Lundquistblog

When i googled "journalism ethics" there was a wide variety of sites and information that came up. There was information from the Society of Professional Journalists, which we looked at in class and that basically says the same stuff that we read. It says that Journalists should seek the truth and report it, minimize harm, and be accountable. A wickipedia article said that the core of journalism ethics is truthfullness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability. This page also went into more detail about what each of these principles mean and why they are important. I also say a page about journalism ethics on the internet which I thought was very interesting. I think lots of people feel like they can put up whatever they want on the internet, but this site was saying that if you are really a journalist, and not just a person writting whatever they want, than you will follow a code of ethics like a print or broadcast journalist would.
There was a page by the New York Times that stated their official policy on journalism ethics. This went into a lot of detail about every aspect of a reporters job. There were rules for special departments in the paper, rules on how to act while on the job, how to act while off the job and how to best represent the company. It seemed to me that other ideas about journalism ethics were more abstract but this was a clear set of rules about what their journalists can and cannot do.

Posted by lund0963 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

I was really surprised by the differences I noticed in how different newspapers wrote their restaurant reviews. I guess I figured they would all be written pretty much the same way. I suppose some of it depends on the individual writer but I also got the feeling that the individual publications also have a certain style in how they review.
First I looked at the Charleston Post and Courier. There was a review in this newspaper for a restaurant called The Lettered Olive. This review focused a lot on how everything in the restaurant was connected to each other. Whether or not the decorations reflected the style of food being served and even how metal from the handles of serving dishes is also found in the napkin rings and in detailing on the backs of the chairs. Other reviews did talk about the atmosphere of the restaurants and the decor but not to this length. This review also provided examples of tons of different options on the menu and whether they were worth the price. They gave opinions about a much wider variety of foods than the other reviews I looked at.
Another review I looked at was in the Star Tribune. This was a review for La Chaya bistro which I have been to and its right by my house. I was really confused by this review because it seemed like everything they were saying about the restaurant was good. They praised the uniqueness of the cuisine, how its both mexican and italian and upscale, and he gives high praise to the soups. The reviewer also said the owners did a great job of renovating the restaurant because it used to be a KFC but you would never know by going in there. But on the side bar he rates the restaurant and only gives in two stars. I thought that was really strange to only say good things about the restaurant in the review and then not give it more stars. Since he didn't say anything negative about the restaurant I was confused about why it didn't get more stars.
The third review was from the New York Times. This review was the harshest in my opinion. I expected a review in the New York Times to be pretty harsh because I assume that they are used to really high-end restaurants and have very high expectations. What I thought was really good about this review is that it gave more info about the ingredients in the food and what stood out and what the food was missing or what should have been taken out. This was very interesting because it really gave me an idea about what the food had tasted like.

Posted by lund0963 at 3:40 AM | Permalink