Government Over Taking the Media

Australian Press Council is butting heads with its government over print media. Before September 14 the press was funded independently. The government took action and stepped in to take over but not just because of the decrease of funding. They also want to regulate the media.

This action that the government is taking reminds one of the Egypt government back in January of 2011. Recalling the events they shut down the internet to block social media sites so that the people could not get together for more protesting.

Media should not be controlled by the government because like the Egyptian people, societies will get upset on what they are blocking and not showing what is in the news.

Rupert Murdoch is an important figure in Australia media because he owns 70 percent of there newspapers. The big scandal with him hacking phone lines is also causing government to step in and make sure that does not happen again.

Even though Murdoch was in the wrong he was just trying to get the news out faster to the people because they have the right to know.

The government is acting out of being scared. They are worried that something is going to go wrong and make them look bad.

The Australian Press Council has to accept the government regulating because that is where all the funding is coming from. Government controlling the media, is that bad? Or against our moral rights?

Read more...

How Twitter has Changed Campaign Coverage

More and more people are getting their news, including political news, from social media. This offers a quicker and more up to date way to see the latest news about political candidates. But does quicker mean better? Or are reporters these days just worried about the quantity and speed of their reports, and not the quality?


Jodi Edna said in his report, Campaign Coverage in the Time of Twitter, from the American Journalism Review."No longer do reporters slog elbow to elbow with presidential contenders vying for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire. No longer do they get to know the candidates in a way that voters do not – up close and personal, with their feet up, their guard down and, perhaps, a drink at the ready. No longer do they have the luxury of weeks or days or even hours to gather string and dig deep and analyze before they write a story."

Edna continues on say that many reporters today don't have enough time to write what reporters 10 years ago would consider a story since they are so busy with Twitter, blogging, or shooting a video clip.

Reporters these days are no longer following candidates around and getting to know them,"There are fewer people observing these candidates up close and more people writing about them from afar. There are a lot more people opining, blogging, tweeting, but not out there looking at candidates face to face," says Zeleny of the New York Times. Is this a good thing? Are we getting the best, most accurate stories from these reporters? Or is this just the fastest way to get out information?

The new way of reporting has both its positives and negatives. People are definitely getting their news faster and more often by using social media. Also they have the options of seeing pictures of the candidate, clicking on a link to view a video that the reporter shot with his/her phone, or hear an audio recording captured by the reporter. And nothing is better than hearing from the candidates themselves.

But the negatives are clear as well. Continuing in his report Edna says this referring to today's reporters, "Almost to a person, they bemoan the loss of time to engage in in-depth reporting, to go beyond the story of the day to unearth the insightful gems that really tell us something instructive, something fundamentally important, about the men and women who would be president." Reporters today are sacrificing their time to do deep research on candidates so that they can keep getting the latest, newer news.

Everyone is a potential journalist today. What is considered news today only remains news for a little while, until something new has to be blogged about. Is the new form of reporting on campaigns (little amounts of data but constantly updated) better for the voter than the old form of reporting, where we received in-depth stories about the candidate but not as often? Whatever way is better, campaigns are being covered more and more by people on sites like twitter, and less and less by reporters who do in-depth reporting.

Photo from creativecommons.org
http://youtu.be/PoScti4lii8

Read more...

Media Bias....Helpful?

Bias seems to be a term met with much negativity in the journalism world. As budding journalists we strive to keep our stories right in the middle of the political spectrum.

How boring is that though? This is the idea that Jack Shafer implanted in my head with his recent blog, Media Bias? Give me more Please!

Bias keeps us guessing and if you think about it it is one of the few things keeping the news honest. Without opposition in the journalistic world, people would never question anything.

It must be true if it's unbiased. Is that a positive mindset? No, I want to be told if I'm wrong or right just.

Why shouldn't we enjoy a little bias when it comes to our news? There are always two sides to every story and they most certainly will be told.

Blaming bad news on a biased opinion is lazy. If you hold strong opinions on a topic and upon investigation you find out you're wrong, well that would be the time to change your opinion.

As journalists we should be filters. We should be able to screen our news and be able to tell what is right and wrong. Simple reasoning should allow us to find the middle ground between two bias stories.

In the end journalism needs bias. It is the want to be right that is associated with bias that keeps people asking questions in the pursuit of the truth.

Read more...

Rage Against the Media

Photo courtesy of CreativeCommons.org

On September 17th, all was normal with Twitter. However, if you chose to glance down at trending topics, there were a couple of interesting choices:
#occupywallstreet
#sept17
#USdayofrage

If you were intrigued enough to click on one of these hashtags, the content might have surprised you. For it appeared our nation was in the middle of a giant, unexpected economic protest on Wall Street. The hacktivist group Anonymous used some of its many Twitter accounts to help organize the event, and stood among the crowd during peaceful demonstrations against 'coporate pigs' and the American government.

If you were watching the mainstream American news, you never would have heard any of it. As the day went on, Twitter users began complaining of a major media blackout against what they claimed civilians would deem to be news. And it seems to be true: the first major media company to release an article over the event was Al Jeezera English, a foreign media outlet (read the article here). In fact, while Al Jeezera released their article the same day as the popular revolution begun, it took American outlets at least a full day before they began to release any kind of coverage (see Business Week's coverage here). It was too long for the protesters, one of whom tweeted "This whole lack of news coverage thing for #occupywallstreet is kind of disturbing. Yet the asinine Glen Beck rally got all that press?"

Why did it take the American media so long to respond to a major protest on one of our country's most famous streets? For weeks, journalists have been covering foreign protests with a lot of effort and no small amount of dedication, yet the biggest news of Saturday was left to the foreign media and protesters to break themselves. There is speculation that major media corporations dragged their feet on purpose to cover it, because after all- the public was protesting specifically against corporations. Were the major news networks purposefully avoiding the subject to save their own dignity?

If journalists are going to continue referring to themselves as our nation's 'watchdog', then they need to be watching their own business moves. When you are a journalist, you don't do what's best for the corporation. You're doing what's best for your nation's civilians, and sometimes, you need to swallow your pride.

Read more...

Ten Years Later

Twitter exploded with hashtags of #neverforget and #GodblesstheUSA on the decade anniversary of 9/11, as over three million tweets acknowledged the occasion.

We shared where we were, who we were with, what we thought on that Tuesday morning ten years ago. Various news and social media websites encouraged us to express our memories and describe our experience since. The New York Times, among others, created an entire addition to their website covering every aspect of 9/11 from the events of the day itself to the impact on American Muslims since. Television documentaries and films consumed practically every station from CBS to OWN, Animal Planet to the History Channel. Newspapers took the opportunity to bring out the biggest and best in front page illustration.

We were bombarded with images and sounds. Videos of the attacks themselves and the minutes after. Recordings of panicked 911 calls and final goodbyes to loved ones.

Was it too much? Did the hundreds of hours of anniversary coverage trivialize the events? Or honor those affected most by the tragedy?

Nevertheless, whether there was too much exposure or not enough, the media succeeded in helping us remember that tragic day and the lives lost. A plummeting stock market, the Presidential election, and debt reduction plans were slightly further from our mind as we took the time to tune in to the coverage or glance through the commemorative magazine. Through television specials and newspaper articles, Americans came closer together as a nation in remembrance, just as we were a decade before.

photo courtesy of pingnews.com via www.creativecommons.com

Read more...

Twitter Changes the Game for Reporters

With the arrival of the 21st Century, journalism has had to evolve to keep up with reader's demands. In this new, technological age, social media websites have completely changes the journalistic world. Social media sites, especially Twitter, provide readers with constant, immediate news. This has created a more competitive working environment for reporters to break the stories first.

Additionally, journalists cannot simply be reporters in this changing business. They must also become editors, multi-media experts, and marketers to develop a brand for themselves in a way that makes them stand out from their competitors. They have to know how to do it all.

Twitter gives journalists tools they never dreamed would have been possible in the past millennium. This website allows journalists to watch for trends, establish sources, share and develop their stories, and brand themselves to millions of followers almost instantaneously. Plus they can do this all in the palm of their hand.

This one website has also changed the way readers get their news. The days of the newspaper are a thing of the past; replaced by LED screened cellphones and tablets. Readers want to know what is happening "now" not what happened yesterday, or even ten minutes ago. If journalists want to be successful in today's field, then it is essential they get with the times and use the resources in front of them wisely.

photo from www.creativecommons.org by okalkavan

Read more...

Hanging Out with Google

There's a new way for journalist to video chat these days, and its all thanks to Google+'s new features which were announced today. The new version named "Hang outs on Air" will allow journalist to record video and live stream their discussions to their colleagues.

Now with this built in feature, journalist can conduct their discussions publicly by:

• Creating a virtual town hall where they can be outside and officials tell them the latest news.
• Have a meeting with the editorial staff and then after everything is discussed and edited, they can post the video and the written editorial report.
• They can even have a political debate at the Hangout!

If that wasn't the icing on the cake, Google made another announcement that they would be making a few more changes, including: support for Android phones that had front facing cameras, sharing streaming through their computer's screen, and sharing a GoogleDoc.

With all these new changes to the world of journalism, its making me very excited to hop right into the business and learn all these new ways to give me an edge of success.

Picture Credit: Creative Commons.

Accreditation: Jeff Sonderman at Poynter.org

Read more...

Reactions to Osama's Death

The night of May 2, 2011 is one that no American can forget. President Barack Obama declared, "Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden." It was with these words that the entire country erupted in shock and celebration. The media also exploded with the news, and different themes were prominent in different mediums.

Citizens jumped onto Facebook and Twitter, many praising the military for the kill and using humor. @NZAfro tweeted, "R.I.P. Osama bin Laden- World Hide and Go Seek Champion. (2001-2011). Social media websites also hosted many discussions over if bin Laden was really dead or not.

Mainstream media focused on the details of the events leading up to and during the attack on bin Laden's compound. These outlets also spotlighted on the American and global reaction to the event.

As websites like Facebook and Twitter get even more popular, it allows the average citizen to have a say in the news and what themes get covered. Collecting information from many different mediums is vital to get the entire story because there is such a variety in the coverage. Events like this help support Marshall McLuhan's famous quote, "The medium is the message."

Photo credit: Sgt. Randall A Clinton

Read more...

Risky Responsibility

"I am hiding. Death has come."

These are the last words spoken by BBC journalist Ahmad Omed Khpulwak in a text message to his brother before he was killed by a United States' soldier in Afghanistan this past July. Khpulwak was one of 19 people to die in a fight that erupted between American forces and the Taliban after an attack on an Afghan television station.

Determined journalists travel abroad every year, risking their lives in countries plagued by war and destruction, but are getting these stories worth risking it all?

Khpulwak was only one tragic example, but journalists put themselves in the way of danger all the time. Seventy journalists were killed around the world in 2009, the highest death toll recorded in the last 30 years. War, hurricanes, gang violence, prisons, and drugs are just some of the frequent risks journalists take.

Many may doubt the sanity of journalists willing to cover dangerous situations, but these reporters simply believe that getting the story is worth it. A story means gaining a new knowledge that can be shared with the world that without the dedication of journalists would remain unknown. This knowledge gives journalists the power to influence decisions made around the world and provides a strong check on government. Journalists with the passion for truth and the longing to teach others are willing to undergo danger to share their story, their knowledge, and their influence. To all journalists who have died in pursuit of truth, may they be honored with our full respect and gratitude.

Photo Credit: Senior Airman Steve Czyz

Read more...

A Conflict of Interest

Don't bring your work home. Don't mix business with pleasure. Don't poop where you eat. Personal life and professional life should be separate.

The concept is simple enough. In order to be objective at work, we need to remain unbiased. For example, a doctor can't treat his/her spouse because of conflict of interest.

According to Thomas Sheeran on Huffington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Connie Schultz resigned from her position at The Plain Dealer due to her husband's senatorial race. She explained that her decision resulted from the fact that her newspaper regularly reports on her husband's election.

Journalists and politicians are like macaroni and cheese; one without the other is devastating. The idea that either one would have to choose between a spouse and a career is equally devastating.

Schultz worked for The Plain Dealer for 18 years. Although she will no longer work for that newspaper, she will continue to writing for magazines and her book. I don't know how she chose one love over another, but it was her decision to make.

As a political science and multi-media journalism major, I often wonder whether I want to make headlines or write them. In high school I had the best of both worlds; I was president of student council and editor of the newspaper. I have avoided conflict between my two interests so far, but in the real world, I know I will have to decide.

Read more...

Twitter's Place in Publications

"Off the record," journalists have heard this over and over again, and it is a bit of a disappointment every time. Clearly journalists want the entirety of an interview to be "on the record"; we are not nearly as interested if it can't be published. With this in mind, what is the right way to use tweets?

As of late, members of the senate have been claiming that their public tweets are to be considered off the record. The fact that these tweets are public, for everyone to see, should point out how outlandish of a suggestion this is.

According to Jeff Sonderman on Poynter, several prominent bloggers and writers noticed this disclaimer and were then forced to remove several tweet quotes from their blog, noting the absurdity of the situation.

If prominent members of the senate are willing to tweet their thoughts for the entire Twitter community to see, then they should be equally willing to have these tweets quoted in text. It is no different then journalists using a quote from a previous speech. Senate members should back off, and keep their tweets "on record

Read more...

Emotion - To include it, or leave it out?

Emotion in a story works to create not only a mood, but also a setting that can help to grasp many readers attention. It gives insight into a background and can go so far as to convey the emotions of an entire crowd.

But where is the line between emotion and editorializing? Often times, writers will work to write emotion into a story, but will fail when they forget the thoughts of their subject and include their own opinions into a subject.

Emotions in Journalism by Ruhi Khan gives in-depth insight into the subject that many have had struggles with (including myself) of writing with emotion but avoiding that fine line. One quote that really caught my attention helped to bring into perspective my ill-thought belief on journalism and reporting on only the facts.

"The tremendous use of emotional play in news reporting makes one wonder whether it is reporting, or is it crossing over into something else and whether the media are increasingly getting involved in a moral crusade?"

A moral crusade perfectly describes what I have been dealing with, but in a different light. I have been trying to fight my emotions and what I was taught when it came to writing. I was keeping my own opinion in that all readers were like myself, and wanted something that could draw them in through imagination.

But the more I research, and the more I learn, the more I realize that I am not like everyone else, and news is catered to a market that has been around for centuries, so why try to fight my own battle? Is it really right to include emotion in a story, and if so, where does that line end where it turns into nothing more then a personal moral crusade?

Read more...

Could editorialization be the future?

As a writer who is used to giving in depth description and honing a skill of showing emotion through words, editorializing has been my biggest downfall. Journalism trains writers to give facts, and only facts; writing without bias and taking all emotion out of most stories.

Maybe this could be the underlying reason I tend to avoid news articles, as they leave nothing to the imagination and lay out all of the facts that help build a "good" story. Maybe this is also the reason that blogging has been able to thrive where newsprint has begun to dwindle.

In searching for pertinent information regarding editorialization in blogging, I was shocked to see the results of a Google search that contained many articles that pointed out editorializing in news articles. I began to understand why this is such a taboo point in news as many readers crave the facts and are looking for a quick read, and not another persons opinion, but when it comes to blogging, the conflict is welcomed.

The additive of consumer interaction has helped to boost the blogging lime-light as it adds an all important aspect of conflict into the story. The ability for a reader to voice their opinion on a writers views or facts adds involvement that helps the reader feel as if they are a part of the story and may also shed light on additional aspects of a topic for those who are un-informed.

Could this be a welcome aspect for news print that may help to once again promote their margins and give them a leg up on instant media access?

Read more...

"Released With A Hashtag"

Imagine living in a society where your voice was silenced, your rights were minimal, your safety was not guaranteed and the information you received about the world around you came with the caution that it may or may not be the truth. This unfortunately was not just the imaginary life for millions of people, it was the reality for those calling Egypt home.

In the midst of their recent revolution, however, there has been a great shift. This shift was outlined by Hanna Sistek in a post she recently co-authored with Tanja Aitamurto.

Prior to the revolution, Freedom of the press was not a feasible ideal. Nor was the idea of citizen bloggers, tweeters or facebookers. In fact, the media was so highly regulated by the government that a top newspaper, Al-Ahram, printed an apology for "inaccurate reporting" after President Mubarak stepped down.

With Mubarak no longer in control, the country's consumption and production of media has changed dramatically. The article states that new channels are being created, media agencies are forming and citizen journalist are becoming high profile "celebrities" in the region. This all began with something so simple, something most of us do everyday in America and something that is taken for granted-sharing.

This new environment is happening via the Internet in Egypt, and has begun to transform their culture and allow them to partake in the global exchange of ideas. It has also given way to a stronger sense of unity and ownership because they are now able to more freely communicate with one another and have open and progressive discussions on where they see themselves as members of this new Egyptian climate.

Although tremendous strides have been made in the short time since Mubarak's exit, there are still barriers to break down in the country. Freedoms of speech and press have increased significantly, but people are still being prosecuted, convicted and jailed for their words. The good news-the people in Egypt will not allow this to go on quietly. Thanks to their new tools (facebook, twitter, ect.) they are able to quickly spread the message and mobilize support when these instances occur. In fact, one blogger was recently freed from jail after an enormous outcry from the country. She was not only released but also saved with a hashtag.

Read more...

Illegal or Undocumented?

When writing articles on immigration what terms should the media use, illegal or undocumented? This is one question that is posed by every journalist when writing a story about the topic.

According to the AP Style book the term that is preferred is Illegal Immigrant, but it says not to use just the term illegal as a noun.

There are many groups like the Diversity Committee of The Society of Professional Journalism and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists are trying to get jour

nalists to use other terms like undocumented worker or undocumented. These groups consider the term illegal a slur and politically incorrect.

What terms do other countries media use? An article by New America Media gives a few examples of what other countries use. Most Spanish speaking countries and the Philippines term Undocumented instead of illegal. In Russia both terms are used. However in Vietnam and China they use the term illegal, although in China it is not as controversial.

How should the American media react to this? Is this as controversial as some groups make it out to be? Is the term Illegal politically incorrect and should we start using the term undocumented?

Photo by: Fibbonaci Blue

Read more...

Who Cares About the Emmys?

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Emmys dropped a million viewers from last year. This statement is not suprising and should have dropped more than a million viewers.

But when all America's coverage and center focus is the Emmys its hard to have the viewing number drop more. When our world is at war with two different countries, in major debt crisis, and constantly increasing the

unemployment rate more coverage should be directed towards those issues.

The Emmys are entertainment and should have little but some coverage. War and the debt crisis should be broadcasted and be covered fully. Media should have a direct focus on American society. Media needs to have priorities when chosing coverage of topics.

However some people are concerned with the Emmys most people would rather be worrying about our society and where it stands. This leaves me with my statement "Who Cares About the Emmys?"

Read more...

Embedding Code

This is an example of how to embed code.

Read more...

Freedom of Speech Costing Freedom

Turkish journalists marched in protest on Sunday in Istanbul’s central Taksim district on the 200th day since journalists Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener were arrested.
“It is not Ahmet and Nedim who are on trial in this case, it is journalism itself that is on trial, press freedom and freedom of expression are sitting in the felon’s dock,” journalists said.
The two arrested journalists, Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener, have been in prison for 200 days. In the indictments against them, which were completed more than three weeks ago, they were charged with aiding and abetting the alleged Ergenekon criminal gang.
Some 1,500 people, including members of the Freedom for Journalists Platform, or GÖP, the “Friends of Ahmet and Nedim” group, journalists, and main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, deputies Sezgin Tanrıkulu, Bihlun Tamaylıgil, Süleyman Çelebi, Gürsel Tekin and Umut Oran, marched during the protest.
Those who attended the demonstration held banners that read “No to pressure on media,” “Freedom for journalists,” “Even if we get burned, we will touch it,” referring to Şık’s telling reporters, “Those who touch [the Fetullah Gülen community] get burned” as he was being detained by police on March 6.
Demonstrators chanted slogans like “Ahmet and Nedim are our honor,” “Ahmet will be free and write again, Nedim will be free and write again.”
After marching down İstiklal Avenue, the protesters made a press statement.
“Dozens of journalists like Ahmet and Nedim are in prison and on trial with the charges of dozens of years behind bars because of the research they did and the articles they wrote,” journalists said.

Photo:Creative Commons

“Those who say that ‘Turkey should not be the country of suspicions and fears, it should be the country of freedoms and ideals’ have unfortunately created a country where more than 50 journalists are in jail, more than 4,000 journalists are on trial, books are confiscated before they are published and people are afraid of expressing their thoughts,” journalists said. Journalists said all the information in the indictment against Şık and Şener which are considered as the “evidences”, are in fact “normal activities of journalism.”http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=journalists-protest-arrest-of-colleagues-2011-09-18

Read more...

Contemplation on Ethics

I just got home from the movie Contagion, and I am thoroughly disturbed by what I saw. The main issue came from the character played by Jude Law. I shall do my best to refrain from spoiling the plot for those who have not seen the movie as of yet, but I am not certain I can accomplish that objective while leading into my main point.

Jude Law plays a freelance journalist who has "over 18 million unique visitors" to his blog. He is out reporting news and, when a virus outbreak begins to emerge, he does something questionable. At one point in time he makes a video blog post where he explains the symptoms he has from the virus and then takes a particular medicine, saying that if he is still alive in a day or two it works to cure this epidemic.

When he doesn't drop dead everyone wants this drug and, when everywhere begins running out of it, violence breaks out and anarchy reigns across the cities.

Do not read this next statement if you do not want a part of the plot spoiled... he never really had the virus.

This made me think about the ethics of a journalist. At what point should the line be drawn between a breaking news story and a dishonest fabrication? Where does a person learn how to tell when the line is being crossed?

There is a code of ethics posted on the Society of Professional Journalists website. In the preamble it states "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." Johann, whom I blogged about yesterday, has lost a piece of that cornerstone with his plagiarism. Jude Law's character, if the truth would be revealed to the public, would lose credibility and some of those unique visitors.

According to the code of ethics posted, there are four components that are mentioned: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently and be accountable. Jude Law's character only really followed one of those. He was more concerned with giving the people "what they wanted" and providing a solution to their problems. That answer turned out to cause more harm than could have been predicted.

Which leads to the question of how do you know whether or not a choice is ethical. It is highly likely that over the course of a career in journalism you will be faced with a scenario where reporting the truth would cause immense harm. There will be times when reporting something might jeopardize your job. How would you handle those situations?

I don't know if that is something you can really plan for.

Read more...

The Cost of Plagiarism

Never plagiarize. This is a rule we hear about in any writing format, no matter what the class is. Professors warn us to never use Wikipedia as a source. They caution us to always use attribution whenever there is doubt. The last thing you would think that a journalist of any measure would do is to plagiarize.

According to an article on journalism.co.uk, prize-winning journalist Johann Hari did.

He attributes this error in judgement to a lack of ethics training. More like common sense training. His list of journalistic errors in judgement includes taking 545 words directly from someone else's work, elaborating quotes, and editing other journalist's Wikipedia pages to include unflattering comments about them.

He has returned the Orwell Prize he won in 2008 and is in the midst of a four month suspension. He is currently undergoing journalism training and it is expected he will resume his position after the four months is over.

Is this punishment enough to fit the crime? You have to think that his actions will affect the way readers view The Independent. When a writer does something that brings their credibility into question, they will lost their effectiveness in connecting with the audience. Readers and critics will not be so fast to forgive this lapse in judgement.

There is a long history of journalist scandals, and most of the plagiarism cases end up with either a resignation by the journalist or their employment being terminated. How will it affect The Independent if they choose to brush this issue aside and proceed as if it never happened?

What message will that send to readers of newspapers everywhere? The market for newspapers is already on the decline; it is unlikely that it can withstand a major blow. Something as simple as this could be a fatal blow for newspapers everywhere.

What do you think should happen to Johann?

Image from Creative Commons.

Read more...