"Freedom exists somewhere. There's just limitations on that freedom."-Trouble the Water
After months of wanting to be see the documentary about Hurricane Katrina, Trouble the Water, I was finally able to find a few hours to sit in the library and watch the film. It was well made, interesting, and informative.
The documentary follows a Katrina survivor, Kimberly Rivers, through the hurricane and the aftermath when she is trying to get back on her feet. When I say survivor I'm not talking about people who last minute left New Orleans or watched the hurricane hit from a safe area. Rivers was unable to leave her home and actually spent days in the attic with about 5 other people savoring as much food as she could get trying to survive until help could come.
Rivers kept a video of her own experience in the hurricane and the filmmakers, Tia Lessin and Carl Deal, used that along with their own footage of Rivers after the hurricane to make the movie. The documentary was put together with what clips they had, making it more realistic.
Trouble the Water does though tell a one sided, one opinion story about Hurricane Katrina. One part of the movie, parallels media coverage with Rivers own experience, showing the drastic difference. It is not a bad thing to tell one side but it is just something to remember when you watch the movie.
I like this documentary because it makes you think and I would strongly recommend watching it.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Fort Hood and Citizen Journalism
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)