Don't propagate, illuminate

As journalists, we are encouraged to have dirty minds. It’s our responsibility to prevent double entendres and unintended meanings from getting into print.

Although Mr. Feyrer pushes us to expand our dirty minds, he explained one word that is not dirty: propaganda.

Propaganda is the deliberate publicity of information to promote a cause, idea or philosophy. Or it can be information that damages the opposing cause, idea or philosophy. But that’s just what Merriam-Webster says.

Feyrer said propaganda is not recognizing an image for what it is.

So does that mean it’s only propaganda if you fail to recognize the manipulation? And who’s to say what is manipulated? As editors, how do we remove those propaganda goggles?

It’s necessary to check if the author is clearly identified and the facts are attributed. If it’s scholarly work and the emotional appeal is played down, then it may elucidate the situation. And it’s key that the writers and editors take responsibility for the work, according to Feyrer.

But it’s even more important to ask if the consequences of the work are accurately depicted. As long as editors illuminate a situation, we do no harm.

Feyer said the greatest danger of propaganda is misunderstanding. Our world is so complex and words are so powerful. It’s tricky to shed light on every aspect of a situation. But that’s the trap we fall into. That’s where propaganda lurks.

So as editors, we better illuminate the hell out of everything that comes through our desks. 

But Feyrer added that we shouldn’t allow propaganda into the wrong venue.

So does that mean propaganda has a legitimate place in the media?

I think so.

Should it happen in the news media? No. That’s a place where journalists ought to remain objective and illuminate a situation. Readers can then make their own, educated, informed decisions.

Should it happen in the mass media? Yes. The news media provides readers with the information, then they can go out and create their own propaganda. There’s nothing wrong with persuasion in the right setting. Nothing would ever get done.  

The 'boring part'

Dr. Byers said he gets the fun part of teaching JOUR100.

Byers teasingly mentioned this to Dick Feyrer, his scholarly counterpart who teaches the editing portion of the class.

“And you get stuck with the boring part,” a smiling Byers said. 

Byers taught the editing component last year. He has apparently paid his dues.

But I wouldn’t call editing “boring.” Sure, it’s not exactly as interactive as a flashy Web site and it certainly doesn’t involve audio/video storytelling, but it’s still valuable. I’d call editing wearisome before I’d call it boring. It’s investigating a story so thoroughly that the editor becomes mentally (and sometimes physically) tiring.

And that’s quite a feat.

Of course an editor must eliminate redundancy. They must rework sentences to avoid the passive voice. An editor must also catch those pesky "affect" and "effect" errors. But as Feyrer said, you can’t correct or improve upon what you don’t understand.

Editing is getting to the heart of the story. It’s posing big picture questions and retrieving meaningful answers. It’s asking, “Why should I care?” And then it’s actually caring.

That’s not boring.