Journalistic Independence

The group’s metaphor with the cookies and bribing of the students as journalists was a cool metaphor, and they were great cookies.  I have found that independence in journalism is a very fine line, and it seems like sometimes it can be a hard line to walk.  Journalism has an allegiance to bringing truth to the public, and they need to maintain that allegiance to the best of their ability.

Like every week, I read two articles that are related to this topic.  The first one is located at this url:  http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/20/news/mn-45830 and obviously it talks about the controversy surrounding the coverage of the Staples Center at the turn of the century.  Wow, what a stupid thing to do.  Some people though….

The second article that I read is located at this url:  http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/journos_bribe.html .  It’s more of a blog than an article, but it still has relevant information in it.  It talks about how easy and convenient it can be for people to buy coverage from journalists, and how it makes sense what they are doing.  I can totally understand the logical implications of paying for coverage, it’s just like advertising, but it’s always those darn ethics that get in the way.

Personally, I think paying for journalistic coverage is horribly wrong and immoral, but I understand that it goes on and is very hard to stop.  It’s something that I would like to stop, but it’s kind of a giant.

Religion and the Media

I loved the socrative quiz that the group did, it was very insightful and forced us to ask a lot of very important questions.  Personally, I don’t think it’s a fair question to ask members of a religion if they think that they are being discriminated against, because they will always say that they are in order to garner sympathy.

In terms of the articles I read on this topic, as usual there are two articles that I read.  The first one is located at this URL:  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-21-column21_ST_N.htm .  It talks mostly about how social media is changing religion, and I agree with a lot of the content in this article.  It’s pretty much saying that social media has affected religion just like it has affected everything else: it’s made it quicker, easier to access, and more wide spread.

The second article is located at this URL: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5463/ .  It is similar to the first article in that it talks about how social media is affecting religion.  My favorite part of this article was where it talked about “social prayer”, and how prayers are kind of unified with social media.  When something bad happens, people ask for thoughts and prayers to be sent out to the victims of the bad event, and it kind of unifies people in that sense.

All-in-all, I see religion and faith as inevitable in the world, but I think we as objective journalists should try to eliminate religious discourse from our work.

The Media and Social

First of all, I really enjoyed this group presentation, because it helped us interact and participate very effectively.  Also I like doughnuts.  In terms of the subject matter, I found the presentation very informative and insightful.

            As always, I read two articles that relate to the topic, this topic being the media and civil rights.  The first article can be found at this URL: http://interactivefundamentals.journalism.cuny.edu/2008/10/16/the-media-and-the-civil-rights-movement/ .  This article talks about the media’s effect on the civil rights movement, and it highlights how the media played a huge part in the movement, and that it spotlighted some events that would have gone uncovered had they not been willing to talk about the civil rights movement.

            The second article that I read can be found at this URL: http://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-media-and-social-movements .  It talks about more modern movements and the integration of media within social movements.  One of these movements that I think gets underemphasized on this topic is the tea part movement.  The tea party movement was heavily affected by the media, and I feel like media exposure pushes certain agendas.  Matt out.   

Boston Bombing Discussion Blog

I really liked the presentation for this week; I thought it encouraged a lot of good discussion/thought, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.  I had actually never seen the footage that you guys showed, and I found it tremendously impactful.  It actually made me feel anger towards the terrorists for the first time…..Powerful stuff.

            As usual, I read two articles on the subject at hand, and the first one that I found was published by the New York Times.  It is titled Bombings Trip Up Reddit in Its Turn in Spotlight, and is located at this url:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/media/bombings-trip-up-reddit-in-its-turn-in-spotlight.html?_r=0 .  Something that is under-covered when people recap the Boston Bombing was the impact that Reddit had on the whole debacle.  Reddit is a social media site, and kind of acts like the front page for the internet.  In the Boston Bombing case, Reddit helped in the investigation (and actually made the problem worse) of finding those guilty in the Boston Bombing.

            The second article that I read was located here: http://jacksonville.com/news/2013-04-16/story/effect-boston-bombing-felt-many-sports-events .  It talks about how sports events for a long time will be affected for a while, and to me, this means that the terrorism was effective.  It is sad, but if citizens are scared from here on when they go to sporting events, the terrorism succeeded. 

I would hope that people focus more on the positive aspects of the tragedy, because some really great things happened because of it: Boston as a city, and America as a country, banded together and worked hard to find those guilty, and it was a very successful manhunt.  Great presentation, with very interesting public discussion.

Week 7: Social Media and Journalism

First of all, I thought that this week’s presentation was really interesting and enjoyable, and I enjoyed the video about social media most of all.  I have seen videos like that before, and the numbers behind these websites are truly staggering.

            As usual, I read two different articles on the subject of the week.  The first article was published by the Huffington Post and can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayson-demers/how-social-media-is-suppo_b_3239076.html .  It is a really good article, and it talks about how social media is forcing journalism to shift its paradigm/view, because social media is HUGE.  The article was pretty short, but it contained some awesome information on the subject.

            The second article that I read is located here:  http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101882 .  THIS article comes from Harvard, and it talks about journalism’s place within social media.  I like this take because I feel like it assumes social media as the larger, mother practice, and journalism needs to fit within the larger, mother practice of social media.

            Personally, I feel like journalism’s place in social media is being put in the hands of the people, and taken out of the hands of official journalists.  The industry is being hurt by social media, and unless people can find a solution to this issue, I don’t have tons of hope for journalism.  Hopefully it works out though, I want to be able to keep journalism alive!

US GOVERNMENT CAUGHT RED HANDED IN VIETNAM LIES

            First of all, I thought that the group presentation was very on point, I loved every bit of it!  The handout was very helpful, and I learned quite a bit about the constitutional premises within journalism, specifically the Pentagon Papers and Edward Snowden.  The most interesting part to me was the debate that we had about the Snowden case.

I read two articles that talked about the Snowden case, both of which are very compelling and interesting.  The first article is located here:  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investigate-guardian-edward-snowden-leaks.  This article talks about how members of parliament are investing the Guardian’s role in the Snowden leaks.

The second article that I read is located here:  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investigate-guardian-edward-snowden-leaks.  This article, as the title alludes, is talking about how Snowden isn’t a hero, even though he is seen that way in the eyes of most American citizens.  The main argument is that he compromised the national security of the US because terrorists could now dodge the US’s surveillance tactics.  I’m not sure whether I think of him as a hero or not, but it’s a compelling debate.

The dispersion of information is an important component of democracy, but I think that a line should be drawn when lives are absolutely compromised.  In Snowden’s case, I feel like surveillance isn’t necessarily the most effective method of security, and no large scale attacks have happened since the release, so I don’t buy that it compromised the national security just yet.  If a newspaper is about to publish something that would directly harm the life of one police officer, for instance, I think that would be unjust and shouldn’t be allowed.  It’s a tough debate, but very interesting!

Week 5: Who Pays For Journalism?

            First of all, I thought that the group did an awesome job at showing some of the positives and negatives in who funds journalism now and in the future.  I read a couple of articles in relation to this topic, both of which are awesome reads!  The first one has the following url:  http://entertainment.time.com/2009/06/08/if-the-journalism-business-fails-who-pays-for-journalism .  It deals more with the future of journalism, and what the business model is going to adapt to if/when the current business model fails.  Some basic arguments that the article makes is that non-profit will emerge (just like you guys said!), and things of that nature will start to take over the advertising world.

            The second article that I was reading is located here:  http://gawker.com/5989885/somebody-should-figure-out-how-to-pay-for-journalism-says-guy-whose-job-it-is-to-do-that .  It’s kind of an ironic article, as eluded to by the title.  It is similar to the first article that I linked, in that it talks about the future of journalism and advertising/who is going to pay for it.

            Personally, I don’t worry too much about the future of who is going to pay for journalism, because I plan on going into the tv broadcast form of journalism, and I don’t think that will be affected much by social media and the internet.  I feel this way because tweets can replace a headline, reddit can replace newspaper, but nobody is going to be able to replace ESPN and those sort of supreme experiences that those news outlets allow you to have.  People don’t watch tv news because it’s always the breaking news source, people watch tv news because it presents the news in a way to them that no other source can present them.  TV news/sports create a presentation that no other form of media can compete with.