Journalism Case Study Abstracts |
| 6 October |
Abstract
This case study tells the story of of how one editor at Time magazine took a concept—create a “mirror on America”—and translated it into 12 pages in the magazine. The case describes the kind of decisions editors have to make on a daily basis: what to include, what to leave out, how to staff a story, how much time to spend reporting. It also raises the issue of hierarchy in a newsroom. Whose call ultimately is it what goes into a story—the managing editor’s, the
frontline editor’s, or the reporter’s? Click here to get this case study now…
The case will give students insight into the workings of a weekly news magazine. It will allow them to exercise their own editorial judgment, and to struggle with the strategic and practical decisions which go into assembling a story about a complex subject. They will also get an unusual glimpse into the concerns of a graphics department. Click here to get this case study now…
This case can be used in a class about magazine writing and/or editing, about integrating graphics into a text narrative, or about editorial decisionmaking.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Kathleen Gilsinan for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor Michael Shapiro. The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL) produced the multimedia, online product. Josh Stanley was the project coordinator, and Zarina Mustapha was the website designer. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. TIME Magazine material © Time Inc. used with permission.
Copyright © 2007 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
| 4 October |
Abstract
This case examines the challenges of reporting on a private individual’s sexual orientation. In March 2008, the Washington Post received a tip that Army Major Alan Rogers was the first openly gay military officer to be killed in Iraq. If true, the life story of the much-decorated and admired Major Rogers would be of significant interest to readers who follow the debate on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. But as reporter Donna St. George began her reporting, she discovered a murkier reality—that while Rogers was gay, it was far from clear that he was open about it, especially to his military colleagues. Click here to get this case study now…
Post policy advised caution about identifying someone as gay who may not wish that fact to be published. Rogers had expressed no wishes on this matter. One senior editor said “the unknowable risk of dishonoring Rogers’ desires” was outweighed by the news value and public policy importance of his story. And Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. was concerned that to report on Rogers’ death without mentioning his sexual orientation could be viewed as a major omission and could come back to haunt the Post. But to identify him as gay could violate the careful compromise by which Rogers had apparently lived his life. Ultimately, Downie had to make a decision. Click here to get this case study now…
Classroom discussion can focus on the tension between the historical record and the individual. When does one trump the other? Should a news organization embrace an opportunity to change public perception or influence public policy? What are the implications for a newspaper if it knows something to be true and does not publish it? Is that censorship, or respect for the individual? Students should come to appreciate the nuances that accompany the treatment of gender issues in news stories. They could also consider how useful editorial policy guidelines really are. Click here to get this case study now…
The case can be used in a course about reporting on gender, ethnicity or race; about editorial decisionmaking; or about ethics in journalism.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Julia Ioffe for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Adjunct Professor Joe Cutbirth. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (0709)
Copyright © 2009 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
| 28 September |
Abstract
This two-part case looks at the research method known as “crowdsourcing,” pioneered by the private sector (The Wisdom of Crowds), and examines its usefulness for journalism. The Fort Myers (FL) News-Press is a Gannett paper; Gannett executives believe crowdsourcing—turning to consumers for expertise and information—holds promise for newspapers. In Part A, News-Press editors consider the merits of crowdsourcing to the newspaper. They look at several ongoing news stories to which the method might be applied in order to select the most promising. They then debate whether or not to adopt the method as an experiment. Part B traces what happens when the newspaper does apply crowdsourcing to a story about a utility expansion project in the community of Cape Coral. Click here to get this case study now…
Students will gain insight into the challenges confronting a publication that decides to approach its job in a new way. They will experience what goes on around the editorial table when innovation is the topic. They will also gain a window into the relationship between a corporate newspaper owner and a publication’s editors. In Part B, they will have a chance to consider the impact of the new approach on reporters, editors—and readers. They will come to understand how crucial it is to plan for new undertakings, and to anticipate problems as a means of avoiding them. They will also gain perspective on the costs and benefits of being a pioneer. Click here to get this case study now…
This case can be used in a course about editorial decision-making, about the business of journalism, about journalism innovation, or about local/regional media.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Kathleen Gilsinan for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor Michael Shapiro. The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL) produced the multimedia, online product. Josh Stanley was the project coordinator, and Zarina Mustapha was the website designer. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Copyright © 2007 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
| 26 September |
Abstract
This case addresses how to manage a breaking story online when it could have traumatic effects on the local community. It also raises the challenges of deciding what to put in the newspaper once a story has broken on the newspaper’s website. On the evening of February 7, 2008, a gunman shot several officials at a City Council meeting in the quiet St. Louis suburb of Kirkwood, Missouri. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had a stringer at the meeting, Janet McNichols. Editors quickly realized that (apart from a small local paper) they had exclusive access to the story, which they chose to break online. While McNichols was horrorstricken, her reports seemed reliable. Dilemmas arose, however, when police were slower to provide information than McNichols. What should the website report, especially about fatalities? Errors could be devastating, yet to omit critical information from news reports was irresponsible journalism. As night approached, so did the deadline for the next day’s paper. With so much information on the Web, editors debated what to put in the paper that would satisfy both Web and print readers. Click here to get this case study now…
The class can follow the evolution of online reporting as it played out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newsroom. Students will have an opportunity to discuss how the rise of online reporting has affected the paper news product, and the trade-offs and compromises involved. The case also can serve as a basis for debate on crisis reporting. It gives students insight into the special role of a local news outlet in the face of an unfolding calamity. It puts them in the shoes of editors who must decide how much weight to give its own reporter’s uncorroborated but eyewitness account versus waiting for official confirmation. Click here to get this case study now…
The case can be used in a course or class on crisis reporting; about newspaper website development; or on the role of local news organizations.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Kathleen Gilsinan for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Assistant Professor Duy Linh Tu. The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL) produced the multimedia, online product. James R. Garfield was the project coordinator, and Zarina Mustapha was the website designer. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (0409)
Copyright © 2009 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
| 25 September |
Abstract
This case examines the challenge of providing balanced coverage of a court case when the trial is about science, and the reporter believes the science on one side is flawed. In September 2005, York Daily Record reporter Lauri Lebo was assigned to cover a nationally watched local trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It pitted the School Board against a group of 11 parents, who had sued because the board had required that 9th graders be read a statement asserting that evolution was just one of several theories—another being “intelligent design”—explaining the origin and development of life on earth. The case examines Lebo’s doubts about her ability to judge the credibility of competing scientific theories, her efforts to educate herself, and the fine line she had to walk in accommodating her own principles with those of her editors, who were mindful of the conservative community the paper served. Click here to get this case study now…
The class will examine the exacting art of science reporting—what words to choose, what context to provide, and what constitutes fair and balanced coverage. Students will come to grips with the difficulties of describing dispassionately a scientific theory which has been widely discredited, although it continues to attract some passionate adherents. The science reporting dilemma is only enhanced by the fact that the science is the subject of a trial; ordinarily, reporters give equal weight to both parties to a trial. Students can also discuss what a reporter can do when her approach to a story differs from that of her editors. Finally, they can debate the proper role of a newspaper serving its local community—to reflect local mores and values, or to challenge them? Click here to get this case study now…
The case can be used in a course or class on science reporting; on court reporting; or on local media.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Kathleen Gilsinan for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Assistant Professor Marguerite Holloway. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (0609)
Copyright © 2009 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
| 24 September |
Abstract
This case describes ABC News and its early coverage of an alleged rape by members of the Duke University lacrosse team in 2006. The narrative stops at a point in mid-April when the ABC News Vice President for Editorial Quality, Kerry Smith, had to decide whether or not to broadcast photographs from the party at which the alleged rape took place. NBC News had already scooped ABC with the photos, but only on the East Coast; ABC could still match NBC on the West Coast morning news shows. ABC, however, had a strict policy about identifying a rape victim—and to publish the photos, even blurred, could be interpreted as “naming” her. Moreover, the pictures were ambiguous: It was hard to tell whether the alleged victim was smiling or grimacing. Finally, Smith judged the photos “tawdry.” But the ABC reporting team was anxious to use the photos. Smith had to make the call. Click here to get this case study now…
This case is a useful prism through which to examine the history and complexities of covering sex crimes in the US. It also provides insight into the evolution of Standards and Practices units at television news divisions, as well as the pressures of making nuanced editorial decisions on deadline. Students will be asked to consider what constitutes balanced coverage of a sex crime. Click here to get this case study now…
In their discussion, they will have to weigh competitive pressures as well as the prevailing cultural norms. Students should begin to develop sensitivity to the most common journalistic errors in covering alleged sex crimes, with a view to avoiding them in the future. Click here to get this case study now…
The case can be used in a course about covering gender and race; about deadline writing; about broadcast news; or on the ethics of journalism.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Rachel Templeton and Pamela Varley for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor Michael Shapiro. The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL) produced the multimedia, online product. Josh Stanley was the project coordinator, and Zarina Mustapha was the website designer. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Copyright © 2007 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or
by any means (electronic, mechanical,
| 20 September |
Abstract
This case is about the calculus a news organization must make when it uncovers a story that incriminates the most powerful institution in its community. It also describes the personal toll on journalists of covering misdeeds in one’s own church. In August 2001, the Boston Globe’s new editor, Martin Baron, commissioned the paper’s investigative Spotlight Team to look into the case against Father John Geoghan, a Catholic priest charged with sexual abuse of children. Within a month, the team had begun to uncover many other instances of abuse by priests. The story was potentially explosive: Boston had the highest percentage of Catholics of any major US city. The Archdiocese, and Cardinal Bernard Law, were beloved and respected. The Globe and Law had a history of tense relations. The team suspended its research to cover the September 11 attacks, but picked it up again in October. As the pieces came together, it had to decide how to play what was a literally unbelievable story, how to manage a potential backlash from the community, and how to deal with the anticipated reaction from the Archdiocese. In November, it acquired a “smoking gun”—a document that implicated Cardinal Law. The Globe, which wanted to make certain its blockbuster story was faultless, was not fully ready to publish, but the document was public and rival news organizations could discover it. The team debated what to do. Click here to get this case study now…
Students discussing this case will have the opportunity to examine the special challenges of covering religion, especially the dominant religion in one’s own community. They will gain insight into how individual reporters process and cope with a horrific story. They can also explore investigative techniques; the Globe had to obtain most of its information over the active objections of the Catholic Church. Students will be introduced to Computer Assisted Reporting, as well as to court reporting. They will encounter the pressures of media competition. Finally, students should gain an understanding of the dynamics of team reporting, and how team members work together in the service of a story too large for any one of them. Click here to get this case study now…
This case can be used in a class on covering religion, on investigative reporting, or on editorial decisionmaking.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by David Mizner for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor Ari Goldman. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Columbia University Publications produced the banner. (0109)
Copyright © 2009 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.the Case Studies Initiative.
| 19 September |
Abstract
This case is about the choices a publicly-funded news organization has to make when the government of the day attacks its editorial independence. In June 2003, what had been a short, live, early-morning exchange between a radio host and a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reporter escalated into a full-scale war which pitted the BBC against Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government. On one side stood BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who on May 29 had reported—based on a single, anonymous source—that “the government probably knew” that information included in a key intelligence report was unreliable, but used it anyway in order to present a best-case scenario for invading Iraq in March 2003. On the other stood Communications Chief Alastair Campbell and the Blair government, accusing the BBC of biased reporting and lying. As the dialogue became more heated, the BBC executive team faced decisions about how to handle the deteriorating relationship with one of its most important constituents—the government. Click here to get this case study now…
The case offers students an opportunity to learn about the structure and administration of one state-owned media organization. It offers insights into how the editorial leadership functions, including how it balances responsibility to the public against its reliance on public funds authorized by government.
Students will be asked to consider whether the BBC plays a special media role because it is publicly funded. They can also discuss the pros and cons of using unattributed sources. Finally, students will grapple with the frustration, anger and difficulty in achieving a calm perspective that arises in the midst of a heated argument with ad hominem attacks on the rise. Click here to get this case study now…
The case can be used in a course about international journalism; about editorial management; about broadcast news; or on the ethics of journalism.
Credits
This journalism case study was written by Kirsten Lundberg, Director, for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor David Klatell. The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL) produced the multimedia, online product. James R. Garfield was the project coordinator, and Zarina Mustapha was the website designer. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (1008)
Copyright © 2008 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
| 11 September |
Abstract
This two-part case is about how the media balances personal right to privacy against the public right to know. The Frederick, MD, News-Post was the hometown paper of Bruce Ivins, whom the FBI suspected of killing five people in November 2001 when he mailed anthrax-laden letters to public figures. Coming on the heels of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the anthrax deaths spread panic throughout the country and temporarily closed down all three branches of the federal government. Ivins killed himself on July 29, 2008, before the FBI could arrest him. The FBI—which had an embarrassing track record of identifying the wrong suspect—had not yet released its evidence against him when the Ivins family scheduled two memorial services: one at Fort Detrick, where the scientist had worked, on August 6; and one for family on August 9. The family asked that the press stay away. The News-Post had twice to consider whether or not to send a reporter to the services.
Click here to get this case study now…
Students are asked to consider what are the obligations of a newspaper to its readers, and to those it writes about. Is Ivins a legitimate subject of public interest? Even if Ivins has been thrust into the public spotlight, does that justify ignoring his family’s wishes? Students will debate where the line falls between protecting privacy and informing the public. By introducing Parts A&B in succession, faculty can encourage students to examine whether a moral stance should be unwavering, or change with circumstances. They can also discuss the influence of competition on editorial decisions. Click here to get this case study now…
This text-only journalism case study can be used in a class on journalism ethics, media competition, reporting techniques and strategy, privacy versus public interest, or the challenges faced by local versus national media.
| 11 September |
Abstract
This case is about how journalists make daily decisions on what to write, and what not to write. In July 2008 Politico media correspondent Michael Calderone thought he had a very good story. He had noticed that while online publications had chosen to cover an alleged affair between former presidential candidate John Edwards and a mistress, Rielle Hunter, the mainstream media had so far ignored the story. The tabloid National Enquirer had broken the story, and bloggers had opined at great length about it, but no news organization except Fox News had mentioned it. Calderone found this contrast fascinating, and ideal material for his column. But he worried because to write about the blogger vs. mainstream gap would oblige him to write about the alleged affair as well. Was Edwards any longer a national figure, and his doings a matter of public interest? What consideration, if any, was due his wife Elizabeth, battling a second bout of cancer? Yet the story was exactly what Calderone was paid to cover. Click here to get this case study now…
Students can discuss the fine line between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. When is a public figure a celebrity, subject to different privacy laws than private citizens? Does it matter whether the figure, if a politician, is currently holding public office? Students should also engage in debate about whether there are different rules for blogs versus other media. Why did bloggers feel no compunction about covering the alleged affair, while mainstream media did? Were both sides correct in their behavior? Why? Students will gain an understanding of the kind of nuanced editorial decisions journalists and columnists make every day. Click here to get this case study now…
This case can be used in a class on beat reporting, on ethics in journalism, on media reporting, or on celebrity journalism.
Credits
This case was written by Kathleen Gilsinan for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor Ruth Padawer. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Copyright © 2008 The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Studies Initiative.
Top