Journalistic Integrity

As a journalism student with a little professional experience, I find myself reading stories both out of personal and professional interest. It can be hard to keep personal bias from creeping into a story but a professional journalist is supposed to make the effort. A recent Seattle Times article caught my eye because it was about a dispute between a neighborhood church and some nearby homeowners. The article titled “­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Loud music at sheriff’s church rocks neighbors” appeared in the Seattle Times on June 1, 2011. Journalistic integrity requires me to disclose that the article is in fact about my hometown church.

Personal opinion and bias aside, this story appears to have a few journalistic flaws. I do not claim, or think of myself, as an expert or even an experienced journalist. My experience is limited to academic studies, a four-month internship and precious little freelance writing but I see some holes that are worth filling.

To give you a little background, Gold Creek Community Church has been in the media before, both regarding the sound issue presented here as well as for other, I believe more positive, issues and events. The church has been at its current location for a few years and they do like their music loud. This sound issue has also been reported on before by the Seattle Times.

In journalist’s point of view, the headline is supposed to sum up the story.  From the headline, a reader should assume the article is about the loud music but focused on the sheriff’s involvement.

In fact, any mention of Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick isn’t found until a third of the way down. Those in journalism understand the inverted pyramid, where the most important aspects appear first and progress downward in terms of importance. A little background is needed to understand the issue but the focus of this article changes from what the headline suggests.

Who brought the sheriff into the story? Where are the direct quotes about why someone is bringing up the sheriff’s involvement, or lack thereof.

Is it about the ongoing conflict between the neighbors and the church? Is it about investigating any potential bias in the sheriff’s department? Is it about potential hypocritical acts of the church? All these make their way into the story. I argue they each should remain their own story.

And the qualifier ‘many’ in reference to neighbors with signs protesting the church’s loud music isn’t good enough. We need specific numbers because everyone’s interpretation of ‘many’ is different. Are there 5, 25, 100? It’s been hammered into me from day one of reporting and story writing classes.

Also, the reporter should have contacted more protestors. It feels like maybe this Guy Carcione is the only complaint. Are there more protestors, are they friends of his, are they legitimately upset about the noise?  If they’re unwilling to talk to the media, that needs to be reported so the readers can have as full access to as much information as possible.

There are multiple issues tangled within the sound issue. Is it freedom of speech, of religion? Is it an issue with the law or officials? The reporter simply needs to explore all of these (which would make one long and unreasonable story) or address them separately and fully, getting both sides.