To many people, watchdog reporting is synonymous with investigative reporting, specifically, ferreting out secrets. But there’s another, maybe even more crucial form of watchdog reporting, especially in this age of relentless public relations and spin. It involves reporting what may well be in plain sight, contrasting that with what officials in government and other positions of power say, rebuffing and rebutting misinformation, and sometimes even taking a position on what the facts suggest is the right solution.
Daniel Froomkin, Truth or Consequences: Where is Watchdog Journalism Today?, Nieman Reports
The piece includes these words of words of wisdom from Murrey Marder, former Washington Post reporter and founder of the Nieman Watchdog Project:
Watchdog journalism is by no means just occasional selective, hard-hitting investigative reporting. It starts with a state of mind, accepting responsibility as a surrogate for the public, asking penetrating questions at every level, from the town council to the state house to the White House, in corporate offices, in union halls and in professional offices and all points in-between.
From the FJP Archives: Findings from the work of active watchdog groups Media Matters and Freedom House.
(via futurejournalismproject)
Email
Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Follow on Tumblr
Mobile version
Random post