Case 3: A high school prints a monthly bulletin for students and parents. In it
the administrators post the license plates of vehicles they contend have been speeding in the school zone. Several parents sue, stating that they have been unjustly identified.
I find this high school to be at fault for a libel. A libel is a false statement that is written and published about a
person that will expose them to: hatred, shame, ridicule, etc. This
statement could injure the person's reputation and/or cause the person
trouble in their occupation. A libel is false by definition; in this case, there is no evidence to prove that the statements are true. If the statement was proven true, it could not be libelous. This statement is published meaning it is communicated to someone/ or a group of people other than the person being accused. I believe the school should be fined and pay a certain amount to every owner of the cars involved. I also believe they should be charged with unauthorized release of personal information. License plates are easy to look up and are used to find a person's name, family, address, telephone number, etc. The school is absolutely in the wrong to be releasing that information whether the statement was true or not.
Source(s):
Rogers, Tony. "What You Need to Know About Libel and Libel Law." About News. About.com, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
3.02 First Amendment Freedoms
The United States Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Eichman nullified a federal law against flag desecration. Flag desecration isn't just burning, but any ill treatment performed on a flag; burning, cutting/ripping , stepping on it, spitting on it, stoning it, shooting it, etc. The court found that to have a law against flag burning would be 'inconsistent' with the First Amendment that protects the group's (in this case, the United States of America) freedom of speech.
The case of Texas v. Johnson was another Supreme Court case that took place only a year before U.S. v. Eichman. This case argued that ruining the flag contains symbolic meaning making it a form of protest. Not only is there no government interest in protecting the U.S. flag, but the First Amendment protects the expression of an idea no matter how much society may disapprove of it (There are limits, just not in this case). This case invalidated the flag desecration law on the grounds of Texas.
Flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment and will not be restricted in any case. The act doesn't hurt anyone if it is or isn't allowed. The First Amendment is what made us feel completely free in the beginning. It's what made others travel to the United States. We left England because we had no freedom there, so what will we do if our country starts restricting our freedom rights? Removing this freedom would be the first step towards hurting our country. I sure wouldn't want the government tampering with my rights.
Sources:
"United States v. Eichman." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2014.
"Texas v. Johnson." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2014.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
2.04 Broadcast- Television
For this assignment, I decided to go with worldwide news and watch CNN. CNN is a 24 hour news channel where ranges from places like Ferguson, Missouri, United States to Hong Kong, China. There were discussions over the Ferguson case and racism in the U.S. being apparent in the amount of African Americans being arrested. There was an interview conducted on CNN contributor L.Z. Granderson, an African American himself, about how police act towards his race. The compare and contrast shows that 1 in 10 black men are incarcerated while the rate for white men is 1 in 20. Personal experience was expressed here by Granderson as he comments about these shocking results, "The first time that an officer pulled a gun out on me, I was 12 years old. He told me I looked like someone."
Other than the people being interviewed, there were no opinions being expressed. CNN tries to keep it very unbiased, and I don't blame them because they have millions of viewers worldwide. They are one of my first sources on world news, especially when watching television. In the evening the hosts may sit around and talk about certain topics, expressing opinions but also letting viewers call in and express theirs on the air. This is a very much appreciated feature for me on this news channel, but it gets annoying when a caller talks about a topic that they clearly don't know anything about.
I must say, CNN was very effective in informing me about topics. I learned a little more about the Ferguson case and the Umbrella Movement in China. I have to say my favorite by far was the gamer they interviewed, Cosmo Wright, who finished The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time in under 20 minutes. What I think CNN does right: (1) The feature where viewers can call and express their opinions is pretty smart of them. I mean, what fun is it if you can't get involved? (2) Not expressing personal opinions, but letting the viewers know it's their own opinion when they do. What I think could be better: (1) Maybe the station should start screening the callers before putting them on the air. Some people just don't know what they're talking about. (2) They don't really show both sides of the story. Okay, maybe the stories I listened to didn't have more than one side. Or maybe they just give the facts.
3.01 Code of Ethics
Every journalist needs boundaries so this is My Code of Ethics.
1. Make sure your writing and/or photographs are the honest truth. It doesn't benefit you to be the only one who has a picture or remark like that... It's false, and you'll get caught in the end.
2. When using photos taken at the scene, keep in mind that the victim had rights and so do their family. There are laws against showing a minor's face on the news, printing photos of the victim without permission, using graphic images for stories when they aren't needed, etc.
3. Do not plagiarize. It's not your writing or your work, so don't use it.
4. Do not let your bias, or another person's for that matter, influence the story. It's okay to involve your opinions or personal experiences as long as you let readers know that it isn't fact (Personally, I..., From my experience, ..., etc.). Journalism is stating the facts and the stories from all sides, not allowing people to buy your work or making readers think your personal thoughts are the truth.
5. Making sure the information is right is more important than releasing it first. It doesn't do any good to gossip when you hear something interesting. "The Senator is a Natzi": Oh really? Says who? Is there any evidence? Where was this heard? Readers deserve true stories whether they are rushed or not.
1. Make sure your writing and/or photographs are the honest truth. It doesn't benefit you to be the only one who has a picture or remark like that... It's false, and you'll get caught in the end.
2. When using photos taken at the scene, keep in mind that the victim had rights and so do their family. There are laws against showing a minor's face on the news, printing photos of the victim without permission, using graphic images for stories when they aren't needed, etc.
3. Do not plagiarize. It's not your writing or your work, so don't use it.
4. Do not let your bias, or another person's for that matter, influence the story. It's okay to involve your opinions or personal experiences as long as you let readers know that it isn't fact (Personally, I..., From my experience, ..., etc.). Journalism is stating the facts and the stories from all sides, not allowing people to buy your work or making readers think your personal thoughts are the truth.
5. Making sure the information is right is more important than releasing it first. It doesn't do any good to gossip when you hear something interesting. "The Senator is a Natzi": Oh really? Says who? Is there any evidence? Where was this heard? Readers deserve true stories whether they are rushed or not.
Monday, December 15, 2014
3.00 Introduction to Ethics
Ethics: moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
Ethics is what drives us to do most things; whether it's washing the car for our parents because the dirt would make it dangerous to drive, or leading a protest against a wronging in the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the reason for our decision, no matter how harmless or dangerous it may be. It has to do with our character and how we were raised. A person with strong religious beliefs might think not washing the car is a sin. A democrat may believe protesting only makes the matter worse. In the end, ethics is what makes up our thought process.
To be ethical means you have morals (something everybody should have). Without morals we could be compared to savages or uncivilized beings. As children, most of us were taught right from wrong. We were punished for sticking our hand in the cookie jar before dinner. Praised for completing our homework earlier than usual. But it isn't always simple to tell what is right from wrong when we are faced with arguments for both sides. To me, being an ethical person means taking both sides into consideration and reasoning before coming up with a decision. This conclusion is based off of logic and reasoning itself. When homosexual couples asked for permission to marry, religious groups naturally but impulsively responded negatively without further questioning. This was wrong of them and we all knew it. The government knew it and tossed their input aside for lack of reasoning. Others decided to look into it and pull up the facts for the people to compare and contrast themselves. They stayed neutral about it. Then there were people who weighed it out before deciding upon their decision. These people were ethical about it and their input is what counted towards gay marriage legalization (in most states).
Ethics apply to journalism too. Most of these ethical people who responded to matters such as they gay marriage legalization were bloggers, editors, and writers. You can't print a story based on your morals because that isn't being fair. To be ethical you have to take all sides into consideration and weigh them out based on what would obviously be best for society. If the issue doesn't have an obviously right decision, the journalist is still subject to pulling up the facts so that we can come up with a decision for ourselves. The Code of Ethics plays a big role in news presentation because if it wasn't there, journalists could write about their personal beliefs and make other who read or listen believe that those are the facts. Imagine what chaos that would ensue.
Ethics is what drives us to do most things; whether it's washing the car for our parents because the dirt would make it dangerous to drive, or leading a protest against a wronging in the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the reason for our decision, no matter how harmless or dangerous it may be. It has to do with our character and how we were raised. A person with strong religious beliefs might think not washing the car is a sin. A democrat may believe protesting only makes the matter worse. In the end, ethics is what makes up our thought process.
To be ethical means you have morals (something everybody should have). Without morals we could be compared to savages or uncivilized beings. As children, most of us were taught right from wrong. We were punished for sticking our hand in the cookie jar before dinner. Praised for completing our homework earlier than usual. But it isn't always simple to tell what is right from wrong when we are faced with arguments for both sides. To me, being an ethical person means taking both sides into consideration and reasoning before coming up with a decision. This conclusion is based off of logic and reasoning itself. When homosexual couples asked for permission to marry, religious groups naturally but impulsively responded negatively without further questioning. This was wrong of them and we all knew it. The government knew it and tossed their input aside for lack of reasoning. Others decided to look into it and pull up the facts for the people to compare and contrast themselves. They stayed neutral about it. Then there were people who weighed it out before deciding upon their decision. These people were ethical about it and their input is what counted towards gay marriage legalization (in most states).
Ethics apply to journalism too. Most of these ethical people who responded to matters such as they gay marriage legalization were bloggers, editors, and writers. You can't print a story based on your morals because that isn't being fair. To be ethical you have to take all sides into consideration and weigh them out based on what would obviously be best for society. If the issue doesn't have an obviously right decision, the journalist is still subject to pulling up the facts so that we can come up with a decision for ourselves. The Code of Ethics plays a big role in news presentation because if it wasn't there, journalists could write about their personal beliefs and make other who read or listen believe that those are the facts. Imagine what chaos that would ensue.
2.05 Internet: News, Blogs, etc.
Forms of news media; Their differences have range from how they can be received and how they can be accessed, which are two different things as a matter of fact. How something is received has to do with the way a viewer gets the information whether it's audio or visual. When we talk about accessing something (usually information), it is about how a person gets access to it. The way I see it, there are three differences among structures of news media: (1) Reading, (2) Entertaining, (3) Convenience. The things in the entertaining category might differ for everyone.
First in our categories in "Reading". These sources are received through reading and accessed manually. The Reading category is made up of newspapers and magazines. Both have to be read, of course, and to access the information one must flip through the chapters/ pages/ sections manually. Advantages include having tons of information at your fingertips. Disadvantages include lack of speed because they have to be printed daily to weekly to monthly so breaking news is practically non-existent.
Second in our categories is "Entertaining". Entertainment is different for everyone, so it is hard to tell what makes up this category. For most people, anything with audio or visual is more entertaining. For my selection, I chose television and radio as the most entertaining sources of news media. Personally, I would rather listen or watch something than read it (even if my passion is writing [Yes, it's unfortunate]) and so would many other people. Advantages include sound or audio, either are far more exciting than just words. Disadvantages include not being able to receive the news in silence and not getting to look back and read it over again when you don't understand something.
Third and final in the categories is "Convenience". Convenience is what we strive for the most when communicating. We'd rather pick up a telephone and call our friends rather than get on horseback and visit them. Maybe we're lazy; maybe we're just clever (this is a completely different story). The sources of news media I chose for convenience are radio and internet. Radios are convenient, really they are, when you think about the traffic and weather reports you can access while driving to work. Internet news is also very accessible when you have a smartphone or maybe a computer in the workplace. The advantages for this category are being able to access it quickly. The disadvantages are completely different and unrelated to convenience.
Among the three categories, I prefer convenience the most. I enjoy morning shows on the radio when driving to school because I can learn a lot while doing something else. Multitasking has it's advantages. I am constantly pulling out my smartphone to check for any notifications. I'm eager for news from any blog, magazine, YouTube channel, or news organization I've subscribed to. It's the way I am and I'm probably not the only one or else the internet would have been outdated a while ago. The same goes for radio.
Every form of news media serves as a way of communication throughout a nation. It's our way of spreading information and, such as a forest wildfire, by nature we make sure the news is spread as fast as possible. That's why we come out with new forms of communication; We need to know and we need to know now. We like to gossip; it's just human nature.
First in our categories in "Reading". These sources are received through reading and accessed manually. The Reading category is made up of newspapers and magazines. Both have to be read, of course, and to access the information one must flip through the chapters/ pages/ sections manually. Advantages include having tons of information at your fingertips. Disadvantages include lack of speed because they have to be printed daily to weekly to monthly so breaking news is practically non-existent.
Second in our categories is "Entertaining". Entertainment is different for everyone, so it is hard to tell what makes up this category. For most people, anything with audio or visual is more entertaining. For my selection, I chose television and radio as the most entertaining sources of news media. Personally, I would rather listen or watch something than read it (even if my passion is writing [Yes, it's unfortunate]) and so would many other people. Advantages include sound or audio, either are far more exciting than just words. Disadvantages include not being able to receive the news in silence and not getting to look back and read it over again when you don't understand something.
Third and final in the categories is "Convenience". Convenience is what we strive for the most when communicating. We'd rather pick up a telephone and call our friends rather than get on horseback and visit them. Maybe we're lazy; maybe we're just clever (this is a completely different story). The sources of news media I chose for convenience are radio and internet. Radios are convenient, really they are, when you think about the traffic and weather reports you can access while driving to work. Internet news is also very accessible when you have a smartphone or maybe a computer in the workplace. The advantages for this category are being able to access it quickly. The disadvantages are completely different and unrelated to convenience.
Among the three categories, I prefer convenience the most. I enjoy morning shows on the radio when driving to school because I can learn a lot while doing something else. Multitasking has it's advantages. I am constantly pulling out my smartphone to check for any notifications. I'm eager for news from any blog, magazine, YouTube channel, or news organization I've subscribed to. It's the way I am and I'm probably not the only one or else the internet would have been outdated a while ago. The same goes for radio.
Every form of news media serves as a way of communication throughout a nation. It's our way of spreading information and, such as a forest wildfire, by nature we make sure the news is spread as fast as possible. That's why we come out with new forms of communication; We need to know and we need to know now. We like to gossip; it's just human nature.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
2.02 A Response to "Baby Monitors for a Smart Nursery..."
Article: Baby Monitors for a Smart Nursery, but Parents are Still Better
Publisher: The New York Times
Author: Molly Wood
Date Published: Dec. 3, 2014.
Dear Editor,
I completely agree with your article's take on new technology for nurseries. I have experience with a few of these devices, due to the fact that I am the oldest of 6 siblings, and they usually prove to be tricky to set up and/or have bugs. On the box, the simple purposes of the device are displayed; "Keep track of your baby!", yet it is a lot harder than it looks. The interfaces are confusing and typically laggy as other apps and devices are in their alpha or beta stages. They also have so many bugs! Once the thing is finally set up, you might find yourself wondering if it was worth it. It can be compared to a Rube Goldberg machine: Tons of energy to complete a simple task. Then there is the excess; I'm left with tons of information that I really don't need. I'm not a parent yet, but if these devices aren't easy to work and bug-free, I might as well stick with a basic video baby monitor and check on my baby manually (the way it's supposed to be).
Sincerely,
Stephanie Tielman
Publisher: The New York Times
Author: Molly Wood
Date Published: Dec. 3, 2014.
Dear Editor,
I completely agree with your article's take on new technology for nurseries. I have experience with a few of these devices, due to the fact that I am the oldest of 6 siblings, and they usually prove to be tricky to set up and/or have bugs. On the box, the simple purposes of the device are displayed; "Keep track of your baby!", yet it is a lot harder than it looks. The interfaces are confusing and typically laggy as other apps and devices are in their alpha or beta stages. They also have so many bugs! Once the thing is finally set up, you might find yourself wondering if it was worth it. It can be compared to a Rube Goldberg machine: Tons of energy to complete a simple task. Then there is the excess; I'm left with tons of information that I really don't need. I'm not a parent yet, but if these devices aren't easy to work and bug-free, I might as well stick with a basic video baby monitor and check on my baby manually (the way it's supposed to be).
Sincerely,
Stephanie Tielman
2.03 Broadcast-Radio
For this assignment, I listened to a broadcast about the Eric Garner grand jury decision. The case is about a 43 year old African-American man named Eric Garner from New York who was confronted by police "dealing out", or selling rather, unlicensed cigarettes. There is video of Garner resisting his arrest and yelling at officers, but if you've seen the video you know that he wasn't too violent about it at all. Garner was ranting about how he was minding his own business when a police officer named Daniel Pantaleo came up behind Garner and put him into a chokehold. Garner fell to the ground, Pantaleo still holding him around the neck while other officers started to physically grab Garner as well. Mr. Garner was protesting about his not being able to breathe but the officer, not listening, pressed his head down to the cement. Eric Garner died minutes later from the chokehold. This has been looked upon as an act of racism and Pantaleo has been trying to clear his name in the police force and court ever since. The case was taken so seriously that President Obama and the mayor of New York had to get involved. President Obama mentioned the "concern on the part of too many minority communities that law enforcement is not working with them and dealing with them in a fair way.” Despite all of this, the grand jury made a final decision December 3rd, 2014 that they will not be indicting Pantaleo.
This radio broadcast by Kilmeade and Friends clarifies a few facts about the case such as the coroner deemed that Garner died due to lack of oxygen, asthma, heart disease and obesity (another fact: he was about 400 pounds). The New York criminal defense lawyer (and legal analyst for the FOX news channel) who was interviewed about the case, Arthur Aidala, explains why this wasn't a racist act by Pantaleo and that the same thing would have happened if it were a white man. Aidala took no sides, making sure to give only the facts about the case and call attention to both sides of the story. In Panataleo's defense, he had this to say: "When an officer says 'You’re under arrest', it’s not a suggestion." But he also did not fully agree with the grand jury's decision. Aidala believes we have to take a look at the grand jury system and make some changes.
Brian Kilmeade is the host of Kilmeade and Friends and a co-host on Fox and Friends, a morning show on the Fox News channel. Kilmeade used the video evidence and someone working on the case as his sources for this broadcast. Anyone who questions this information can go online and do some research on Aidala and the Eric Garner case. I consider this broadcast to be a credible news source because the reporter uses the name of his source and interviews the person on the broadcast, presents both sides of the story, and explains facts about the story that anyone can check for themselves.
Sources:
"Brian Kilmeade." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 May 2014. Web. 09 Dec. 2014.
Shapiro, Ben. "The Actual Facts of The Eric Garner Case." Breitbart News Network. Breitbart News, 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 07 Dec. 2014.
Podcast: http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/12/04/when-an-officer-says-youre-under-arrest-its-not-a-suggestion/
Thursday, December 4, 2014
2.00 What is News?
When most people think of news, they think of CNN, FOX, local news channels, etc. Their thoughts range from television and politics to newspapers and sports. I don't think anyone thinks about the other possibilities until they are asked to. The definition of news in the dictionary is: (1) newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events. (2) a broadcast or published report of news. (3) information not previously known to someone.
And there are a lot of ways to describe news too. News can be looked at as the way the information is sent or communicated to people but it could also be seen as the information that is gathered or heard. This isn't just limited to news channels and papers. A friend could tell us something we want to hear and it would be news to us. The hospital could call to inform us that someone close to us is in the emergency room. Both ways would be news. Maybe we wouldn't like to hear the second one, but it's still information that was shared with us. News is the way this information is shared with us. News is the information shared with us. News is the posts on social media that go viral. News is the traffic reports on the radio at 6am. News today is visual as well as informative. I think news is any piece of information that catches our interest or makes us think.
Sources:
"News." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
The news titles can be found on MSN on the front page or the "News" section. Accessed on Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
2.01 Print-Newspapers
Newspapers, believe it or not, make a lot of money. Studies show that newspapers make more money than television and sources of news. That's probably the reason as to why they are still around, or else we would have gotten rid of them as soon as tablets, computers, or even the internet was invented. I don't know many people my age that read the newspaper, but I know older people do. Older meaning people living on their own, parents, and even grandparents, but why is this? And how in the world do newspapers still make so much money?
About two thirds of a newspaper's revenue comes from the advertisements inside of them. These ads are printed and displayed in the paper, paid for by the companies who requested them of course.Classified advertisements make money for a newspaper but not as much as retail does. A small shop on the corner of a busy street couldn't afford as much advertisement space as a company like Kellog's. Advertisement space is sold according to the spot on the paper. For instance, it would cost more to put your ad on the front page than it would on the back page. The size of the advertisement is taken into consideration as well.Word count, bold or italicized fonts, length of publication; all of this would cost more money than a plain ad of 1-25 words with no font manipulations. Maybe you want to advertise but don't want to deal with all of these options. Why not try an insert? Inserts are those small papers within the paper telling you about Publix's sales this week, Khol's Holiday specials, and coupons for brand names.
 |
| Inserts |
 |
| Advertisement |
That explains the amount of money they make but remember that other sources have advertisements too. There are commercials on television, and advertisements on websites of news sources and blogs, so how do printed advertisements make more money than them? After some research, I only found opinions from people in the business world: "...they have less expressive power, they don't seduce...and they're annoying." Unable to find anything other than opinions, here's my logical explanation for it: Well, like I said, older people read the newspaper so the ads are aimed at their age group. Cereal coupons, grocery store sales, specials for yoga classes, holiday sales; this is what their age group pays attention to. Most ads online/ on television are for shoe companies, dating services, other websites, games, toys, etc. and this interests younger kids, teens, maybe young adults, but it doesn't interest the older age group and the older age group is the one with money.
Sources:
Waltenburg, Deborah. "How Does a Newspaper Make Money?" EHow. Demand Media, 22 Dec. 2008. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
Rogers, Tony. "Which Form of News Media Makes the Most Money? Newspapers." About. About.com, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
Rogers, Tony. "Have Newspapers Been Led Astray by the False Promise of Digital Advertising?" About. About.com, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
Monday, December 1, 2014
1.05 Who Are Journalists?
The definition of journalist in the dictionary is the following: a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television. This can be countered by the definition of journalist on Wikipedia: A journalist is a person who collects, writes or distributes news or other current information. My definition of a journalist reflects the majority's view on this lesson's poll; A journalist is any person who tries to inform the public about things that are going on.
My reason for this thinking is based off of logical facts. The work of a journalist is to research, conduct interviews, write about it, and report their findings as facts.Credibility of a source or site is one thing but the label of journalist itself is another. A journalist could be many things in my book. There are professional types such as editors, columnists, photojournalists, etc., there are unprofessional types such as bloggers, magazine editors, protestors, etc. There are even the journalists who pretend to be professional when, really, all they're writing is dishonest and exploited to make money. But, every single one of these things are journalism because it is someone informing society. It may be facts mixed with opinion, it may be discredible, or it may be the side of an argument that the 1% agrees with, but it's shedding some light on a subject that maybe someone was not aware of.
It's 2014 and in this era, anyone can be anything they want to be. Journalism doesn't even require any paperwork or diplomas. All someone needs is three qualifications: (1) To do research. (2) To write their findings. (3) To publish it publicly. It really doesn't take much to be well-known journalist like David Broder (Pulitzer Prize-winning political reporter and columnist who joined the Washington Post in 1968) or some unknown journalist like Lauren Hoffman (editor at Cosmopolitan woman's magazine who writes about the Kardashians and new Grey's Anatomy episodes). Both of these people meet the qualifications; research, write, publish, so why should Lauren Hoffman not have the title of a journalist like David Broder did? Maybe what she writes about isn't important and only interests a certain group of people, but hey, not everyone enjoys political scandals and stock market information. The writings aren't unimportant to everyone, and both people inform readers about a topic of interest. This is considered journalism to me.
Sources:
"Journalist." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.p., n.d., Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
My reason for this thinking is based off of logical facts. The work of a journalist is to research, conduct interviews, write about it, and report their findings as facts.Credibility of a source or site is one thing but the label of journalist itself is another. A journalist could be many things in my book. There are professional types such as editors, columnists, photojournalists, etc., there are unprofessional types such as bloggers, magazine editors, protestors, etc. There are even the journalists who pretend to be professional when, really, all they're writing is dishonest and exploited to make money. But, every single one of these things are journalism because it is someone informing society. It may be facts mixed with opinion, it may be discredible, or it may be the side of an argument that the 1% agrees with, but it's shedding some light on a subject that maybe someone was not aware of.
It's 2014 and in this era, anyone can be anything they want to be. Journalism doesn't even require any paperwork or diplomas. All someone needs is three qualifications: (1) To do research. (2) To write their findings. (3) To publish it publicly. It really doesn't take much to be well-known journalist like David Broder (Pulitzer Prize-winning political reporter and columnist who joined the Washington Post in 1968) or some unknown journalist like Lauren Hoffman (editor at Cosmopolitan woman's magazine who writes about the Kardashians and new Grey's Anatomy episodes). Both of these people meet the qualifications; research, write, publish, so why should Lauren Hoffman not have the title of a journalist like David Broder did? Maybe what she writes about isn't important and only interests a certain group of people, but hey, not everyone enjoys political scandals and stock market information. The writings aren't unimportant to everyone, and both people inform readers about a topic of interest. This is considered journalism to me.
Sources:
"Journalist." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.p., n.d., Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
1.02 Evolution of American Journalism
Journalism wasn't and isn't an easy job. There have been many issues in this career starting with the very beginning when there was no such thing as a typewriter to now when American journalists are being murdered by terrorist groups such as ISIS. Whether freedom of the press was guaranteed or not, there will always be upsides and downsides to journalism. Whether we live in a dystopian or utopian future, that's just the cost of doing the right thing.
Journalism is about telling the nation what they have a right to know. Just like a woman who is expecting a child has a right to know if the baby is healthy or not, we have a right to know what is going on in the government, politics, and the world. What would society be without a knowledge of our surroundings? Probably even more opinionated than it already is because no one would have the facts. Without organizations such as CNN, FOX News, and The New York Times we wouldn't be such a powerful country today because we wouldn't be prepared for anything. World War III could start right under our noses and we wouldn't know until it was too late. A nuclear power plant could have blown and we wouldn't suspect it until we felt the reaction from it on our skin. Members of political parties, high ranks of the government, or even the President could be assassinated and the whole thing could be covered up without us knowing any better. This is only the pessimistic view, because obviously good things could happen too. The cure for cancer could be discovered, clear evidence of the theory of evolution could be uncovered, world peace could be established, etc. The point is that news is important and we're allowed to be informed thanks to the first amendment of the constitution (freedom of the press).
I respect journalism and all types of journalism. Even the uncanny organizations like WikiLeaks because the purpose of it is to inform the people. This is, after all, the new age and ways of informing the public are changing. "Regardless of what we think about Julian Assange or WikiLeaks — or any of the other WikiLeaks-style organizations that seem to be emerging — this is the new reality of media. It may be confusing, but we had better start getting used to it."-Mathew Ingram, Senior Writer at Gigaom Search. I'm excited to learn more about the different branches of careers in journalism because this is what I want to do in life.
Sources:
"Freedom of the Press." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Carter, Chelsea J., Elise Labott, Susan Garraty, Jim Acosta, Josh Levs, Brian Stelter, Samira Said, and Tim Lister. "ISIS Video Shows Beheading of American Journalist Steven Sotloff." CNN. Cable News Network, 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Ingram, Mathew. "Is What WikiLeaks Does Journalism? Good Question." Gigaom. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Journalism is about telling the nation what they have a right to know. Just like a woman who is expecting a child has a right to know if the baby is healthy or not, we have a right to know what is going on in the government, politics, and the world. What would society be without a knowledge of our surroundings? Probably even more opinionated than it already is because no one would have the facts. Without organizations such as CNN, FOX News, and The New York Times we wouldn't be such a powerful country today because we wouldn't be prepared for anything. World War III could start right under our noses and we wouldn't know until it was too late. A nuclear power plant could have blown and we wouldn't suspect it until we felt the reaction from it on our skin. Members of political parties, high ranks of the government, or even the President could be assassinated and the whole thing could be covered up without us knowing any better. This is only the pessimistic view, because obviously good things could happen too. The cure for cancer could be discovered, clear evidence of the theory of evolution could be uncovered, world peace could be established, etc. The point is that news is important and we're allowed to be informed thanks to the first amendment of the constitution (freedom of the press).
I respect journalism and all types of journalism. Even the uncanny organizations like WikiLeaks because the purpose of it is to inform the people. This is, after all, the new age and ways of informing the public are changing. "Regardless of what we think about Julian Assange or WikiLeaks — or any of the other WikiLeaks-style organizations that seem to be emerging — this is the new reality of media. It may be confusing, but we had better start getting used to it."-Mathew Ingram, Senior Writer at Gigaom Search. I'm excited to learn more about the different branches of careers in journalism because this is what I want to do in life.
Sources:
"Freedom of the Press." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Carter, Chelsea J., Elise Labott, Susan Garraty, Jim Acosta, Josh Levs, Brian Stelter, Samira Said, and Tim Lister. "ISIS Video Shows Beheading of American Journalist Steven Sotloff." CNN. Cable News Network, 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Ingram, Mathew. "Is What WikiLeaks Does Journalism? Good Question." Gigaom. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)