University of California Irvine Week 5 The Duty of A Journalist Discussion

Prompt

Presentation 5C discussed ways that journalism is inherently subjective because journalists must choose what details about an issue are important to report. Read the attached opinion piece from the Washington Post (also available from the Week 5 Module), “What’s a journalist supposed to be now– an activist? A stenographer? You’re asking the wrong question.”

The writer emphasizes the reporter’s responsibility to help people make decisions that will advance justice. However, people in our society have different understandings of “justice.” For example, people who support abortion and oppose abortion often offer arguments that center on different understanding of “justice”. Should journalists try to use their writing to achieve their own understanding of justice? What are the pros and cons of news sources having a mission to advance justice?

Guidelines

• You should post two responses that are each 50-100 words in length:
  • Post 1 should respond to the prompt above and should be posted by Thursday, November 5 @ 11:59 PM
  • Post 2 should comment on a peer’s post and should be posted by Saturday, November 7 @ 11:59 PM

The goal of classroom discussion is to have an open and challenging environment to exchange knowledge and a variety of opinions. Please be respectful of other students when you share your opinions. Posts MUST be free of name-calling and obscenities.

Grading Criteria

• 5 points: Post 1 responds to the prompt in full. Post 2 insightfully and respectfully reflects on a peer’s comments. The posts are well-written, and it is clear what the student is attempting to convey or explain.
• 4 points: There are minor deficiencies in the post(s). The student may not have responded to the prompt in full, or there may be some lack of clarity in the student’s response(s). There may be a simplistic statement of agreement or disagreement with a peer’s post, and the student may have failed to offer much reflection.
• 2 points: There are substantial deficiencies in the post(s). The student may have weakly responded to the prompt, or there may be significant problems with the clarity of the student’s response. The student does not demonstrate reflection on the peer’s post.