Google Takes Over News, Again
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/09/google-news-gets-social/
The latest in news-industry issues, as written by multimedia journalism and integrated marketing communication students at Simpson College.

On Sept 27 Wayne Simmonds, a Professional Hockey Player, was accused of a slur allegation towards Sean Avery during a preseason game.
This homophobic language was brought up in the N.H.L. meeting and was ruled that Simmonds will have no punishment. My question is when do we draw the line?
Sports have been around for many years and have always been very competitive. However, inappropriate slurs and vulgar language should not ever be allowed and should always have some punishment.
Any professional player is paid well so why not charge them with a few thousand dollars? Everybody deserves the right treatment and respect out on the court, field, or arena; therefore, punishments should be talked about and should take charge.
No one signs up to be humiliated on the competitive floor and no one deserves to be treated like that. Emotions are to blame for some language, but when do we draw the line and take charge?
Simmonds should never have got away with his slur towards Avery. The N.H.L. obviously has better things to handle and not take charge of people and how they are treated on the ice. I strongly believe if any slur is caught on the floor that a manager or coach should punish them.
Punishment doesn't always have to be money but a penalty or time out of a game would be an option as well. It is safe to say if I was ever humiliated on the competitive floor I would want action to be taken towards the other person. I would hope people would feel the same about being humiliated.
Not only do I think the N.H.L. needs to take more action but also more organizations like the N.B.A, W.N.B.A., or M.L.B.. Vulgar language does not always happen on the ice it happens in almost every sport and needs to have more action taken about it.
Luxury, status, wealth and importance are all ideas that come mind when we think of having a personal driver. Well, it what some people in this world think of when it comes to chauffeuring. If you are a woman and live in Saudi Arabia, however, you most likely think the opposite. Oppression, inequality and control are the conflicting beliefs if you are a Saudi female. This is due to the Saudi law that bans women from driving.

The world is constantly changing and growing. People develop new technologies, come up with new ideas, and as the whole the human race develops. So, when Bill O' Reilly mentions during an interview, "The media, remarkably, hasn’t changed since Benjamin Franklin was printing ‘Poor Richard’s Almanac'," it stirs up a bit of thought.

If a picture can speak 1,000 words, what affect could 52 photographs of Osama bin Laden's death play on the war, and even on the world?

When covering the Chicago Bears game that was on Sep. 11, 2011, Fox News lied about newspaper headlines about quarterback Jay Cutler.
Referring to the knee injury Cutler received in a game during the playoffs last year, the headlines that were displayed during the segment were, “Cutler Lacks Courage” and “Cutler’s No Leader.”
FOX announcer Daryl Johnston said during the segment, “These are the actual headlines from the local papers in Chicago.” These headlines make it seem like the newspapers in Chicago are being too tough on their quarterback. The only problem is these headlines never existed.
While apologizing about the headline incident, FOX sports came clean and said that they made the headlines up about Cutler and said, “It was misleading.” The fake newspaper headlines going across the screen are misleading, yes, but to say that they were actual newspaper headlines from Chicago newspapers is a lie since they never were.
This is not the first time FOX has been caught saying something that never happened, foxnewslies.net has a list of a lot of these. And still FOX remains as the most watched cable news channel, even with all of these reported lies.
Does this mean people like to hear what they agree with, even if it isn’t true? Whatever the reason, dishonesty doesn’t seem to bother FOX much, or their viewers.
Photo from Creative Commons
A major controversy arose only a few weeks ago after details of an Afghan journalist's death surface.
BBC reporter, Ahmed Omed Khpulwak, was originally believed to be killed by insurgents in suicide attacks that had taken place July 28; nevertheless, recent discoveries have uncovered that Khpulwak was killed by an American soldier who had mistaken Khpulwak for a suicide bomber in the seemingly complex attacks that took place.
The foremost problem, however, is not that this journalist was killed in moments of war, but that the details of his death were not made known until after Khpulwak's family pressured for an investigation.
In an article published by the New York Times, details about the investigation report were provided.
The report stated that the soldier who killed Khpulwak believed that he had fired on American soldiers and was attempting to detonate a suicide vest when the soldier killed him. However, Khpulwak's brother states later in the article that he was skeptical of NATO's report since Khpulwak spoke sufficient English and would have simply been showing his press card to the soldiers.
Ther have been 19 other journalists killed in Afghanistan since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, according to the aformentioned article.
My question is, however, why this investigation seemed to have been swept under the rug. It took the family of the deceased to initially pressure the BBC to do something before the ball got rolling.
It would appear to me that it would be a present concern of those individuals who love to claim freedom, that if there is a suspicious death of an individual who is willing to ask difficult questions of those in power--such as a reporter--that those individuals would make it a point to seek out the truth.
This investigation should not have waited until September to turn-up results when Khpulwak was killed in July. If this is going to be the results of a journalist's death, fellow journalists need to make an outcry of anger, and soon.
In today's society advertisement plays a big role in everyday life. As the worlds technology becomes more advanced so does the advertisement.
It has spread to mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones. In the article "How publishers can overcome the abundance problem in mobile adverting," discusses how publishers can use the ads affectedly.
By knowing how organizations build apps can help the publisher understand the placement of ads because it is a key importance. Now the best place for the ads is to go the publisher can try to catch peoples attention and get them to click on the ads to bust online production.
Knowing your audience for a publisher is an important thing. No ad about about a 55 year old man will get the attention of a 18 year old. Take Men's Health Magazine for example, they are just targeting men so there will be no women advertisement unless they so the sexiest female model of the year in the magazine.
The mobile advertisement is on the rise right now because smart phones and tablets are also on the rise in the market. For a publisher this is good, because expanding your business to reach the consumer virtually everywhere is a big step.
Publishers see this as an advantage in getting business, knowing how to target their audience is just an upgrade on their smart phones.
Photo by Creative Commons
Getting the perfect photo to complement any story is vital, but photographers need to know their constitutional rights.

It seems that every few months Facebook comes out with 'new and improved' changes that seem to infuriate the masses. Facebook has incorporated games, chats, and now even updated status feeds that people have tended to revolt against initially. But, in the end, everyone moves on with their lives and learns to accept the new features without a second glance.
This is one of the biggest benefits for advertising firms and Facebook as over the years, they have worked to incorporate an all important trait that most people tend to ignore; the sponsorships that Facebook provides. It is hard to think that these and many other advertising revenues have helped to boost the social networking site to a $1 Billion profit for the year.
It is staggering to think of such large revenues for a social site that many of us use on a daily basis and don't give a second thought to 'adds', but the additional revenue is getting the attention of another advertising giant; Google.
Google has been trying to compete for the top-spot in the advertising frenzy that is linked to social media, but it doesn't seem as though they are going to be able to keep up as Facebook works to keep posting annually increases of 20 percent or more.
The biggest drawback to all of this? When will it be enough and when will we see our favorite media site turned into nothing more then pop-ups and flashing adds as they keep working towards more money?
In todays journalism world there is starting to be more freelanced writers. What exactly is a freelance journalist/writer? Wisegeek gives a good definition: A freelancer is a non-fiction writer who contracts their services to different media sectors.

In 2011 the revenues from online advertising overtook print advertising. This shift signifies that more companies are placing their faith in the future of the internet, yet for the newspaper industry most of their revenue still comes in from print advertisements. But according to an article on Reuters, 46 percent of Americans get their news online at least three times a week versus 40 percent in print.
Where are the online advertising dollars for newspapers?
According to that same article most online ad spending is in search advertising, little of which finances news. Even though newspaper advertising has dropped 46 percent in the past four years, it is still more than seven times the revenue of online advertising for newspapers. Thus the print newspaper is the financial backbone that allows the newspapers to expand and explore online options.
According to a new study by Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and Project for Excellence in Journalism, in partnership with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, readers are willing to pay for a print newspaper but not the online equivalent. 23 percent of respondents to a survey conducted for the above study say they would pay, but no more than $5 a month. A month of receiving the Seattle Times, for example, costs $22.40 a month. Only 5% of people who currently get their news online pay for the content.
According to the Reuters article, three dozen newspapers have moved to an online pay model. Of those newspapers, only one percent of readers opted to pay for the service.
This leaves a dark shadow hovering over newspapers. If the printed news no longer becomes profitable, can they find a way to survive online? Or will the world resort to dependance upon citizen journalists who blog and tweet about the news?
Photo courtesy of Creative Commons.
The American public is not happy with journalists or the news that they cover, according to a recent survey conducted by Pew Research Center.
Only 25 percent of people say that news organizations are factual within their stories, and 66 percent say that stories are "often inaccurate". This is quite the decline from 2007 when 39 percent said that news mostly got their facts straight, and 53 percent said that stories are inaccurate.
An overwhelming majority of the public also believe that the press is "often influenced by powerful people and organizations" and "tend to favor one side".
Of the 12 evaluation categories of news media, nine equal or surpass record highs in percent of displeased responders, indicating that the public is growing more and more dissatisfied with the media.
There is some good news, though. The public trusts news organizations (especially local news) more than state and federal government, business, and congress. (While I'm not sure that this is really GOOD news, it does make journalists feel a little better!)
Pew Research Center releases an annual report on the public views of the values of news media. They have been performing this survey since 1985.
With all of these negative views on news media, shouldn't we do something about it? One of the main goals of journalism is to provide factual information to the public, something that they are telling us we are not doing.
Joseph Pulitzer, establisher of the coveted Pulitzer Prize, warned of biased media in his journalistic credo:
Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.
Click here for a complete report of Pew Research Center's findings.

Americans don't believe every thing they see, hear or read. According to a Pew Study, citizens have a hard time trusting the press.

Social media is a powerful tool. It can be used to define and brand yourself – for some, this can be either good or bad. Social media background checks are not a novel idea as employers have been using social media go research potential candidates for years.
Vanessa Junkin of the Carroll County Times reports on how social media affects today’s modern hiring process. Employers need be wary and potential employees be aware, there are rules in place for such a process.
Social media screenings for positions may only screen for certain types of information. As Junkin points out, these screenings may look for excessive use of vulgar language, racial remarks, inappropriate photos, and references to violent tendencies.
Vivian Luckiewicz of Law.com reports on some of the restrictions of such screenings. While there is no law against social media background checks, employers must continue to abide by fair practice hiring laws already in place. While conducting social media background checks, as with other background checks, employers may not discriminate against race, religion, age, disability, or gender.
Junkin interviewed Don McCombie, president and virtual CEO of NoWorriesIT. Junkin asked McCombie about the influence social media has on the hiring process.
“A candidate doesn’t become disqualified for just a silly comment,” McCombie said. “The check [is] more to see what the person’s character is like.
It is important to keep in mind not only how you and your peers view your social media presence, but also how potential employers view it as well.
In Mexico City, before police and reporters even arrived to the location of a violent crime twitter users were tweeting about the dangerous situations advising readers to avoid the area. Is social media saving lives in Mexico? Damien Cave reports on the importance of social media and the need it fills in the New York Times.
Recently, a law was passed by the Veracruz State Assembly made it illegal for social network users to use such outlets to undermine public order. This comes following charges last month when two individuals spread rumors via Twitter that local schools were under attack causing mass panic.
Cave interviewed Andres Monroy-Hernandez, a doctoral candidate from Mexico at the M.I.T. Media Lab.
“Social media is filling the gap left by the press,” Monroy-Hernandez said. “In different regions of Mexico, both the state and the press are weak, while organized crime is becoming stronger and, in some places, replacing the state.”
Social media is quickly becoming the largest, most trusted source of information in Mexico. In a country with weak press, Twitter is becoming a staple of not only information, but safety in some dangerous areas.
How much credit should the general public give to information passed along by social media? In some cases, information may divert individuals away from a crime scene. However, in some cases false information may cause mass panic. How can this be monitored?
We have discussed in many posts the future of journalism, and decline in traditional media. One group of graduate students has decided to quit discussing it and use scientific methods and studies to help save the industry. The City University of New York School of Journalism has a program of dedicated students in its graduate journalism program that have begun the attempt to take on this rising challenge.

A month ago I would have scoffed at the idea. There was no way that Facebook would have any importance to a newspaper, apart from their need to have a Facebook page for fans to follow. With the new changes to Facebook, newspapers should start paying attention.
Facebook has over 800 million users and has posted a day with over 500 million members logging in. It is safe to say that a lot of people's opinions are able to be expressed via Facebook. This is why the reaction to the new layout should be alarming to newspapers everywhere.
According to this article, Facebook claims it is trying to become "your own personal newspaper". Their news feed section is something taken directly from many newspaper websites. There is also a real-time ticker off to the side that keeps you up-to-date on who is doing what all the time.
And the overall consensus seems to be dislike.
If the Facebook members have such a strong reaction against the new format, what does that mean for the newspapers? It means that there is a possibility that a large number of potential readers would not like navigating their website. It means that they might be losing readers because of their layout.
Or maybe there is no correlation at all. What are your thoughts? Does the initial reaction over Facebook mean that newspapers should look into revamping their format? If so, how could they do it better?
Photo via Creative Commons.
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.
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
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.
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.

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...
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
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.

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.
"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
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?
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?
© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP