Political bloggers becoming staple in American politics
by: Pat Tierney
With the presidential elections just around the corner, there is no doubt that this race is one for the history books. Along with all the “firsts” that have come with this election, the prominence of blogging in the political circles in quickly becoming historic as well.
Democrats and Republicans alike are turning to the web to voice their opinions and draw support. During this election cycle political bloggers are generating interest on their blogs for candidates, raising funds for their political party and “getting out the vote.”
Bloggers are not just waiting to see presidential debates on television but rather logging onto blogs and starting new debates daily. This is giving people an opportunity to openly discuss the current issues almost in real time.
During the first presidential debate on Friday night, many websites opened up blogs that would run live during the debate. This allowed viewers to blog in real time about the issues the candidates were discussing.
As the race continues the impact that the political bloggers will become clearer. For now however, these dedicated bloggers will continue to hit the web, in search of support and promotion and maybe even a little debate.
Sorry, you can't have an opinion about that...at least not here
Saturday, September 27, 2008
By Liz Tjaden
We have talked a lot about how blogging has become a great source for information, communication and news. They can give a voice to people who normally wouldn’t be able to be heard. Opinions can be raised and disagreements can be played out. However, rarely do we hear much about students being punished or chastised for what they write. Alana Taylor never thought that would happen to her until her blog got national attention.
On Sept. 5, Taylor wrote a blog about her thoughts on a journalism class she is taking at NYU called Reporting Gen Y. It is a course about journalism and how it affects Generation Y, those born roughly between 1982 and 1994. The blog that she wrote, posted on MediaShift, was Taylor’s personal opinion about classes, professors, and fellow classmates at NYU.
Her blog covers three main points: her disappointments of NYU and their “traditional” journalistic views, the lack of bloggers around her and how important she thinks it is to get beyond print and focus on digital new media.
While she has every right to publish what she wants to, this didn’t make many people happy in the Big Apple including her classmates and professor. Taylor wrote about things her professor said in class and talked about other students and their lack of blogging.
These events have sparked a lot of controversy and questions about freedom of speech rights compared to privacy rights.
If Taylor isn’t making any libelous or untruthful statements about the actions of her class does posting it make it right?
Sure it does! College is a time for self expression. It seems like Taylor is light years beyond her fellow classmates in terms of technology and digital media and now she is being chastised for it?
It could be argued that Taylor had right to say those things about her professor and department. There are things a professor says in class that don’t need to be repeated. Especially to the whole world.
Great, it’s glad to hear that we are going to start silencing those with opinions that we don’t agree with now. Hasn’t anyone sat back and thought maybe she has a point? Obviously, she feels like there are problems within her school that are not being addressed. The question is, if her blog should be the place do that.
Soaring Gas Prices... No problem
By: Katie Schaefer
Everyone these days are struggling with the soaring prices of gas. The National Research Council is trying to develop a way to get around this problem though.
They have developed a way for people to not use gas, but hydrogen instead. They have had this idea for a while now, but they haven't really acted on it. There is a lot of difficult pieces to put together to make the hydrogen cars, so researchers are having problems with it.
A problem that comes along with the hydrogen cars is that there is no place to fill the cars up with hydrogen. Every car runs on petroleum so we only have petroleum pumps around. It is going to cost a lot of money to put in new hydrogen pumps.
The question is is the new hydrogen cars really worth it. I think they are, and I think a lot of good will come from them.
One thing is that the gas cars we have now produce one-third of the carbon dioxide we have in the air. With hydrogen cars they only produce water and it would get rid of a lot of the carbon dioxide in the air.
The bad thing is that we would have to spend a lot of money putting in pipelines below the ground. A lot of money that our government doesn't have.
All in all the hydrogen cars are going to be a place. They are going to be expensive at first, but when the researchers figure out how to mass produce the cars then they will get a lot cheaper.
Determining news from sleaze
Friday, September 26, 2008
By: Hannah Pickett
It is a journalist's job and duty to report facts and unveil information, secrets, and bits of information no one else has done. But, when does the search for the fresh new spin teeter on the fine line between reporting relevant facts and reporting National Enquirer trash?
Just this week, an Alaskan man released what is believed to be 100% genuine video footage of Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin's participation in the 1984 Miss Alaskan beauty pageant swimsuit competition.
Once the video was out, it hit broadcasts like Entertainment Tonight, as well as CNN. My question is this: Sure, this is a trashy interesting bit of information worthy of the print and broadcast tabloids, but does it deserve time on reputable newscasts like the Today show or CNN? Where is the line drawn between tacky, irrelevant, gossip-style information seeking and good journalism?
How is 'good' journalism defined? This video footage would have been more suiting and acceptable to report of an actress, pop singer, or well-known reporter, rather than the first woman vice presidential candidate.
Was there an agenda behind the timing of this specific 'release of video' with the election just around the corner? Was this a liberal attempt at further attempting to point out that Palin may not be the model of conservative views?
Journalistic ethics are an issue in everyday reporting. Deciding news from sleaze is obviously arbitrary to the reader and reporter, but definitely raises some flags in situations like this one.
Who cares if the VP candidate was a beauty pageant contestant? Will this honestly affect her desired position in the White House? Those are the questions a reporter must struggle with in determining news from Hollywood, in this case, presidential race, sleaze.
The latest news-delivery technologies
CBS raises questions of newspaper ratings
Thursday, September 25, 2008
By: Allison McNeal
Print newspapers are starting to face opposition by large media corporations.
Leslie Moonves, chief executive officer of CBS Corp., recently stated how the corporation wants to move away from print media and more towards the Internet.
With the purchase of CNET, the company got an instant boost and may become a major player in the media world. The main aim of the corporation is to shift the corporation away from an older media company to a technologically advanced one.
According to Wired.com, the CEO "plans to position his company as a one stop shop for news and information, potentially eliminating the need for dead tree media." He exclusively stated that 'one of the advantages of the Internet is [that] we’re taking money away from the newspapers.'
This statement was opposed strongly by many blogtalkers, including Phil Bronstein. Bronstein acknowledges that the newspaper industry is declining, but is hopeful that they can come out of their slump.
He did not agree with Moonves about how the Internet should take money away from newspapers.
"Newspapers are still making some money, most of them. And Les, [...] I'm guessing your CBS nightly news still gets a fair amount of content from the journalists who work in these teetering places and the stories they produce. And you get to borrow it for free. What a deal for you."
The way Moonves expressed his opinion on print media did raise some eyebrows, but print newspapers are declining and online publications are steadily increasing.
A recent report from Scarborough Research shows the differences between print newspaper viewings and the viewing of both newspapers and online publications. The study shows that individuals tend to view a combination of print media and online publications more than just the print media.
For example, the Des Moines Register is shown as having 68% of viewers that either read or looked at the just the paper. The percentage rose to 70% for those that looked at print and the online site.
This percentage might not seem like it has a very strong effect, but it does show how online newspapers are increasing.
As we discussed in class, do we try to fight the online trend or embrace the "go-green" approach that society is undertaking? There is no clear answer yet, but society will eventually express what they want and give meaning to the people's voice.
When easier becomes worse
By: Lexie Hagerty
I have always wanted to be a writer. I wanted to write a novel or articles for a magazine, both of which would feel like accomplishments worth achieving. The idea of holding my first completed book in my hands would be umbelievable to me.
However, recently I have changed my mind due to the easy ways in which a work is published. I am glad that writers can blog, write articles, and even publish their books online; however, I truly think that it diminishes the whole sense of accomplishment because it is easy.
Tough times for all
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
By: Callie McBroom
Most of the news attention today is focused on tough economic problems for the country. Issues with personal finances that have a limited impact have now come alongside wide-spread concerns of failing financial institutions and insurance companies. Failure is not, however, limited to only financial institutions. We are also seeing some of these failures within the newspaper industry.
We all know that print newspapers have taken a substantial hit in recent years. Print revenues have been in a continuous downward spiral for years. This can be attributed to newspapers bringing in billions of dollars less every year in advertising revenues. Many newspapers are taking their news to online sources in hopes of finding revenue to balance out print sources. But even these revenues, according to Erick Schonfeld, were down 2.4 percent in the last year.
This could be turned around for newspapers soon because of a new platform just introduced by Yahoo. ATP brings the opportunity to publishers to sell into Yahoo local inventory and then brings several newspaper properties to national advertisers.
Newspapers are the first to have access to the new technology, which allows them to target advertisers and sell audience as opposed to section. Many are hoping that these new abilities will bring in revenue and save the future of newspapers.
A picture's worth a thousand words, but what about YouTube?
by Peter Merchlewitz
Following my last blogs' theme of censorship, I found myself once again at David Lee's jBlog, and this time, he's not talking about cropping sections of a photo from a Middle East reporter, but this time, he tackles the topic of removing footage from video.
Peter Horrocks, head of the BBC newsroom, posted on the BBC Editors' Blog, commenting on the YouTube clip showing gunman Matti Juhnai Saari, stating:
"Our competitors chose to run the full footage of Matti Juhnai Saari issuing his threat 'You will die next', followed by him firing towards the camera and the explosion of pieces of fruit across the lens as his bullets found their target. The BBC chose only to run the verbal threat, but not the firing or the splattered fruit."
Well, that's all well and good...but the fact of the matter is, you lied. As it turns out, the BBC did end up showing the YouTube clip in its entirety. However, when the six o' clock news came on, the BBC had ended up censoring the clip. Is there even a valid reason as to why the BBC would want to edit the showing of the clip?
First off, news is news, no matter how graphic or violent it is. At least have the newscaster comment on the graphic nature of the video clip, and then offer viewer discretion. Secondly, wouldn't the YouTube clip be considered a terrorist act? By definition, terrorism is the act of using violence and threats to intimidate or coerce the public. So by that means, wouldn't the BBC be fueling terrorism by editing their broadcast of the shooting clip during their news?
The clips were shown, Mr. Horrcks, so why lie?
If you can't write, don't post
By Austin Bates
Recently, I stumbled across a small blog post that reminded me of one of my greatest pet peeves: incorrectly spelled, edited, punctuated, or otherwise written comments, forum, or blog posts. Of course, this also extends to news media and print media in general.
I'm a bit of an amateur blogger, as in I constantly post to discussion forums and group walls on Facebook. Some very contentious topics are brought up on occasion with some of the discussions, and though I may completely disagree with them, I respect their contributions, thoughts and opinions. That is, unless they misspell everything, have improper grammar, and no or limited punctuation.
Some of these people bring up good points, and frankly, they could have the secret to the meaning of life, but as far as I'm concerned, if they're not even willing to take an extra minute or two to spellcheck, use punctuation, and make sure that sentences read correctly, than I have to assume they're also that unwilling to check their facts and make logical arguments. Besides, as much as I want to take two minutes to read a 30 second post, I have more important things to do, including reading and responding to the posts of people who care about presenting a proper argument and have the decency to write correctly.
The same goes for professional print media. I can understand a simple word misspelling every 200 words or so, or an incorrect word-swap (for example, "their" instead of "there"), but if the publication is routinely using incorrect sentence structures, fallacies in their arguments, have dozens of words misspelled, and generally make the publication harder to read than it should be, I begin seriously questioning the legitimacy of the publication.
In terms of a newspaper, one must consider that there are supposed to be a slew of people looking over and working on one article, and if ALL of those people missed something, that calls into question their dedication to accuracy and just how factual their facts are. And a book with major errors is even more suspect, because of any lack of urgency or deadlines that must be met (in most cases).
Words are things that, once said or written, cannot be withdrawn or redone or corrected. It seems only logical then that one take even more caution with what one says and writes before it gets sent to the public. Making an incorrect product of manufacturing is one thing, but spouting a bunch of non-sense and typographically filled sentences damages, or even destroys, your reputation, and a reputation is not something easily repaired or rebuilt.
Besides, with all this modern technology, including spell-check, you would think that people would be better than ever at writing. That seems not to be the case, though. In the end, all I ask is that if you're going to post a response to what I, or anyone else, has to say, do yourself a favor, and those reading your response, and take time to spell and write it correctly. Then I'll take what you have to say more seriously.
Palin preps for debate
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By: Erin Floro
Chrysler and GM's eco-friendly investments don't look promising
By: Kathryn Lisk
Fake news story
By: Jessica Hamell
Writers from the Los Angeles Times are suing ex-subscribers because they “failed to appreciate our bodacious journalism and recklessly canceled their subscriptions.” they are suing 425,000 of the ex-subscribers.
A piece of the lawsuit states, “By recklessly canceling their subscriptions, these morons have caused irreparable harm to the newspaper, breached their civic duty to stay fully informed, and missed some totally awesome articles by Pulitzer Prize-winning auto columnist Dan Neil, as well as money-saving Sunday coupons that could easily offset the subscription price.”
It isn’t fair to sue these people because they don’t know for sure what their reason for cancelling was. You can’t prove that every one of those 425,000 people cancelled just because they didn’t appreciate the writing.
Who would think of suing someone for not wanting to read your newspaper? If you have 425,000 people cancel their subscriptions you must be doing something wrong.
The lawsuit is seeking damages of $2.99 a week.
I am pretty sure this is a fake story because is comes from The Fake L.A. Times Web page. This somewhat shows that you can’t believe everything that is written.
This Web page has established itself as untrustworthy by the stories it writes which are just to amuse the readers.
Journalist's Display of Tact Refreshing
By: Sarah Harl
Over the last few weeks, it has been no secret that the economy has encountered its most difficult stage since the Great Depression. It has caused a financial crisis of epic proportions. But one place where you won't find words of doom and despair is the printed pages of a newspaper.
Not wanting to cause panic or rash decisions by readers, journalists at many newspapers across the country have refrained from using language that would cause panic among their readers--words such as "crash" or "failure".
This is not to say that journalists are not accurately and harshly reporting on the shortcomings of many of the financial institutions in the US. Nor are they downplaying the current economic status of the country.
Instead, many journalists have consented to the fact that they are not, in fact, financial experts, and realizing the weight of some of the articles they write with everyday Americans.
It is the job of a journalist strictly to report the news and what is happening. Not to convince people to move around their money or pull out of the stock market. That job belongs to professionals who are frantically working to minimize the damage of this economic downfall.
A display of journalists remembering what their job is, as opposed to trying to offer advice they have no expertise in giving is refreshing, and will help to keep panic to a minimum. And if panic is kept to a minimum, we will be able to recover from this period of time hopefully on slightly worse for the wear.
How old are you again?
By: Jessica Hartgers
A 37 year old woman has been arrested for allegedly having sex with a 15 year old boy. Shannon Rew of Indianola was turned into the police by her mother who was fed up with the whole situation, later Rew admitted to having romantic feelings for the boy.
Rew is being charged with 12 counts of third-degree sex abuse after having a sexual relationship with the boy that lasted approximately two months. Rew is also being charged with dissemination and exhibition of obscene material to minors and admitting minors to premises where obscene material is exhibited.
The day after the Indianola police got the call from Rew's mother, the police and local news crews showed up at Rew's place of work which happens to be a day care in Indianola. In the background of several interviews held at the day care there are children playing outside on the playground. The news crews should have chosen a different location to use as a background for their interviews, young innocent children should not have been in the news at all.
In fact, the local news stations should not have even shown up at the day care. The 15 year old boy Rew was having sexual relations with was in no way connected to the day care, yet the journalists made it seem that way.
News reporters and journalists held out this major detail until the very end of the story to keep the viewers attention and to keep them tuned into their channel. The way the journalist reported this story on television was a sneaky way around the truth.
Gay news is great news
By: Kayla Miller
Of course, we all have a tendency to make sure we are up-to-date with the latest news of the celebrities. Especially those who are gay. I mean, of course, it is juicy gossip when you hear that Clay Aiken came "out of the closet" to People Magazine.
I can hear it already, friend to friend, "Did you know that Clay Aiken is gay and has a baby?" Most people had a clue about his sexuality way back from when he won American Idol. But now it is finally real news when it comes out into the public and makes the topic of conversations.
How does the media know what kind of stories bring in viewers? Do they ever think that they are invading Aiken's space? Well, by the looks of it, Aiken wanted people to know by saying, "I cannot raise a child to lie or hide things." And according to People Magazine, they wanted the world to know, too, because of course... gay news is great news.
Wall Street for dummies
By: Gabe Gilson
There are many newspapers out there for a college student to read. Of course, any student would like to read the local student published paper, or maybe the city run paper. As a college student, I cannot be sure how another student my age could read The Wall Street Journal for more than five minutes.
Over the past few weeks, I have tried and tried to keep up with the newspaper. It seems as if one would have to have multiple degrees from Harvard or Yale just to understand the topics of some of the articles.
And while not everything is that confusing, inapprehensive and downright befuddling, how can a newspaper come out without even a sports section? Is this not unconstitutional? Yes, this may be the business man’s paper but, would you not want to know a few scores here and there?
U.S.A. Today has become my favorite nationally published newspaper. When reading this particular publication, one can find out everything you ever needed to know in the sporting world as well as the news about the $100 billion tax break passed by the Senate, or about Clay Aiken coming out of the closet, or even information about business that The Wall Street Journal could provide.
So here is my proposal to The Wall Street Journal: make a daily edition of the paper entitled The Wall Street Journal for dummies. This is why it would work. The writers that would be hired could be just people that got C’s in college rather than A’s. The reading audience would be much larger because America has become stupid (watch Idiocracy anybody that argues). There could be an entire section that defines those hard vocabulary words in the big boy Wall Street Journal
of that day.
So why not Wall Street? Why not make my day and publish a newspaper for those who were not the valedictorians of their respective high schools. Hell, why not a paper for those who do not have to use spell checker to spell valedictorian? Just a thought.
Blogs are media
By: Alex Jones
First Amendment Doesn't Protect Poor Choices
By: Kelsey Knutson
