We discussed this topic in both my Digital Journalism and Independent Media class. When Vadim, my professor, handed out Paul Carr's article "After Fort Hood, another example of how 'citizen journalists' can't handle the truth," it definitely shed new light on the Fort Hood incident and journalism.
Carr discusses the lack of accuracy in citizen journalism focusing on a woman, Tearah Moore, who was on the Fort Hood base and started twittering from a hospital about what was going on. Only problem was that she did not have her facts straight and was unprofessional in her tweets.
The article debates the issue of citizen journalism very well. Carr puts the term in quotes because he agrees it is very vague what that actually means. He questions whether Moore would even consider herself a citizen journalist and I think that is something important to consider. What is a citizen journalism? Someone who tweets about an event? Someone who interviews another person? Someone who has a recorder?
Mayhill Fowler is called a citizen journalist and from what I read her journalism is sloppy and unprofessional. But should Moore be lumped in the same category as Fowler? I don't think so. And it is just my opinion that Fowler is not a good citizen journalist.
Citizen journalism though it can be defined is very vague when put into practice. Carr may sound like he is stereotyping by his article's title but he admits in an interview that he isn't bashing citizen journalism, just parts of it. I personally feel like there is no way to criticize it because nobody's really knows who is even a citizen journalist these days.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Net neutrality still an issue
Net neutrality is defined as "the principle that all content transmitted over a cable or a phone company's network be treated equally and without preference," according to an article "Thanks to BitTorrent, Net Neutrality Debate Reignites."
One of the worst net neutrality incidents in the article is when Verizon denied a pro-abortion group to use text messaging for a campaign.
Regulation of the Internet is not fair for people who don't have big corporations backing up their websites, blogs, and accounts. The people in power can pick and choose what can be seen on the web and what can't.
"The whole Net neutrality issue is really about a power struggle," he said. "It all comes down to a scenario where the phone companies and cable operators want to call all the shots about which applications enter the market. And while that may be good for them, I'd argue it's very bad for the country."
The definition of net neutrality is great in concept but hard to regulate in a free market economy. All companies should get equal treatment on the Internet but who knows if that will ever happen.
One of the worst net neutrality incidents in the article is when Verizon denied a pro-abortion group to use text messaging for a campaign.
Regulation of the Internet is not fair for people who don't have big corporations backing up their websites, blogs, and accounts. The people in power can pick and choose what can be seen on the web and what can't.
"The whole Net neutrality issue is really about a power struggle," he said. "It all comes down to a scenario where the phone companies and cable operators want to call all the shots about which applications enter the market. And while that may be good for them, I'd argue it's very bad for the country."
The definition of net neutrality is great in concept but hard to regulate in a free market economy. All companies should get equal treatment on the Internet but who knows if that will ever happen.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Jerold M. Starr wants a trust fund for PBS
Tom Paine posted parts of Jerold M. Starr's essays about American public broadcasting and PBS. Starr advocated in both articles for independent funding for PBS so the station can have freedom to air what it wants.
In Starr's one article, "PBS Discriminates Against Alternative Views," there are examples of PBS canceling shows because they were funded by groups who supported the cause of the show, which is something PBS does, Starr pointed out.
This goes back to my recent blog about transparency being the new objectivity. In this case, there is nothing wrong with supporting something you are passionate as long as you are honest about it. Shows are going to be funded by the people who have a bias towards it and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as the directors make it clear what the purpose of the show is and the support they received, there is nothing wrong with a show funded by specific groups.
I still think it is better to be balanced and show different sides of a story but shows such as documentaries can and are one sided. The good point though is that they are usually showing the side that people don't talk or know about.
If PBS had a trust fund from the government and public broadcasting was more independent, it would definitely change the way PBS runs. Right now they do have a loyalty to their supporters and I agree with Starr that they are struggling to survive. However, it is questionable what a trust fund would do for a public station.
In Starr's one article, "PBS Discriminates Against Alternative Views," there are examples of PBS canceling shows because they were funded by groups who supported the cause of the show, which is something PBS does, Starr pointed out.
This goes back to my recent blog about transparency being the new objectivity. In this case, there is nothing wrong with supporting something you are passionate as long as you are honest about it. Shows are going to be funded by the people who have a bias towards it and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as the directors make it clear what the purpose of the show is and the support they received, there is nothing wrong with a show funded by specific groups.
I still think it is better to be balanced and show different sides of a story but shows such as documentaries can and are one sided. The good point though is that they are usually showing the side that people don't talk or know about.
If PBS had a trust fund from the government and public broadcasting was more independent, it would definitely change the way PBS runs. Right now they do have a loyalty to their supporters and I agree with Starr that they are struggling to survive. However, it is questionable what a trust fund would do for a public station.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Transparency is the new objectivity according to David Weinberger
In a blog post, David Weinberger clarified the difference between objectivity and transparency. He said transparency is necessary to let readers see how a journalist came to the conclusion they did. He debates that objectivity used to be the staple of trust for a news source but that just covered up the real bias those sources had. Weinberger also argues that with blogging now the credibility can be used with links.
Transparency is important for readers to trust a journalist. Being upfront, honest, and open to your own bias will help a reporter's credibility. The real question though is can anyone really be objective?
It seems Weinberger is saying that you can't.
"The problem with objectivity is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark."
He says it is an unattaiable goal but nevertheless was important before for newspapers.
I think it is arguable what is objective. Weinberger makes it sound like it is a boring way to tell a story and gives no credibility but I diagree. I think transparency and objectivity are both important. It don't want to get into trying to define both of those but I believe you can have an article that is transparent and at the same time shows that you covered not necessarily all but most sides of a story.
Transparency is important for readers to trust a journalist. Being upfront, honest, and open to your own bias will help a reporter's credibility. The real question though is can anyone really be objective?
It seems Weinberger is saying that you can't.
"The problem with objectivity is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark."
He says it is an unattaiable goal but nevertheless was important before for newspapers.
I think it is arguable what is objective. Weinberger makes it sound like it is a boring way to tell a story and gives no credibility but I diagree. I think transparency and objectivity are both important. It don't want to get into trying to define both of those but I believe you can have an article that is transparent and at the same time shows that you covered not necessarily all but most sides of a story.
Mayhill debate continued
In class, we talked a lot about Mayhill's actions and whether she was ethical in her decision. Each person in class has a different view and when it comes to ethics in journalism the standards are different for everyone.
The debate here is journalists versus politicians. Politicians are in the public eye and have different rights and responsibilities than other citizens. However, to me the same goes for journalists. We have different expectations and responsiblities when approaching our job. We have the expectation to be honest about our position when interviewing but we also have the responsibiity to report on breaking news that the public needs to know about.
Did Clinton's comments qualify as public need-to-know information? Most people might say yes but I really don't think Clinton's personal opinion about a journalists really matters to his wife's election. It goes back to the relationship Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky during his presidency. Was it relevant to his career? No. What is a bad choice? Yes. I feel that is none of our business and not relevant to who he is as a politician but I know there are people who will disagree with me on that.
We also talked in class about being transparent. As journalists, we still have an opinion and sometimes even an agenda. I agree that there is nothing wrong with being upfront and honest with your readers about your intentions for writing a story or adding in your personal bias. It is important to be transparent but I feel that also applies to our actions when getting a story. We need to upfront and honest with our sources about what we are doing and above all else at least tell them that we are a journalist.
This is a touchy topic and I know not a lot of people may agree with me. I just think we should follow the SPJ code of ethics and Mayhill should have as well.
"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information expect when traditional open methods will not yeild information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."
The debate here is journalists versus politicians. Politicians are in the public eye and have different rights and responsibilities than other citizens. However, to me the same goes for journalists. We have different expectations and responsiblities when approaching our job. We have the expectation to be honest about our position when interviewing but we also have the responsibiity to report on breaking news that the public needs to know about.
Did Clinton's comments qualify as public need-to-know information? Most people might say yes but I really don't think Clinton's personal opinion about a journalists really matters to his wife's election. It goes back to the relationship Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky during his presidency. Was it relevant to his career? No. What is a bad choice? Yes. I feel that is none of our business and not relevant to who he is as a politician but I know there are people who will disagree with me on that.
We also talked in class about being transparent. As journalists, we still have an opinion and sometimes even an agenda. I agree that there is nothing wrong with being upfront and honest with your readers about your intentions for writing a story or adding in your personal bias. It is important to be transparent but I feel that also applies to our actions when getting a story. We need to upfront and honest with our sources about what we are doing and above all else at least tell them that we are a journalist.
This is a touchy topic and I know not a lot of people may agree with me. I just think we should follow the SPJ code of ethics and Mayhill should have as well.
"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information expect when traditional open methods will not yeild information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Was Mayhill Dishonest?
Mayhill Fowler, a writer for the Huffington Post, is famous for taping Bill Clinton talking negatively about another journalist and reporting on it. Fowler was following the Clintons during Hillary's 2008 campaign when Fowler asked Clinton, ""Mr. President what do you think about that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"
That somebody was Todd Purdum who wrote an article in Vanity Fair saying Clinton was tarnishing Hillary's campaign with his actions and the type of friends he was surrounding himself with. Clinton called Purdum a sleaze, scumbag, and dishonest guy. Fowler then went on to report the story in the Huffington Post.
Only issue: Fowler did not announce herself as a citizen journalist. Clinton apologized later for the comments but he did not know Fowler was reporting. She did claim that her tap recorder was in plain view and Clinton, being a political figure, should be careful about what he says on campaigns. However, does that mean everyone is at fault? Should Fowler have announced she was a journalist? Should Clinton have even said what he said?
I think journalists should announce themselves, no questions, but Clinton's comments were out of line. So the debate remains what was the ethical thing to do?
That somebody was Todd Purdum who wrote an article in Vanity Fair saying Clinton was tarnishing Hillary's campaign with his actions and the type of friends he was surrounding himself with. Clinton called Purdum a sleaze, scumbag, and dishonest guy. Fowler then went on to report the story in the Huffington Post.
Only issue: Fowler did not announce herself as a citizen journalist. Clinton apologized later for the comments but he did not know Fowler was reporting. She did claim that her tap recorder was in plain view and Clinton, being a political figure, should be careful about what he says on campaigns. However, does that mean everyone is at fault? Should Fowler have announced she was a journalist? Should Clinton have even said what he said?
I think journalists should announce themselves, no questions, but Clinton's comments were out of line. So the debate remains what was the ethical thing to do?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Googlezon: Fact or Fiction?
Googlezon EPIC2014 is a video created in 2004 that depicts a possible future for the Internet. It is based on the assumption that Google and Amazon will team up to create Googlezon that will overtake our media and change not just journalism but everyone's life. The video ends in 2014 when EPIC (Evolving Personalized Information Construct) is created where people receive what they want and need from the web while also contributing to it.
Apart from how creepy the Googlezon EPIC2014 video can be, watching it raises many questions. Are we moving towards this type of future? Is the media going to be made up of computerized stories? Do we still need journalists?
These are pretty important questions for a journalism student to be asking. There is no doubt that the Internet has created so many opportunities and made it easier for all different people to become journalists. All you need to do it pick up a computer, create a blog, write, and get your name out there. All my professors are telling me to do this and I know that although I am going to school for it, anyone can be a journalist. Freelance writing is the new form of journalism on the web. However, the quality of writing, good fact checking and sourcing is still necessary and will definitely deter a lot of people from becoming reporters.
"EPIC is what we wanted. Is is what we chose."-Googlezon EPIC2014 video
Who knows if this futuistic idea will ever be a reality. It is creepy to think that we are moving towards these futures that we used to only see movies. Only time will tell but for now I take comfort in knwoing that after 5 years, Googlezon predictions are not falling togther like the video said.
Apart from how creepy the Googlezon EPIC2014 video can be, watching it raises many questions. Are we moving towards this type of future? Is the media going to be made up of computerized stories? Do we still need journalists?
These are pretty important questions for a journalism student to be asking. There is no doubt that the Internet has created so many opportunities and made it easier for all different people to become journalists. All you need to do it pick up a computer, create a blog, write, and get your name out there. All my professors are telling me to do this and I know that although I am going to school for it, anyone can be a journalist. Freelance writing is the new form of journalism on the web. However, the quality of writing, good fact checking and sourcing is still necessary and will definitely deter a lot of people from becoming reporters.
"EPIC is what we wanted. Is is what we chose."-Googlezon EPIC2014 video
Who knows if this futuistic idea will ever be a reality. It is creepy to think that we are moving towards these futures that we used to only see movies. Only time will tell but for now I take comfort in knwoing that after 5 years, Googlezon predictions are not falling togther like the video said.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Blogging the new investigative reporting?
Will Bunch's article, "A Landmark for Bloggers -- and the Future of Journalism" discusses Josh Marshall winning the George Polk award last year. Bunch credits Marshall's online blogging that led to his website Talking Points Memo.
"Hopefully, this acknowledgment of what one savvy blogger and his team have accomplished is a milestone that will speed the day when mainstream journalists realize that the best kind of blogger like Marshall is truly one of our own kind, using new tools and a new way of thinking to break a news story that otherwise might have not been discovered."
Bunch says the Internet is a new avenue for reporting and helps to expand and improve investigative journalism. Talking Points Memo picked up stories that were only lightly covered by the mainstream media and broke through some important corruption in the government.
One point Bunch made that I think really stood out is that mainstream media needs to embrace these new forms of journalism. Currently, blogging is being put down as a sloppy form of reporting and that these people do not know what they are doing. It is important to be skeptical of blogging, just like it is to be for newspapers. Blogging does not ensure honest, unbiased reporting but it does create a new avenue and expand journalists' capabilities. I think it is important for the news media today to accept these new forms of reporting and help to make them better, instead of ignoring them.
"Hopefully, this acknowledgment of what one savvy blogger and his team have accomplished is a milestone that will speed the day when mainstream journalists realize that the best kind of blogger like Marshall is truly one of our own kind, using new tools and a new way of thinking to break a news story that otherwise might have not been discovered."
Bunch says the Internet is a new avenue for reporting and helps to expand and improve investigative journalism. Talking Points Memo picked up stories that were only lightly covered by the mainstream media and broke through some important corruption in the government.
One point Bunch made that I think really stood out is that mainstream media needs to embrace these new forms of journalism. Currently, blogging is being put down as a sloppy form of reporting and that these people do not know what they are doing. It is important to be skeptical of blogging, just like it is to be for newspapers. Blogging does not ensure honest, unbiased reporting but it does create a new avenue and expand journalists' capabilities. I think it is important for the news media today to accept these new forms of reporting and help to make them better, instead of ignoring them.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Fort Hood Coverage on Twitter
I have come to my own conclusion on how to use Twitter. My last blog was more of a thought process on whether Twitter is a social network or a new journalism outlet. Obviously, it is both but for me, as a journalist, Twitter is a media outlet.
When opening a Twitter account and choosing who to follow, I picked Huffington post and Arianna Huffington. Logging on just now, I saw live Twitter updates that started less than hour ago about a shooting at Fort Hood in Texas that killed 11 people and wounded 31 others. Receiving information this quickly is one of the new positive aspects of online and especially Twitter.
It goes back to what Huffington said at her Q&A here at Ithaca College on Tuesday. I twittered about the event, including her being an hour and 20 minutes late and the few minutes I was able to stay while she answered questions. While I was still there Huffington said that journalists can follow a story now with online instead of just covering it once and throwing the story aside.
The Fort Hood shooting is an example of just that. Huffington Post is covering the incident with Twitter updates and stories on the website. To me, this is what Twitter is meant to be for journalists. It is an important, immediate news source that gives ongoing coverage of a story.
When opening a Twitter account and choosing who to follow, I picked Huffington post and Arianna Huffington. Logging on just now, I saw live Twitter updates that started less than hour ago about a shooting at Fort Hood in Texas that killed 11 people and wounded 31 others. Receiving information this quickly is one of the new positive aspects of online and especially Twitter.
It goes back to what Huffington said at her Q&A here at Ithaca College on Tuesday. I twittered about the event, including her being an hour and 20 minutes late and the few minutes I was able to stay while she answered questions. While I was still there Huffington said that journalists can follow a story now with online instead of just covering it once and throwing the story aside.
The Fort Hood shooting is an example of just that. Huffington Post is covering the incident with Twitter updates and stories on the website. To me, this is what Twitter is meant to be for journalists. It is an important, immediate news source that gives ongoing coverage of a story.
Twittering
All my classes this semester intertwine from Issues and News with Schack to Digital Journalism with Vadim and then Independent Media with Cohen. The War in Iraq and the new age of online media are covered in all my classes over and over.
I was surprised when in two of my classes this year, Twitter was mentioned as a viable source for a journalism career. I always saw Twitter as a preteen fad consisting of updates on people's eating and bathroom habits. I never saw it as a median for journalism or even remotely professional. However, Tuesday I twittered for extra credit for my Digital Journalism class on Arianna Huffington.
It is hard to know where the line is between professional and "for fun" when it comes to Twitter. I was watching other people blog on Huffington and since she was an hour and 20 minutes late, people joked and poked fun at the event. I did not know what to do becuase it was easier to make those comments but it was not very profesional to say negative things on Twitter.
If Twitter is going to help in my journalism career, I want to be taken seriously and be professional on the site. However, with Twitter being both a social network and a way to expand a journalism career, it is hard to know how to do this.
I was surprised when in two of my classes this year, Twitter was mentioned as a viable source for a journalism career. I always saw Twitter as a preteen fad consisting of updates on people's eating and bathroom habits. I never saw it as a median for journalism or even remotely professional. However, Tuesday I twittered for extra credit for my Digital Journalism class on Arianna Huffington.
It is hard to know where the line is between professional and "for fun" when it comes to Twitter. I was watching other people blog on Huffington and since she was an hour and 20 minutes late, people joked and poked fun at the event. I did not know what to do becuase it was easier to make those comments but it was not very profesional to say negative things on Twitter.
If Twitter is going to help in my journalism career, I want to be taken seriously and be professional on the site. However, with Twitter being both a social network and a way to expand a journalism career, it is hard to know how to do this.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Kate Sheppard's talk
I can't stop thinking about what Kate Sheppard said in our class on Tuesday. She talked about a lot of different aspects of her career but I am not stuck on one thing in particular. It just keeps reminding me of what I am told in the Journalism department and what this degree means when I graduate.
Sheppard had to create her own career when she finished college and is still doing so years later. She writes for many different media outlets but specifies on environmental politics. Looking at her resume and what she is doing now, it sounds like she has been writing for decades and found her niche where she can pick and choose what sources she writes for. However, she only graduated in 2006 and this is her trying to find a niche.
I always imagined leaving Ithaca, finding a job at one news source and working there for a few years and then being able to go wherever I want with journalism. I knew I would not have a set job and have to move around but I don't think I realized how unstable this career path is. Out of college, I am going to be writing all over the place and like Cohen and Vadim keep reminding me, creating a name for myself in the media via the web.
Sheppard reiterated the basic tips we have been told all semester; find a specialty, don't expect to have a steady job, and send out pitches. Although I have heard this for a while, seeing someone really going through it hit home. Now I am even more nervous about what my journalism degree holds for me in the future but I think it is a good nervous.
Sheppard had to create her own career when she finished college and is still doing so years later. She writes for many different media outlets but specifies on environmental politics. Looking at her resume and what she is doing now, it sounds like she has been writing for decades and found her niche where she can pick and choose what sources she writes for. However, she only graduated in 2006 and this is her trying to find a niche.
I always imagined leaving Ithaca, finding a job at one news source and working there for a few years and then being able to go wherever I want with journalism. I knew I would not have a set job and have to move around but I don't think I realized how unstable this career path is. Out of college, I am going to be writing all over the place and like Cohen and Vadim keep reminding me, creating a name for myself in the media via the web.
Sheppard reiterated the basic tips we have been told all semester; find a specialty, don't expect to have a steady job, and send out pitches. Although I have heard this for a while, seeing someone really going through it hit home. Now I am even more nervous about what my journalism degree holds for me in the future but I think it is a good nervous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)