explosion at the fertilizer plant in Texas, let us remember that these are not just stories but human stories. Editing the images of conflict is critical, and in these situations, it is critical that it is done well.

Student guest post: When are warnings in headlines enough?

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the 12th of those posts. Sarah Sessoms is a senior at UNC-Chapel Hill double-majoring in journalism and sports administration. A former world champion equestrian, she grew up on a horse farm in Hillsborough, N.C. She is an intern for the Carolina Hurricanes hockey team and hopes to embark on a career in the athletic administration after graduation in May.

During the NCAA Tournament this year, there was one storyline that you could barely miss hearing about: Kevin Ware’s injury. (In case you did miss it, the Louisville basketball player broke his leg in a horrific way during the game again Duke in the Elite Eight).

CBS showed the injury during its live coverage, then again on replay before deciding not to air the injury again. If you were watching it live like me, you were probably OK never to see it again. But the video of Ware breaking his leg blew up on YouTube, and now, over two weeks later, it has almost 5 million hits.

CBS started the discussion with what they thought was the best decision for everyone: don’t replay the injury and keep the coverage to the basics. No warnings, no graphic images. Many followed CBS’s lead.

But other media outlets didn’t choose to do it this way. One such example is Deadspin’s headline (I won’t link to it, because it takes you to the video of the injury itself). The headline to its article and accompanying media reads: “Kevin Ware Suffered Maybe The Most Gruesome Injury In The History Of Televised Sports [WARNING: VERY GROSS]”.

But when you write a story, is the headline with a warning enough? Is it too much? Should an editor warn the audience that the article, or any corresponding media, is graphic? Should readers be prepared for the content?

The answer is that it depends. Warnings for graphic content are common, but they need to be used sparingly.

What to focus on here is “Warning: Very gross.” True, the break is extremely gross. You could even call it disturbing.  They’re right about needing a warning on some level, but it shouldn’t be in the headline. And there has to be a better, more professional way to put it. In this piece Deadspin goes beyond reporting the injury, they sensationalize it.

But is this enough of a warning for the violent leg break? Is this even enough warning for the giant video that graces the front of this article? Did the editors who wrote the headline think that a warning would be enough? Or is this sensationalism for the sake of getting more hits on the website? There’s no clear answer, but I have a feeling that the more gruesome the headline, the more people would want to click on it.

Let’s compare with some other headlines from the incident. “Louisville’s Ware leaves with right leg injury” or “Horrific injury: Louisville’s Kevin Ware breaks leg vs. Duke in Elite Eight.” These headlines are far better for the privacy of the student-athlete, his family and his team.

Warnings are a really good tool to make sure that readers are aware of the disturbing content. In fact, one of the articles gives its own warning when linking to pictures of the injury. But the fact that it is in the body of the text makes it a much better option than sticking it in a headline. By putting a colloquial warning in their headline, Deadspin took away from the news value of the incident and placed it squarely as a spectacle.

When writing a headline for something this shocking, it’s good to remember all of the parties involved. Yes, it’s good to get readers’ attention, but it’s better to inform them of what happened.

The latter headlines are better for search engines and give many more details to readers in a rush. The headline with the warning only makes a bigger deal out of the injury, with little respect for Ware. In this situation, some media outlets forgot that the injured athlete is still a person, even if his leg break was “very gross.”

All in all, readers needed to be aware that the content of the Ware injury could cause some discomfort. In this case, the warning was definitely warranted, had it been phrased correctly. Where the warning goes wrong is focusing on the gruesomeness of the injury and by doing so taking away from the humanity of the situation.

Student guest post: The hazards of sponsored content

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the 11th of those posts. Lindsay Sebastian is a junior at UNC-Chapel Hill double majoring in journalism and global studies. She works as an educator at Morehead Planetarium and Science Center, and she is an intern at a local nonprofit organization, A Ban Against Neglect.

As journalism students, we’ve been told over and over: Newspapers are closing, circulation is down, and everything can be found online for free. The industry is dying as there is a huge shift away from traditional media consumption.

But this shift is not a shift away from the necessity of news media; it’s a shift in the way news is received. There’s still a demand; it has just taken on a different form.

As forms of media are changing, types of advertising have changed with it. In particular, within the past two years, sponsored content has gained serious momentum among online news organizations.

Newspapers have companies “sponsor” news stories, producing editorial content instead of typical banner ads. While this is great for the news publication’s revenue, the lines between journalism and advertisements are now blurred, sometimes to even dangerous extremes.

One example of this is a post published in January by The Atlantic titled, “David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year,” accompanied by a large picture of Miscavige and links to Scientology websites. The article detailed the openings of 12 Scientology churches around the world in the past year, an unprecedented number in the organization’s history. It also mentioned how much the “ecclesiastical leader” Miscavige had done in “leading a renaissance for the religion.” Eleven hours later, the content was removed and in its place, a message read, “We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.”

Though the content was marked as sponsored by the Church of Scientology, journalists criticized The Atlantic for a variety of reasons.

The first reason surrounded the nature of the content itself. The Church of Scientology has a history of abuse, financial fraud and even human trafficking. It is known for intimidating its critics and avoiding the press at all costs. The bizarre and blatantly positive Scientology propaganda didn’t jibe well with The Atlantic’s readers.

Beyond the actual nature of the content, critics pointed out the manner in which the post was displayed. The page itself was identical to the format of news stories on The Atlantic, including font size and type, layout and use of pictures. Though the small “sponsored content” tag was present at the top, everything else was nearly identical.

Additionally, reader comments on the post were censored, leaving only the ones that reflected the positive tone of the piece. For such a controversial article, the lack of critical comments made it clear that someone was censoring them. Later, a spokeswoman from The Atlantic said that the marketing team was monitoring comments and issued an apology for the entire article that started with the words, “We screwed up.”

So how can news organizations avoid controversies around their sponsored content? By being transparent and honest, upholding content standards and allowing conversation around the posts.

Most critics found the Scientology post to be misleading. Whether it was intentional or not, The Atlantic made no attempts to clarify the difference between opinion and reporting. Though some may be able to recognize the difference, it is presumptuous to assume all readers will be able to differentiate the two, especially considering the similarity between the sponsored post’s format and regular news coverage format. More transparency and honesty about the nature of the posts will ensure that readers know a brand influenced the content.

Yet, regardless, content should not be compromised in the posts. News organizations should hold brands to the same standards they hold their reporters to in order to create engaging content that reflects the values of the organization itself. This ensures that the reader is still the highest priority above the company sponsoring the editorials.

Finally, there should be discussion within organizations surrounding the ethics of these sponsored posts. Whether or not a new framework is created to handle these sponsored posts is ultimately up to the news company, but standards for review might be helpful to avoid a situation like the one The Atlantic faced.

Student guest post: How do we deal with profanity in the news?

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the 10th of those posts. Zach Potter is a senior majoring in journalism at UNC-Chapel Hill. He likes chocolate ice cream and long walks on the beach just after sunset. Note: This post contains adult language.

Editors and reporters have a variety of decisions to make when it comes to what goes on a page. Is it true? Is it relevant? Is it necessary? Is it interesting?

We are tasked with more than just reporting the news. We give it context. We try to capture a moment in time with as much accuracy as possible.

With this in mind, there is one topic that has always interested me when it comes to editing: profanity. I have had many professors who shudder at the idea of a curse word making its way into an article. I have been on both sides of the coin, as a reporter and an editor, and there are certainly arguments both for and against the inclusion of swear words.

During an editing class at UNC, my professor described the timelessness of print journalism. If a TV anchor says, “damn it,” on the air, it is gone as quickly as it is said. With the written word, that obscenity will live forever, inked on the page.  People can go back again and again and read over it. That alone is enough to argue that editors need use caution when dealing with profanity. But does it mean that it should be abhorred in all instances? Not necessarily.

Now, I would never argue that one should include obscenity for obscenity’s sake. Nor should we drop f-bombs. Certainly, some words are bad enough to warrant their immediate deletion if they are ever found on a news page.

But sometimes curse words can add flavor, passion and context to a story or quote. For example, I was once in a feature-writing class and was doing a story on a convenience store owner who had been in the area for a long time. He told me some of the crazier stories he had witnessed in his day and ended with, “I’ve seen some shit in my lifetime.”

First of all, it was a direct quote, so there would be no way to change the language there. Second, why would you even want to?

“Seen some shit,” is a great way to phrase that thought.  It is succinct, to the point and easy to understand. Plus, that is how people talk when they are relating crazy, off-the-wall stories about rowdy customers, cop chases outside their stores, etc.

Few people would say, “Yes, I have seen some rather interesting events unfold around this area.” That comes off as bland to me. Yet, when I received my graded story back, the quote was circled in thick red ink with “NEVER EVER!” right next to it.

In his blog, Martin T. Ingham, a science fiction and fantasy writer, claims that just because a story is written for an adult audience does not mean that it need contain adult language.

I see his point, and in some cases, I would agree. Children can pick up newspapers (though it happens less and less) and we don’t want to corrupt the youth, right?

Well, I rode the bus in elementary school, and by the 6th grade, I probably knew more swears than both my parents combined. When we tell children that something is taboo and not to be said, it makes the urge to say it even stronger.

Mary Norris of The New Yorker wrote an article about the use of the f-word in print. At one time, there was an informal contest at the magazine to see who could slip in the most f-bombs without getting edited. This goes back to the “obscenity for obscenity’s sake,” argument, but she has a point.

My favorite line in the article comes when she decries tiptoeing around language as if we are walking on egg shells with readers: “We had a discussion in the copy department a few weeks ago about how to style the euphemism: Shall it be ‘f’-word, f word, f-word, ‘F’ word, F word, or F-word? I don’t like any of them. Fuck euphemisms. Get on the goddam fucking bus.”

Now, I don’t believe that is appropriate for everyday news articles, but I appreciate the sentiment. When we censor ourselves, we disrespect the reader. To be sure, there are some who dislike profanity and there is certainly a limit on what is an is not acceptable. The f-word, the c-word, the n-word can be edited and left out in almost every single instance with no regret. But shit, damn and hell all have their place.

When a coach watches his team give up a 30-point lead to lose in the final seconds of a game, it’s not just a shame. It’s a damn shame! When an activist is preparing to march on a government building, she won’t give them an earful. She’ll give’em hell!

The conclusion, then, is balance and forethought. If a word does not serve to add emotion, context or flavor to an article, then there is no need for it. If there is a decent chance someone will take offense at the use of the word, then there is no need for it.

But sometimes, a harsh word is the only one that really works. Curse words, like all other words in our language, are tools with specific uses. They can be used for good or evil and it is up to the editor to decide when to censor the word out and when to say: “Fuck it, go right ahead!”

Student guest post: Working to close the gender gap in the media

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the third of those posts. Rebecca Dudley is a senior at UNC-Chapel Hill majoring in editing and graphic design, with a minor in folklore studies. She plans to move to East Asia in August with a Christian organization.

How much attention should journalists give to gender?

With the Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s lift on the military’s ban on women in combat last week, the discussion of women in the media is a timely one.

There were dozens of stories published by all sorts of media on Panetta’s decision. Some, like the article published by The New York Times, did a decent job of quoting and picturing women in the story.

However, other news sources, like Fox News and The Houston Chronicle, did not give readers a proportional amount of female voice in their articles about women. The Fox News article was written by a man and did not include any quotes by women.

Americans like to think that we are past the time of sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Especially in the liberal university environment that many students are part of, it is easy to forget or even realize that there is a gender gap in our current media.

According to the annual “Who Makes the News Report,” although women consist of 51 percent of the American population, only 24 percent of the people mentioned in print, radio and television news are female. In contrast, 76 percent of the people in the news are male.

At the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication, about 75 percent of the students are female. This statistic is the same in other journalism schools throughout the country. So, the question is, why is this disconnect happening? Why are female journalists discriminating against themselves?

More importantly, why should we worry about this issue? It seems that editors have enough to keep track of, especially with deadlines looming. However, if we want to see the face of American media more accurately represent what the American people look like, we would do well to make sure that our writers are quoting and writing about women.

Student guest post: The question of removing news after publication

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the second of those posts. Tyler Confoy is a junior at UNC-Chapel Hill studying reporting and philosophy. In the future, she hopes to write features for a monthly, biweekly or weekly publication.

Should editors remove controversial material after it’s been published?

I’ve encountered this question twice in the past few months. Both times, it was posed as a hypothetical, meant to get journalism students thinking about what they might do in a real-world situation.

Many times the question is an ethical one. If no legal problem is involved, the question becomes “Should we remove this?” instead of “Do we have to remove this?” Ultimately, it’s up to the publication.

I’ve encountered journalists who are steadfast in their belief that accuracy is accuracy and that things should rarely be taken down. I’ve heard it explained this way: “If it happened, it happened.” Personally, I tend to side with these journalists. My reasoning is that if you compromise one post, you might start compromising other posts.

I’d like to look into a case that’s been of wide public interest recently. Soon after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Dec. 14, The Journal News, a newspaper covering New York’s Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, published interactive maps showing the locations and names of permit holders licensed by Westchester and Rockland counties to own a handgun. The Journal News was able to do this under New York’s Freedom of Information Law.

Responses to the maps were both positive and negative. Many said they were an invasion of permit holders’ privacy. On Jan. 15, New York passed the NY SAFE Act, putting tighter obligations on gun ownership but also allowing more privacy for gun permit holders. On Jan. 18, Janet Hasson, publisher of The Journal News, released a letter saying that the website had removed the maps. (Snapshots of the maps< remain on The Journal News website.)

In the letter, Hasson wrote, “As a news organization, we are constantly defending the public’s right to know. Consequently we do not endorse the way the legislature has chosen to limit public access to gun permit data. … But we are not deaf to voices who have said that new rules should be set for gun permit data.”

Politico reported that in a statement released also on Jan. 18, Hasson said, “While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit. … We remain committed to our mission of providing the critical public service of championing free speech and open records.”

These two viewpoints put forth by Hasson don’t quite match up. Why would The Journal News believe in complying with the legislation’s spirit — in fact with the portion of the legislation that protects permit holders’ privacy — if it does not agree with limited public access to data concerning permit holders?

In addition to pointing out the new legislation, Hasson defended the maps’ removal by writing that they had already been seen by those who wanted to see them and that eventually the data presented in the maps would change anyway. This seems logical: If the maps were national news, surely they’d been seen by local folks, and surely information changes.

But it seems more like an excuse. Most journalists don’t take something down within a month just because most people who care have seen it, and it’s understood that information changes with time. These maps were a historical part of the Journal News coverage in the midst of a national gun crisis, and they could have remained online.

It is certainly hard to blame Hasson. The Journal News’ writers were being threatened. Home addresses were published. And maybe the new legislation just pressured Hasson to recognize the ethical dilemma that had been there all along (if not by law, at least in theory): the struggle between freedom of the press and the right to privacy. But ultimately this struggle should have been recognized beforehand.

Having the ability to remove published information is a nice safety net, but journalists and publishers should look at every angle of possible reception and take a definite stance before they publish anything — and perhaps especially before they publish something clearly controversial.

The Journal News initially stood by its decision to post the maps. Then it removed the maps. Will it compromise something else next?

Student guest post: Fatalities in news gathering

Students in JOMC 457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the fifth of those posts. Francesca Crutchfield is senior from Burlington, N.C., majoring in journalism with a reporting focus.

With the recent deaths of two well-known Western journalists in Syria, the question of journalism and its consequences comes to mind. War correspondents have been sent into dangerous zones to report for years, but when does one draw the line between investigative reporting and a death wish?

And then there are the ethical and how-to-edit questions: Should a publication publish details of a journalist’s death, or should the story of the dangerous conditions they were surrounded by be enough of a story itself? Should the information be published at all?

The world is a scary place, especially with all the uprisings in the Middle East. I don’t think I would have the courage and audacity to go against foreign governments and militia in order to report and write a story. However, one can certainly applaud the efforts of those literally risking their lives to find the facts.

Perhaps the most memorable war reporting was that of CNN’s John Holliman, Peter Arnett and Bernard Shaw during the Persian Gulf War. Their live broadcast reporting straight from Baghdad was the epitome of bravery; that broadcast was rife with bombings right outside of their hotel window.

While U.S. journalists were not killed during the Gulf War, after the war ended, a lot of changes were made by the Pentagon on just how invasive journalists could be. Sparing the issue of censorship within investigative reporting, it is safe to say that the public greatly benefits from knowing first-hand what is happening on the other side of the world.

But when the safety of journalists becomes front page news instead of the stories they were covering, that scares me. The New York Times article about the deaths of Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik shed light on the issues in Syria, while also paying a sort of homage to their deaths. A multimedia package containing video of the protests and bombings in Syria and a link to a YouTube video are also included in the story.

All of these elements help the reader understand the context of the journalists’ deaths, but perhaps the most gripping line of the article is, “A longtime war correspondent, she [Colvin] lost an eye covering the Sri Lankan civil war and wore a distinctive black eye patch.” Colvin had already lost an eye covering a news story, and her most recent news coverage had fatal consequences.

So what is a news publication to do in terms of editing and covering the deaths of journalists? One could argue that covering the death of any journalist says enough about the dangerous conditions in which they were immersed. A news story that features background information on any journalistic death and links to video clips or multimedia presentations seems to be a sufficient way to sum up the tragedy, however gruesome it may have been. For moral purposes, I believe it’s also safe to edit any multimedia that contains overly graphic content, such as mutilated bodies, if there are individuals involved.

Overall, discretion of what to publish or edit is at the hands of the publication, but maintaining the privacy of an individual should be a rule of thumb, if not an act of respect for the deceased. In terms of whether  war reporting is worth it, I could never do it. I value my life more than covering a story, no matter how compelling or newsworthy it may be.

Student guest post: College sportswriters shouldn’t abuse Twitter

Students in J457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the ninth of those posts. Jonathan Jones is the sports editor at The Daily Tar Heel. He’s written for several news outlets including SI.com, the SportsBusiness Journal and The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C. You can also find him on Twitter.

At UNC-Chapel Hill, if you’re Retweeted by a basketball player, you’re almost famous.

Tar Heel basketball players have a certain pull that folks who aren’t from here may not understand. These players have always had a cult following, but now you can actually quantify it with the help of Twitter followers.

Sports journalists have always had to walk the line of being friends or fans of the team and doing their job. For student sports journalists, a lot of times that line is even tougher to walk. It’s for that reason that I draw the line at tweeting at those athletes.

There’s a stigma attached to student sports journalists nearly everywhere. And in almost every case it’s warranted. The writer says “we” or fist-pumps after every made basket or even wears a team T-shirt underneath the button-up.

These students aren’t just a few bad apples — they all fell from one of the many bad apple trees. It makes it tough for the student journalists who are writing the facts, who don’t use “we” and don’t fist-pump to get any respect among their fellow media workroom friends.

Twitter has shown the world an easier way to share content, and I believe every journalist should have an account. For a student journalist like me, having a UNC basketball player Retweet my story would mean at least 10,000 more people have been exposed to my writing. But at what cost?

No reputable news outlet Tweets at collegiate athletes. In the eyes of those reputable newspapers, if I were to Tweet at an athlete, it would signal a poor attempt at a fanboy who somehow got credentialed to get his work out to people.

I feel my writing is good and fair. I write at a reputable paper (never mind it’s a college paper; it recently won a general excellence award from the N.C. Press Association) that doesn’t need to pull stunts like Tweeting at athletes to get its great content to readers.

We student journalists deal with the stereotype every game, and it takes asking tough questions in news conferences, making deadline and writing fair and accurate stories to overcome the stigma.

Tweeting at athletes may get my stories read, but I lose the respect of the professionals in the process.

Student guest post: News can lose clarity on Twitter

Students in J457, Advanced Editing, are writing guest posts for this blog this semester. This is the fifth of those posts. Amanda Davis is a senior editing and graphic design major at UNC-Chapel Hill. She hopes to edit for a newspaper or magazine after graduation. If she’s not jamming out to Spanish pop, she’s by the window trying to create a Van Gogh masterpiece of her own.

Writing headlines for social media, such as Twitter, is often a precarious matter. One must be concise, because of character limits on each Tweet, yet grab the readers’ attention so that they will be willing to click on it for further information.

More importantly, the headline needs to be understood without additional context, such as pictures. Too often than not, headlines are written that give across the wrong idea, use sensationalist tactics or don’t give enough information to understand to what they refer.

BBC Global News on Twitter is notorious for just that. On Feb. 16, 2010, BBC tweeted, “First day on the job,” followed by a link to its website. How are readers supposed to know if they are interested in knowing more about this if they don’t even know to whom BBC is referring?

News media post headlines on Twitter to get more activity on their main websites. This story would have received many more hits if BBC had used the headline it had on its homepage, “Jay Carney: The new face of the White House.” Jay Carney is the new White House press secretary, so it makes sense that he would be considered the “new face” of the White House. It’s a clever headline that is concise yet still provides enough detail so that the reader understands the point of the story.

Bad Headlines, a Twitter user, Retweets bad headlines that newspapers have published on Twitter. One of those headlines was “Crew laughed before fatal crash,” which was tweeted on Oct. 5, 2009. This was a story about three members of a flight crew that died when their helicopter crashed. The cockpit recording revealed that moments before the helicopter crashed, crew members were laughing and having a good time.

I don’t understand how this headline is sensitive to the deaths of these three men or how it gives any newsworthy information. The article goes on to talk about the lack of safety and possible qualification issues of those on board. These issues would have been more relevant to discuss in the headline. A more effective headline would read, “Fatal helicopter crash questions crew qualifications.”

If newspapers are going to use social media as a way to broaden their reader base and increase hits on their websites, they need to pay attention to how they word their posts. Just as the print headline might not work for their headline on their newspaper’s online version, the headline on their website might not work for Twitter where pictures, videos and slideshows don’t accompany the posts.

Headlines for social media should draw readers without being sensationalistic and understandable without further context. Although news of a crew laughing before a fatal crash probably received many hits to a website, it wasn’t fair to the subjects of the article and their grieving families. It was mere propaganda meant to benefit the BBC without regard to the actual news of the story.