The goal of so many news outlets isn’t to be the most accurate or the most professional; their goal is to be the “leaders” for late-breaking news. To claim that their outlet was the first to report a story, the first to break a huge developing account. But have news agencies today become too greedy with their need to be the first and thrown away their need to be accurate and professional? And many even more importantly, how do editors balance the need for speedy news with the need to be right?
Most recently I saw this need to be the leading reporter on a public story when British-born actress Natasha Richardson fell and suffered brain injuries Monday while skiing in Quebec, Canada. When the story broke Monday night, only the few, basic details of the accident were being published by many news outlets. But when Tuesday afternoon rolled around, there seemed to be fifteen differing reports on how the accident occurred and what the condition of the actress was. Some of the more reliable news outlets, such as CNN.com and People Magazine continued to just report the known facts; that the actress was injured in a skiing accident in Canada and was taken to a local hospital for brain injuries. However, news agencies such as TMZ and the New York Post continually updated their websites with reports specifying the injuries, without any specific and reliable information. It seemed like they were making assumptions about the condition for the actress based upon nothing but their own imagination; assumptions that were not only false, but also extremely hurtful to Richardson’s family.
A little after 3:00 on Tuesday, both Time Out New York and Perezhilton.com flashed eye-grabbing headlines that stated that the actress had passed away. No more than 60minutes later, both sites had retracted their statements. Although they were both first to report the news- it doesn’t matter if the news isn’t true. It’s not only that they reported something that wasn’t right; reporting of someone’s death isn’t something that should be thrown around. This story proves that it is best to be accurate, take your time and tripe-check your sources and the stories they are reporting before stating them as fact to the world.
Mar 17, 2009
Mar 4, 2009
MID-TERM Short Answer
Article - "Dark Green Doomsayers" by George F. Will
From my first reading of the article by George F. Will, I was immediately distracted by the amount of quotes that he included in his article. It is always a good idea to include work by others and relevant quotes by experts on topic one is writing about, but when one page of a one and a half page article is composed of quotes, its a bit of an overload. But the one aspect of Will's writing that makes the amount of quotations almost expectable is that when he does actually write, the humor that he writes with makes the topic readable. Those two aspects are the first things I noticed about the article " Dark Green Doomsayers."
But what is Will even writing about, and more importantly, what is his stance on the topic. The article is about the on-going issue of global warming and about all the theories these scientists have come up with. From the title of the article alone, I could tell that this wasn't just a news article; it wasn't a reporting of new developments in the field. The author, Will's has an opinion on the topic and freely and openly lets everyone who reads the writing see it. He isn't trying to hide his stance and opinion on the issue of global warming and those predicting such disasters as the beginning of a new ice age.
When began reading the article, i did think that it was just a report on the issue of global warming; but after reading the entire article, i realized that it was an article almost making fun at the people who are obsessed with the topic. Will ends the piece with; "Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one third of the span since the global cooling scare." Will spent the entire article discussing the different beliefs and theories of those scientists who believe that global warming is an immediate threat, than in his last two sentences, made them seem like idiots. I also believe that the author's argument is that the country and its people should be more worried about pressing and real problems such as the economy, rather than be enthralled in the "theory" of global warming.
The article comes from the Washington Post, which is the first sign that the article can be somewhat trusted since the Post is the newspaper with the largest circulation and the oldest paper in the country's capital. Researching the author, my immediate belief that this article was more an editorial piece seems to be correct since George F. Will is a Op-Ed columnist. Will is not a reporter, he doesn't get paid to report the news, he gets paid to write his opinion; but not only to write his opinion, but to make it interesting, entertaining and maybe even controversial. A columnist is a journalists who writes editorials; an editorial is "relating to an article stating opinions or giving perspectives." (wordnet.com) Because the writer of this piece is a columnist, his writing cannot be taken as fact or true because he is without a doubt writing with opinion and an objective or 'spin'. Although he filled his article with lots of quotes from scientists about global warming, he specifically chose those quotes because they made his point stronger by the way that he presented them. Even just Googling the article, I found it reposted in numerous websites, sites that share Will's point of view, such as; Climate Change Fraud.
From my first reading of the article by George F. Will, I was immediately distracted by the amount of quotes that he included in his article. It is always a good idea to include work by others and relevant quotes by experts on topic one is writing about, but when one page of a one and a half page article is composed of quotes, its a bit of an overload. But the one aspect of Will's writing that makes the amount of quotations almost expectable is that when he does actually write, the humor that he writes with makes the topic readable. Those two aspects are the first things I noticed about the article " Dark Green Doomsayers."
But what is Will even writing about, and more importantly, what is his stance on the topic. The article is about the on-going issue of global warming and about all the theories these scientists have come up with. From the title of the article alone, I could tell that this wasn't just a news article; it wasn't a reporting of new developments in the field. The author, Will's has an opinion on the topic and freely and openly lets everyone who reads the writing see it. He isn't trying to hide his stance and opinion on the issue of global warming and those predicting such disasters as the beginning of a new ice age.
When began reading the article, i did think that it was just a report on the issue of global warming; but after reading the entire article, i realized that it was an article almost making fun at the people who are obsessed with the topic. Will ends the piece with; "Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one third of the span since the global cooling scare." Will spent the entire article discussing the different beliefs and theories of those scientists who believe that global warming is an immediate threat, than in his last two sentences, made them seem like idiots. I also believe that the author's argument is that the country and its people should be more worried about pressing and real problems such as the economy, rather than be enthralled in the "theory" of global warming.
The article comes from the Washington Post, which is the first sign that the article can be somewhat trusted since the Post is the newspaper with the largest circulation and the oldest paper in the country's capital. Researching the author, my immediate belief that this article was more an editorial piece seems to be correct since George F. Will is a Op-Ed columnist. Will is not a reporter, he doesn't get paid to report the news, he gets paid to write his opinion; but not only to write his opinion, but to make it interesting, entertaining and maybe even controversial. A columnist is a journalists who writes editorials; an editorial is "relating to an article stating opinions or giving perspectives." (wordnet.com) Because the writer of this piece is a columnist, his writing cannot be taken as fact or true because he is without a doubt writing with opinion and an objective or 'spin'. Although he filled his article with lots of quotes from scientists about global warming, he specifically chose those quotes because they made his point stronger by the way that he presented them. Even just Googling the article, I found it reposted in numerous websites, sites that share Will's point of view, such as; Climate Change Fraud.
Feb 24, 2009
Behind the scene games of the music industry…
“Fighting pay-for-play” by Eric Boehlert
Ever wonder who decides what songs play on the radio during your drive home from work? Some may think that it is the DJs who plug-in their favorite songs, or the manager of the station who lists possible song options. Maybe it’s you, the audience, who calls the radio station requesting the new Taylor Swift song. Well it’s not the DJs or even their bosses, and it most definitely isn’t directly you; the people who decide what songs get airtime on radio stations are ‘indies’. Indies are the middlemen that companies employ; they are the ones holding the music industry in hostage.
How ‘indies’ work: The indies, who are usually men, form agreements with the general managers or the corporate owners of the radio station; they are hired for “promotional support”. However, what they actually do is stake a claim on a station and send out notices to record companies informing them that the companies will be charged (on average $1,000) every time that radio station adds a new song to the list that they will be playing; if the record companies do not pay the indies, then the songs that those record companies released will not be played on the stations.
This type of system is called Payola in the American music industry, but some may call it bribery. Payola is the illegal practice of payment or other incentives by record companies for the broadcasting of recordings on the radio. However, the way that both radio stations and indies make it legal and prevent from legal action against themselves is that they make a deal with the indies under “promotional support”. Also, under US law, a radio station can play a song in exchange for money if they disclose on the broadcast that it is sponsored airtime; but many record companies don’t like the stigma attached to having the audience know that they had to buy the station for playing a specific song.
The reason why the system of Payola and the work of indies is being argued about is the fact that many people think that radio stations are losing their original purpose; radio stations are not about music anymore, it’s all about profit like every other business today. The companies that have the big bucks, they are the ones whose music gets played. Another reason why the behind the scene ‘games’ of the music industry are being pushed to front-page news is because of the impending partnership of “industry heavyweight” Clear Channel Communications and the firm Tri State Promotions and Marketing, which is essentially an ‘indie’. CCC owns 1,200 radio stations and such a partnership would furthermore increase the power of the indie and thus the radio station that is receiving kickbacks from those indies. Such an agreement between CCC and Tri State would severely hurt the music industry/ the record companies, because Tri State could further increase the money they demand for the adding of a song on a station’s playlist.
(image from: http://creativebits.org/files/ipod_heart.jpg)
Feb 23, 2009
Know WHO your audience is…
Fifteen words; fifteen words was all that it took for the Dixie Chicks to go from being one of the most popular bands in the world, to becoming hated by their once loyal fans. Some say that all publicity is good publicity, but for the Dixie Chicks, the media and the publicity that they stirred up nearly ended their careers. “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” When Natalie Maines uttered those words at a London nightclub, it wasn’t really a big deal. During the war many celebrities spoke up in protest. Those words were heard by a few hundred Dixie Chicks fans in London, England, a place that was probably filled with more people agreeing with Maines than disagreeing. But it was the American national media that made that statement newsworthy. They not only took those words and broadcasted it for all to hear, but they also allowed those critics of the statement to be heard loudest. That is the power of the media, to make a situation an EVENT and to make that event buzz-worthy.
But it wasn’t what Maines said that struck a chord with the nation, Maines wasn’t the first or the last person to criticize the War or President Bush, it was who Maines said those words to; country music fans aka Dixie Chick fans. It’s one thing when a punk-rock band disses the President of the country because most of their fans probably shared those same beliefs; but it’s a far different thing when a country group breaks out of what is expected of them and speaks of views that are most likely polar opposites of their fans’ views. It’s a fact that country is filled with stars and fans that are conservative republicans; republicans who not only voted for Bush but who are also very patriotic. Maines has a right to speak her mind, as an American citizen she is given the right of free speech. However, as an entertainer in the public eye, she should have been more conscious of who the band’s audience is; its one think to speak one’s mind and stand up for a cause, but sometimes thoughts and opinions are better kept to oneself if it only brings negativity and more fighting.
But it wasn’t what Maines said that struck a chord with the nation, Maines wasn’t the first or the last person to criticize the War or President Bush, it was who Maines said those words to; country music fans aka Dixie Chick fans. It’s one thing when a punk-rock band disses the President of the country because most of their fans probably shared those same beliefs; but it’s a far different thing when a country group breaks out of what is expected of them and speaks of views that are most likely polar opposites of their fans’ views. It’s a fact that country is filled with stars and fans that are conservative republicans; republicans who not only voted for Bush but who are also very patriotic. Maines has a right to speak her mind, as an American citizen she is given the right of free speech. However, as an entertainer in the public eye, she should have been more conscious of who the band’s audience is; its one think to speak one’s mind and stand up for a cause, but sometimes thoughts and opinions are better kept to oneself if it only brings negativity and more fighting.
Feb 17, 2009
Who’s the public anyways?
Have we reached the end of the public space? In his essay regarding the public space, Don Mitchell proposes this question; throughout the paper he also questions how a public space should be utilized and who exactly the public is. Mitchell wrote about the tug-of-war that has been going on for years regarding the People’s Park in California; the debate centered on whether the park belonged to the public or the university. Whether the Park was a place for the public without intervention from the university or government or if it was an ordered and controlled place for the public.
In my town there were only two places that kids could go to where they could just sit or play around or simply just be kids; one was the local mall and the other were the woods that ran throughout the town. If they went to the local Friendly’s they were expected to buy food or leave, if they went into any of the shops, the owners keep a close eye on them fearing that one or all might steal. The mall was a heaven for the teenagers; after each school day a sea of them would flow to the mall and simply do nothing. It wasn’t about buying clothes or watching a movie, they used it as their only place to just be with their friends, away from school. But three years ago, the shop owners petitioned and won for a new law to be passed; no one under the age of 18 could be in the mall without a guardian. And once again the kids were left with nowhere to go. It was a public mall, for the public; however, the local government decided that the public of the mall were only those above the age of 18. The mall became a representation of space, planned and controlled.
Key terms =
The public
Representational space vs. representations of space
Difference between open space and public space
Main Concepts =
Two different ideological positions; public space as a place of unmediated political interaction, and public space as a place of order, controlled recreation and spectacle.
Public space occupies an important ideological position in democratic society= we need it.
Media is a public sphere, however, it cannot be the only public sphere, a materialized one is needed- because a fully electronic public space further more renders some of the public (homeless) voiceless.
Feb 10, 2009
Is any media unbiased, untarnished media anymore?
Is there such a thing as unbiased, non-influenced journalism? News broadcasters have one job, deliver the news of the day to the people regarding the country, the state and their local town; however, few people truly expect these reporters not to have an opinion. They are humans just like every one of us, of course they are going to have an opinion, we just expect them to hidden those thoughts while on camera. The funny thing about our society, we are far more attracted to those who don’t hide their opinions, those who state what’s on their minds to the world each night. Do you know the name of the reporter who just announced that the Senate passed the largest spending bill in our country’s history? Probably not, but I’m sure you know the name of the news anchor who will state their opinion of this bill later tonight. Some of the biggest celebrities today are news anchors who take the news and turn it into entertainment; Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer or Cooper Anderson. Are these anchors good or bad for our society? Do they make news entertaining, or do they also make news relevant again?
In his essay, Media and democracy- the third way, James Curran talks about the role of media as “watchdogs” of the government and argues that a free market media is needed to make sure that news is not only accurate, but also that people don’t have restrictions on what they can report, whether it’s good or bad for the government. Curran also discusses private versus public media, and how news programs have been ‘regulated’ by what they can and cannot say because of the people who pay their bills.
Listing of Key Words:
FREE MARKET = A free market is a market that is liberated of government regulations and intervention as well as being free of fraud, although this doesn’t disregard the essence of the legal system.
WATCHDOG = A watchdog is one who serves as a protector or defender against loss or illegal practices.
PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE MEDIA = Broadcasters and journalists are not told what they can and cannot say or write in a free media environment. Private media is still expected to represent professional standards of journalism as well as reporting accurate facts that are separated from comment.
Three Main Concepts:
- The role of the “watchdog” and how it overrides in importance of all other functions of the media; “once the media becomes subject to state regulation, they may lose their bite as watchdogs.”
- Media is a place where people can be informed, a place for debate as well as a place to ask questions. The best way to reach this place is through the free-market; where the freedom of the market allows for anyone to publish an opinion which “makes for good judgment and wise government.”
- Media has drifted away from being about delivering the news; it has become about entertainment due to the goal of most media outlets, which is to make a profit.
In his essay, Media and democracy- the third way, James Curran talks about the role of media as “watchdogs” of the government and argues that a free market media is needed to make sure that news is not only accurate, but also that people don’t have restrictions on what they can report, whether it’s good or bad for the government. Curran also discusses private versus public media, and how news programs have been ‘regulated’ by what they can and cannot say because of the people who pay their bills.
Listing of Key Words:
FREE MARKET = A free market is a market that is liberated of government regulations and intervention as well as being free of fraud, although this doesn’t disregard the essence of the legal system.
WATCHDOG = A watchdog is one who serves as a protector or defender against loss or illegal practices.
PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE MEDIA = Broadcasters and journalists are not told what they can and cannot say or write in a free media environment. Private media is still expected to represent professional standards of journalism as well as reporting accurate facts that are separated from comment.
Three Main Concepts:
- The role of the “watchdog” and how it overrides in importance of all other functions of the media; “once the media becomes subject to state regulation, they may lose their bite as watchdogs.”
- Media is a place where people can be informed, a place for debate as well as a place to ask questions. The best way to reach this place is through the free-market; where the freedom of the market allows for anyone to publish an opinion which “makes for good judgment and wise government.”
- Media has drifted away from being about delivering the news; it has become about entertainment due to the goal of most media outlets, which is to make a profit.
(image from: http://www.thenewsisbroken.com/images/weblogo01.gif)
Feb 9, 2009
If only we could go back to the simple days of town meetings...
In a broad sense, self-government refers to the control of one’s own affairs. In Free speech and its relation to self-government, Alexander Meiklejohn discusses the relationship between freedom of speech and self-government; he also draws a connection between self-government and democracy, arguing that self-government is the basis of democracy. Self-governing allows for each man and woman to control his or her world; to decide what path to travel, to be responsible for his or her own self. Each person has the right to do as he or she wants, as long as they follow the rules and laws outlined by the Constitution. As long as they respect the property and rights of others, they may self-govern themselves to their hearts desire.
“No idea which we have is more sane, more matter-of-fact, more immediately sensible, than that of self-government.” – Meiklejohn
What exactly does self-governing entail? The United States is often referred to as an experiment in self-government because the citizens of the country have the right to take part in the politics that govern and “control” each of our lives. We are self-governed if we regularly vote for the people who represent us; but how many of us do that? About half the country votes in the Presidential elections and even less than that vote for local governors and representatives, so are we truly self-governed? Does the concept relate to only those who take an active role in politics on every level or the country as a whole because of the fact that we are “democratic”? And are we even able to self-govern ourselves with the restrictions that are placed upon us? Meiklejohn begins his writing discussing two freedoms that are given to each citizen of the country, the freedom of property and the freedom of speech. He writes that our freedom of property is restricted and regulated by property taxes and so on; but we also have restrictions on our freedom of speech. Although by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we are in concept able to say whatever we want, it doesn’t hold up in the real world. We simply cannot say whatever we want, especially if it is untrue, but even the truth sometimes can’t be said simply out of fear.
“The difficulties of the paradox of freedom as applied to speech may perhaps be lessened if we now examine the procedures of the traditional American town meeting. This institution is commonly, and rightly, regarded as a model by which free political procedures may be measured. It is self-government in its simplest, most obvious form.” -Meiklejohn
The basic, most simple form of Democracy, Meiklejohn argues is town meetings. Everyone can attend their local town meeting, have their voice and opinion heard, and in essence be self-governed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
