Social networks are a huge part of our lives. We use them to meet people, to get jobs and tap into every aspect of every person I know's social networks to get sources for my stories.
Online social networks have expanded what has been traditionally understood as a social network to create an expansive web on the Web of the people who know, the people they know and everyone in between.
From LinkedIn to Facebook to Twitter to the vlog communities on YouTube it seems like every aspect of our lives and our time spent on the Internet are touched by social networking.
New York Times columnist (I like him a lot can you tell?) Nicholas Kristof writes at the end of his biweekly column, "I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter."
While the importance of instant communication with one's social network through Twitter is usually beneficial (and often benign) there have been concerns about misinformation being spread quickly through the site. As the swine flu situation escalates, misinformation was spread on the network.
In the CNN article about the spread of the flu and information about it specifically on Twitter, the Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute said information needs to be put in context by journalists, especially given the fact that so many deaths from the common flu occur each year and go underreported by the news media.
There are stories all over the Internet about employees getting fired because of something posted on Facebook or potential employees not getting hired because of their rowdy college Facebook pictures. (My brother was a Purdue cheerleader. ESPN used his Facebook photo, which featured him bonging a beer while sitting on a toilet while wearing his uniform, on a special about the dangers of Facebook to college athletes.)
Yet while there are cautionary tales about social networks, Forbes magazine recently wrote an article about why CEOs need to utilize social networking. The tagline of the article read, " Web 2.0 is no longer just for teenagers.) Tonight, I'll be having dinner with Father Garanzini, and I plan to advise him to take back his student-run (as a joke) Facebook page. I think he could actually utilize the page to communicate with students about what he is doing and what is going on with their university.
And the future is always just around the corner. The Huffington Post's Stephen Balkam declares, "Twitter is so ten minutes ago" in his article at Qik, a site that lets you upload videos directly from your cell phone to its Web site to share with your followers.
As a proud digital native, I like to think that I can utilize social networks to my advantage more so than older generations. I like to think that I recognize the importance of online social networking hence why I said I'd pay for Facebook.
However, just to voice some of my deep true feelings about social networking. I think it consumes a lot of time and effort. If I read a good article those in my social network benefit if I post it on my Facebook and/or Twitter accounts; however, I know if I go to Facebook and post it then someone is going to IM me or I'm going to need to respond to a wall post or an event invitation. AND THEN IT CONSUMES MY LIFE AND I JUST DON'T HAVE TIME FOR IT!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Journalism is essential to democracy ... or is it?
Reading Eagle columnist Dan Kelly makes fun of the alarmists who say that the end of the U.S. as we know it is here because of the socialist President Barack Obama, but he also says, "If the end of our nation is near, it won't be due to an imaginary historical clock. But because too many of us seem to think we can survive without newspapers and the protection they afford us."
As newspapers across the country as slashing staffs, losing ad revenue and losing readers to the Internet, some wonder if they'll survive the economic crisis and this shift in the business model.
And if newspapers don't survive will democracy?
And others ask do we really need the mainstream media agenda setting for us when we can find our own news, the kind of news we want to read/watch all over the Internet?
A recent Pew Center poll even shows that only 43 percent of Americans believe that losing their local community newspaper would hurt civic life a lot.
But these everyday Americans are forgetting the reason that freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Felix Frankfurter said, “Freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of achieving a free society."
According to this picture from the Newseum in Washington, D.C., President Thomas Jefferson said, "Were it left to me decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or a newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."
(I saw this and I heard there was a video of you there, but I didn't get to see that.)
Both Chicago newspapers have declared bankruptcy. There are rumors that by the end of the summer the Chicago Sun-Times will fold completely or turn into online only. Can you imagine? Chicago it's really a one newspaper kinda town, but we might be soon.
The oldest newspaper in Colorado, The Rocky Mountain News, has closed along with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.
The lose of newspapers will hurt democracy because people will not be exposed to diverse views instead they will seek out only what they want to see and hear: the idea of the Daily Me, which is Nicholas Negroponte's idea of a virtual daily newspaper customized for an individual's tastes. We find this Daily me by seeking out the opinions and news stories that we agree with online not by consuming the hopefully objective news of the mainstream media.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote in a recent column, "The decline of traditional news media will accelerate the rise of The Daily Me, and we’ll be irritated less by what we read and find our wisdom confirmed more often. The danger is that this self-selected “news” acts as a narcotic, lulling us into a self-confident stupor through which we will perceive in blacks and whites a world that typically unfolds in grays."
Not to mention the extremely important role that newspapers play as the fourth estate and the watchdogs of the government.
The importance of investigative journalism in the public interest is widely accepted, but not that many people seem to be worried about what will happen when newspapers are no longer around to provide this important public service.
ProPublica, (where I once I applied for an internship) an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, was created to offset the decline in real investigative journalism across the country.
So will there come a day when the federal government acknowledges the role of newspapers in keeping themselves in check. Perhaps.
Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin proposed legistlation that would allow struggling local papers to declare themselves non-profits so that they could stay afloat. My first thought was, "Finally, someone came up with some idea of how to help newspapers because I don't honestly haven't seen them doing much to help themselves."
Yet as a journalists it's difficult to imagine taking a government handout and still being able to be an effective watchdog.
Helena Deards of the Editors Weblog questioned the effect such subsidies would have on the media. "A newspaper may hesitate to contradict or criticise a body upon which it is financially dependent, and that small hesitation could amount to a large flaw in the democratic ideal of an independent media. In the same vein, dependent on how subsidies were distributed, they could have no effect at all upon the editorial line of a publication," she wrote.
Finally, there are those who are willing to stoke the fire burning beneath newspapers until the whole establishment burns down. Jack Shafer wrote in Slate, an online magazine, that it's time to kill the idea that newspapers are essential to democracy.
"The only group that holds a consistently high opinion of newspapers is newspaper people," Jack Shafer wrote.
OK, I'm not going to lie. This is probably true, but I think that's what most frustrating sometimes is that people don't realize what important work we do.
The Daily Me and the lack of investigative journalism will hurt democracy in America, and every American citizen should be concerned about the decline of the newspaper industry.
As newspapers across the country as slashing staffs, losing ad revenue and losing readers to the Internet, some wonder if they'll survive the economic crisis and this shift in the business model.
And if newspapers don't survive will democracy?
And others ask do we really need the mainstream media agenda setting for us when we can find our own news, the kind of news we want to read/watch all over the Internet?
A recent Pew Center poll even shows that only 43 percent of Americans believe that losing their local community newspaper would hurt civic life a lot.
But these everyday Americans are forgetting the reason that freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Felix Frankfurter said, “Freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of achieving a free society."
According to this picture from the Newseum in Washington, D.C., President Thomas Jefferson said, "Were it left to me decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or a newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."
(I saw this and I heard there was a video of you there, but I didn't get to see that.)
Both Chicago newspapers have declared bankruptcy. There are rumors that by the end of the summer the Chicago Sun-Times will fold completely or turn into online only. Can you imagine? Chicago it's really a one newspaper kinda town, but we might be soon.
The oldest newspaper in Colorado, The Rocky Mountain News, has closed along with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.
The lose of newspapers will hurt democracy because people will not be exposed to diverse views instead they will seek out only what they want to see and hear: the idea of the Daily Me, which is Nicholas Negroponte's idea of a virtual daily newspaper customized for an individual's tastes. We find this Daily me by seeking out the opinions and news stories that we agree with online not by consuming the hopefully objective news of the mainstream media.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote in a recent column, "The decline of traditional news media will accelerate the rise of The Daily Me, and we’ll be irritated less by what we read and find our wisdom confirmed more often. The danger is that this self-selected “news” acts as a narcotic, lulling us into a self-confident stupor through which we will perceive in blacks and whites a world that typically unfolds in grays."
Not to mention the extremely important role that newspapers play as the fourth estate and the watchdogs of the government.
The importance of investigative journalism in the public interest is widely accepted, but not that many people seem to be worried about what will happen when newspapers are no longer around to provide this important public service.
ProPublica, (where I once I applied for an internship) an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, was created to offset the decline in real investigative journalism across the country.
So will there come a day when the federal government acknowledges the role of newspapers in keeping themselves in check. Perhaps.
Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin proposed legistlation that would allow struggling local papers to declare themselves non-profits so that they could stay afloat. My first thought was, "Finally, someone came up with some idea of how to help newspapers because I don't honestly haven't seen them doing much to help themselves."
Yet as a journalists it's difficult to imagine taking a government handout and still being able to be an effective watchdog.
Helena Deards of the Editors Weblog questioned the effect such subsidies would have on the media. "A newspaper may hesitate to contradict or criticise a body upon which it is financially dependent, and that small hesitation could amount to a large flaw in the democratic ideal of an independent media. In the same vein, dependent on how subsidies were distributed, they could have no effect at all upon the editorial line of a publication," she wrote.
Finally, there are those who are willing to stoke the fire burning beneath newspapers until the whole establishment burns down. Jack Shafer wrote in Slate, an online magazine, that it's time to kill the idea that newspapers are essential to democracy.
"The only group that holds a consistently high opinion of newspapers is newspaper people," Jack Shafer wrote.
OK, I'm not going to lie. This is probably true, but I think that's what most frustrating sometimes is that people don't realize what important work we do.
The Daily Me and the lack of investigative journalism will hurt democracy in America, and every American citizen should be concerned about the decline of the newspaper industry.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama and the digital native generation
In his 2005 book, Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News, David Mindich argued that because youths weren't reading the news that civic engagement and democracy as we know it were faltering. However, the campaign and election of Barack Obama engaged the youth of America, which turned out in record numbers to help Obama get elected as president of the United States. Obama and his up-to-date, hip campaign team used their online communication strategy to the fullest to engage the generation of digital natives whose votes were essential to them.
This just shows that young people are getting news, and they are engaged. However, it is in a completely different way than any generation ever before them.
Obama utilized every online tool such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and his own extensive Web site.
In a Pew Research Center poll, more than 75 percent of Internet users used the Internet during the election to get information or participate in the election.
A different, not so surprising Pew Research Center reported showed that 40 percent of Americans use the Internet to get national and international news, which is a 17 percent increase from just more than a year ago. However, in this report, it was the first time that more people cited the Internet over newspapers as their main source of information. Only 35 percent of people surveyed read newspapers, while 70 percent said television was their main news source.
I remember being very small and playing computer games on a gigantic consul. Around the time I was ten, I remember using America Online and getting really excited when I got mail at my first e-mail address, which was Froggie722. I also remember reading international news stories from the Muncie Star Press everyday at the kitchen table after my dad had messed up all the pages of paper when he read it in the morning before me.
As a so-called digital native, it makes sense that my main source of news is the Internet. (I don't really watch television. I hate local news, and I generally only watch national television news broadcasts with my parents who watch them every night.)
As a journalist and a consumer, I'm torn. I never have time to read the whole New York Times, my paper of choice, during the day so I don't want to subscribe because I feel like it's wasteful. I spent at least 20 minutes to an hour online every day reading news, but that's sporadically. I also refuse to buy the Chicago Sun-Times because I think the journalism is shoddy, and I can't support the Chicago Tribune because I'm offended by Sam Zell's interpretation of journalism. Therefore, I would have to answer that I consume most of my news online even though I've always dreamed of working at a daily newspaper.
This just shows that young people are getting news, and they are engaged. However, it is in a completely different way than any generation ever before them.
Obama utilized every online tool such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and his own extensive Web site.
In a Pew Research Center poll, more than 75 percent of Internet users used the Internet during the election to get information or participate in the election.
A different, not so surprising Pew Research Center reported showed that 40 percent of Americans use the Internet to get national and international news, which is a 17 percent increase from just more than a year ago. However, in this report, it was the first time that more people cited the Internet over newspapers as their main source of information. Only 35 percent of people surveyed read newspapers, while 70 percent said television was their main news source.
I remember being very small and playing computer games on a gigantic consul. Around the time I was ten, I remember using America Online and getting really excited when I got mail at my first e-mail address, which was Froggie722. I also remember reading international news stories from the Muncie Star Press everyday at the kitchen table after my dad had messed up all the pages of paper when he read it in the morning before me.
As a so-called digital native, it makes sense that my main source of news is the Internet. (I don't really watch television. I hate local news, and I generally only watch national television news broadcasts with my parents who watch them every night.)
As a journalist and a consumer, I'm torn. I never have time to read the whole New York Times, my paper of choice, during the day so I don't want to subscribe because I feel like it's wasteful. I spent at least 20 minutes to an hour online every day reading news, but that's sporadically. I also refuse to buy the Chicago Sun-Times because I think the journalism is shoddy, and I can't support the Chicago Tribune because I'm offended by Sam Zell's interpretation of journalism. Therefore, I would have to answer that I consume most of my news online even though I've always dreamed of working at a daily newspaper.
Comments on Newspapers' Web Sites Create a Better Public Sphere
When mainstream newspapers provide their content online they give readers an opportunity to easily become active in dialogue about important community and even world issues. In this way, the Internet versions of newspapers function as a public sphere, which is defined in Jurgen Habermas' theory as an area in social life where people can get together and freely discuss and identify societal problems and through that discussion influence political action.
Newspapers, especially local papers, provide an easily accesible forum for discussion that may not have happened had it not been for the ability to provide immediate feedback on something that you have just read online.
In my small hometown of Muncie, Indiana, I've seen extremely active discussion when I read the stories at the Star Press, which I grew up reading everyday in its paper format. Just recently, I saw a very active thread with more than 60 posts. The discussions encompassed a vast range of issues such as the differences between the basketball team from the Southside of town and the rural county school, which had recently won the sectional championship game. The commentors discussed the issues of race, teen pregnancy, socioeconomic status, and the impact of sports on young people's lives.
Many bloggers and columnists for national newspapers and magazines end their posts with a question to stimulate discussion and responses to other comments on their site. The readers' answers to these questions often create a dialogue amongst themselves that the author can revisit and respond to. This creates dialogue and increases traffic to the site, which is beneficial to the newspaper because the more traffic a site receives the more revenue it makes from the advertisments posted on the page. I was also encouraged to end all of my blog posts with a question by my Writing for the Web teacher, Patricia Lamberti.
Though comment sections can sometimes get out of hand with anonymous commentors disregarding respect for others' opinions under the guise of anonymity, they still provide a vital space for discussion among citizens of a community who are reading the paper.
Former Loyola Phoenix editor-in-chief Katie Drews wrote a column in February about the difficulties editors face in drawing the line between progressive discussion and derogatory disgression. She wrote, "The tool allows people to immediately post an emotionally charged remark, along with the protection of anonymity. No filters, no edits and sometimes no thought before the click of the mouse."
The Poynter Institute even offers guidelines (or pointers hehe) on how to handle the comment section. In the world of the Internet, it's important for newspapers to keep their fingers on the pulse of the world and the comment section allows journalists to keep in better touch and communication with their readers.
I love to comment on articles and blogs. I do so much more often when they are written by people that I know. I love being a part of something greater than myself. The public sphere of the Internet allows my thoughts and opinoins to heard among the multitudes of voices that fill the Internet. Most of all as a journalist I love to see my articles commented on whether it is positive or negative. I appreciate the feedback. I often comment back to my readers to better faciliate the public sphere in my own little corner of the World Wide Web.
Newspapers, especially local papers, provide an easily accesible forum for discussion that may not have happened had it not been for the ability to provide immediate feedback on something that you have just read online.
In my small hometown of Muncie, Indiana, I've seen extremely active discussion when I read the stories at the Star Press, which I grew up reading everyday in its paper format. Just recently, I saw a very active thread with more than 60 posts. The discussions encompassed a vast range of issues such as the differences between the basketball team from the Southside of town and the rural county school, which had recently won the sectional championship game. The commentors discussed the issues of race, teen pregnancy, socioeconomic status, and the impact of sports on young people's lives.
Many bloggers and columnists for national newspapers and magazines end their posts with a question to stimulate discussion and responses to other comments on their site. The readers' answers to these questions often create a dialogue amongst themselves that the author can revisit and respond to. This creates dialogue and increases traffic to the site, which is beneficial to the newspaper because the more traffic a site receives the more revenue it makes from the advertisments posted on the page. I was also encouraged to end all of my blog posts with a question by my Writing for the Web teacher, Patricia Lamberti.
Though comment sections can sometimes get out of hand with anonymous commentors disregarding respect for others' opinions under the guise of anonymity, they still provide a vital space for discussion among citizens of a community who are reading the paper.
Former Loyola Phoenix editor-in-chief Katie Drews wrote a column in February about the difficulties editors face in drawing the line between progressive discussion and derogatory disgression. She wrote, "The tool allows people to immediately post an emotionally charged remark, along with the protection of anonymity. No filters, no edits and sometimes no thought before the click of the mouse."
The Poynter Institute even offers guidelines (or pointers hehe) on how to handle the comment section. In the world of the Internet, it's important for newspapers to keep their fingers on the pulse of the world and the comment section allows journalists to keep in better touch and communication with their readers.
I love to comment on articles and blogs. I do so much more often when they are written by people that I know. I love being a part of something greater than myself. The public sphere of the Internet allows my thoughts and opinoins to heard among the multitudes of voices that fill the Internet. Most of all as a journalist I love to see my articles commented on whether it is positive or negative. I appreciate the feedback. I often comment back to my readers to better faciliate the public sphere in my own little corner of the World Wide Web.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The idea that Facebook will need 50,000 servers is really interesting to me. They have to pay a lot of money to set up servers so I can do the mindless clicking that was discussed in the Huffington Post article.
I would like to delete my Facebook to give me back all the time I've wasted on it during college, but Facebook also does so much for it. It keeps me in touch with my friends from back home in a way that never would have been possible before Fbook came along. I also talk to friends across the country and the world that I made during my experiences studying abroad. I network with other journalists such as Hannah Allam, the youngest Baghdad bureau chief ever at 25, who I interviewed at the SPJ Conference in August, and Saeed Ahmed, a CNN journalist who comments on my Facebook status when he's working at 3 a.m.
Right now I'm meeting the people I will work with in Teach for America in New Orleans. After I graduate, Facebook will be essential for keeping in touch with my "college" friends.
I was a little confused by the abstractness of the Charlene Li article, social networks are like air. We interact with people in a social context everyday. I do not want my digital social network to become like air. I like to control my digital social network because unlike in public, where I know who's watching me because I can see them and I know who will be where, everyone is everywhere on the Internet. I keep my Facebook very tame. No profanity, no alcohol, no cleavage, etc. You can't really get a sense of who I am through my Facebook page because I do not want people to get to know me through the Internet.
Over the past few weeks, reports have abounded on the Internet about the purchase of Facebook by an outside company such as Yahoo, which will force users to pay for the service. I absolutely love that Facebook users response to the suggestion that they pay for Facebook is the group "We won't pay for Facebook. We are gone if this happens."
I would like to delete my Facebook to give me back all the time I've wasted on it during college, but Facebook also does so much for it. It keeps me in touch with my friends from back home in a way that never would have been possible before Fbook came along. I also talk to friends across the country and the world that I made during my experiences studying abroad. I network with other journalists such as Hannah Allam, the youngest Baghdad bureau chief ever at 25, who I interviewed at the SPJ Conference in August, and Saeed Ahmed, a CNN journalist who comments on my Facebook status when he's working at 3 a.m.
Right now I'm meeting the people I will work with in Teach for America in New Orleans. After I graduate, Facebook will be essential for keeping in touch with my "college" friends.
I was a little confused by the abstractness of the Charlene Li article, social networks are like air. We interact with people in a social context everyday. I do not want my digital social network to become like air. I like to control my digital social network because unlike in public, where I know who's watching me because I can see them and I know who will be where, everyone is everywhere on the Internet. I keep my Facebook very tame. No profanity, no alcohol, no cleavage, etc. You can't really get a sense of who I am through my Facebook page because I do not want people to get to know me through the Internet.
Over the past few weeks, reports have abounded on the Internet about the purchase of Facebook by an outside company such as Yahoo, which will force users to pay for the service. I absolutely love that Facebook users response to the suggestion that they pay for Facebook is the group "We won't pay for Facebook. We are gone if this happens."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Uses and Gratifications
I use the print media to relax and reduce tension because I love reading the Economist and National Geographic whenever I have a little bit of free time. In terms of other media, I've basically been banned from watching television with my roommates because I always point out the inplausibility of the program whether it is Grey's Anatomy or CSI.
We would like to think that we are not media dependent but in being technological depending we don't realize how much the two are interconnected. While this is only slightly related, I had a minor breakdown when my Google documents weren't loading since my life exists in Google, which I would consider to be part of the media world to some extent.
We have a variety of media outlets available; therefore we would assume that we are less dependent on a single media. However, I realized that I often only visit the same media sites even though I'd like to expose myself to many different opinions and interpretations of the news. I am dependent on certain media Web sites because there is never enough time to read everything I want to.
I also really don't like to read conservative opinions in the news even though I know I should. I always laugh when I get e-mails from David Horowitz, a conservative author and activist, who I interviewed when I was a sophomore. Two years later, I'm still included on mass e-mail lists from the David Horowitz Freedom Center bashing the left and liberal media.
As news editor though I do tend to skim through the Catholic News Service to keep track of Catholic things that we might want to cover for the school newspaper, but I don't enjoy it. I do it because I have to for my job. I don't independently seek out this alternative news source.
The common experiences section of the Sunstein article made me think of the one thing almost everyone in my generation and now many in yours do share: Facebook.
In terms of media consumption, my newsfeed is filled with my conservative and liberal friends posting articles from different media outlets that they're read. Whether I disagree with them/would have sought them out myself/have already it, I still see them and sometimes read them.
People keep telling me journalists will just work online and everything will be fine. Yet while news consumption is actually UP meaning more people are reading more news people are reading it all online. This report from Paid Content shows that readers in the UK who report reading newspaper has also slightly increased while circulation is still down.
While the media has many different definitions, the mainstream media particularly the print medium that I love makes me more depressed with every news story I read particularly this one about the closure of the Chicago Tribune Beijing bureau, which I visited when I was in China last year.
We would like to think that we are not media dependent but in being technological depending we don't realize how much the two are interconnected. While this is only slightly related, I had a minor breakdown when my Google documents weren't loading since my life exists in Google, which I would consider to be part of the media world to some extent.
We have a variety of media outlets available; therefore we would assume that we are less dependent on a single media. However, I realized that I often only visit the same media sites even though I'd like to expose myself to many different opinions and interpretations of the news. I am dependent on certain media Web sites because there is never enough time to read everything I want to.
I also really don't like to read conservative opinions in the news even though I know I should. I always laugh when I get e-mails from David Horowitz, a conservative author and activist, who I interviewed when I was a sophomore. Two years later, I'm still included on mass e-mail lists from the David Horowitz Freedom Center bashing the left and liberal media.
As news editor though I do tend to skim through the Catholic News Service to keep track of Catholic things that we might want to cover for the school newspaper, but I don't enjoy it. I do it because I have to for my job. I don't independently seek out this alternative news source.
The common experiences section of the Sunstein article made me think of the one thing almost everyone in my generation and now many in yours do share: Facebook.
In terms of media consumption, my newsfeed is filled with my conservative and liberal friends posting articles from different media outlets that they're read. Whether I disagree with them/would have sought them out myself/have already it, I still see them and sometimes read them.
People keep telling me journalists will just work online and everything will be fine. Yet while news consumption is actually UP meaning more people are reading more news people are reading it all online. This report from Paid Content shows that readers in the UK who report reading newspaper has also slightly increased while circulation is still down.
While the media has many different definitions, the mainstream media particularly the print medium that I love makes me more depressed with every news story I read particularly this one about the closure of the Chicago Tribune Beijing bureau, which I visited when I was in China last year.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Agenda Setting
I will be honest and say that I voted for Barack Obama. The mainstream media also seemed to be behind the Democratic candidate even though they struggled to remain objective in their reporting I'm sure it was had to do so as the nation was being swept up in Obamamania.
Was it on the American media's "agenda" to get Barack Obama elected President of the United States? Maybe.
He is Number 44 on the List of Stuff Journalists Like.
The Media Research Center, which bills itself as America's Media Watchdog, was highly critical of the mainstream media during the 2008 presidential election for its praiseful coverage of the presidential candidate.
But if Barack Obama leads this country into an untimely demise (i.e. the economy doesn't recover, there's another terrorist attack or China calls in all those loans) will the media again be criticized for playing the cheerleader role like it was after the Iraq War went poorly?
The Phoenix advisor Bob Herguth and I have this discussion time and time again because I want to tell the story exactly how it happens and he always wants me to play up the most sensational parts. In my opinion, that would be agenda-setting because I'm choosing what's most important for my readers instead of giving them all the information and letting them decide.
I know what it means to pull the most interesting information into my lead to make sure my readers stay engaged in the story, however, I'm torn between playing up the most interesting parts to the point where everything that might be important to readers but I deemed unimportant doesn't even make it into the final draft.
It's a fine line that journalists walk, but if we don't walk that line then both the profession and our viewers lose out.
P.S. (I chose that video because even though I'm already critical of some of Barack Obama's policies it still gives me chills. When LeeAnn covered the event in Grant Park she was dying to write a firsthand report because she was having trouble not cheerleading because the emotion of the election was so high and meant so much you would have to be a robot not to feel it.)
Was it on the American media's "agenda" to get Barack Obama elected President of the United States? Maybe.
He is Number 44 on the List of Stuff Journalists Like.
The Media Research Center, which bills itself as America's Media Watchdog, was highly critical of the mainstream media during the 2008 presidential election for its praiseful coverage of the presidential candidate.
But if Barack Obama leads this country into an untimely demise (i.e. the economy doesn't recover, there's another terrorist attack or China calls in all those loans) will the media again be criticized for playing the cheerleader role like it was after the Iraq War went poorly?
The Phoenix advisor Bob Herguth and I have this discussion time and time again because I want to tell the story exactly how it happens and he always wants me to play up the most sensational parts. In my opinion, that would be agenda-setting because I'm choosing what's most important for my readers instead of giving them all the information and letting them decide.
I know what it means to pull the most interesting information into my lead to make sure my readers stay engaged in the story, however, I'm torn between playing up the most interesting parts to the point where everything that might be important to readers but I deemed unimportant doesn't even make it into the final draft.
It's a fine line that journalists walk, but if we don't walk that line then both the profession and our viewers lose out.
P.S. (I chose that video because even though I'm already critical of some of Barack Obama's policies it still gives me chills. When LeeAnn covered the event in Grant Park she was dying to write a firsthand report because she was having trouble not cheerleading because the emotion of the election was so high and meant so much you would have to be a robot not to feel it.)
Sunday, March 8, 2009
MTV
As a journalist, I understand the need for public relations, but as a field I'm completely opposed to ever joining it because I feel like it's fundamentally dishonest. After reading about Bernays' writings, I think even less of the field because it was founded upon making sure the aristocracy could still rule the masses they just had to make sure the masses understood what was for the common good. "The public claiming the birthright of democratic citizenship and social justice increasingly called upon institutions and people in power to justify themselves and their privileges."
This passage makes it seem like Bernays was actually opposed to a more justice and democratic world, which as an advocate of social justice I strongly disagree.
There's a friendly competition between the public relations and journalism majors. (At least between the chairs of the departments when it comes to recruiting students.) I don't have much interaction with many public relations majors because I'm so involved in journalism field. I think it's important for everyone to know how to market themselves to future employers, but I feel public relations just teaches you to frame whatever product, idea or person in a positive way because you are paid to do so.
If I were forced to go into public relations to pay off my insane student loans, I would have to do PR for a non-profit that had a mission that I actually believed in so that I wouldn't hate myself for selling out.
The PR people I've talked to actually seem to believe what they're telling me even when I can tell they're full of it, but that's their job I suppose.
The midriff section of the video was actually really depressing. I'm not that much older than a teenager and I still remember having to have this type of outfit and do these type of things to be cool, but I went school with the same 200 kids for seven years so all that kind of faded once we were sophomores in high school.
However, I do think that the public perception of young women and women's perceptions of what they should look like dramatically effect the extraordinary rate of eating disorders in this country. According to the National Eating Disorder Association, as many as 10 million women suffer from eating disorders. I can personally attest to an outrageous rate of eating disorders among my college friends.
Yet we are still celebrating the fabricated ideal image that is Barbie 50 years later. This idea has been packaged to women our entire lives. According to this CNN report, Barbie was originally based on a German doll that was a gag gift for men. The Lilli doll was a cartoon character who used sex to get what she wanted so the ideal image of a woman is actually based on a prostitute.
If I ever have children they won't play with Barbies because of the vast disparity between what woman actually look like and what marketing tells us they should look like. If Barbie were a real women, she'd be 7 feet tall, have FF breasts, and she would probably die from malnutrition because her waist is too small to fit the appropriate intestines needed to survive.
This passage makes it seem like Bernays was actually opposed to a more justice and democratic world, which as an advocate of social justice I strongly disagree.
There's a friendly competition between the public relations and journalism majors. (At least between the chairs of the departments when it comes to recruiting students.) I don't have much interaction with many public relations majors because I'm so involved in journalism field. I think it's important for everyone to know how to market themselves to future employers, but I feel public relations just teaches you to frame whatever product, idea or person in a positive way because you are paid to do so.
If I were forced to go into public relations to pay off my insane student loans, I would have to do PR for a non-profit that had a mission that I actually believed in so that I wouldn't hate myself for selling out.
The PR people I've talked to actually seem to believe what they're telling me even when I can tell they're full of it, but that's their job I suppose.
The midriff section of the video was actually really depressing. I'm not that much older than a teenager and I still remember having to have this type of outfit and do these type of things to be cool, but I went school with the same 200 kids for seven years so all that kind of faded once we were sophomores in high school.
However, I do think that the public perception of young women and women's perceptions of what they should look like dramatically effect the extraordinary rate of eating disorders in this country. According to the National Eating Disorder Association, as many as 10 million women suffer from eating disorders. I can personally attest to an outrageous rate of eating disorders among my college friends.
Yet we are still celebrating the fabricated ideal image that is Barbie 50 years later. This idea has been packaged to women our entire lives. According to this CNN report, Barbie was originally based on a German doll that was a gag gift for men. The Lilli doll was a cartoon character who used sex to get what she wanted so the ideal image of a woman is actually based on a prostitute.
If I ever have children they won't play with Barbies because of the vast disparity between what woman actually look like and what marketing tells us they should look like. If Barbie were a real women, she'd be 7 feet tall, have FF breasts, and she would probably die from malnutrition because her waist is too small to fit the appropriate intestines needed to survive.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Feminist Theory
As a sophomore in college, I was planning to stay in Chicago for a summer journalism internship. I was short on funds so I decided to apply for the Chicago chapter of the Association for Women Journalists summer scholarship.
I asked one of my mentors/professors to write me a recommendation letter, which she was happy to do, but with a small warning. She wanted me to know that she hadn't ever put much stock in organizations that are for subgroups of the profession. "We're all journalists," she said. "Regardless of our gender or our race."
This was a woman who was in the newsroom being her tough, hard-nosed journalist self while the men around her doubted her right and/or ability to be there.
In all of the newsrooms I've been in since then, either visiting or working, I've never felt that anyone doubted my right to be there because I was a woman. I've never had a man talk down to me in an interview because I'm just a little girl reporter. I know our society is not "post-gender" but it just does not make any sense to me that my gender would ever hold me back. However, the numbers don't lie so in the Alternet article, I agree that women benefit from the feminist media because it promotes their interests. Hopefully, there will be a time when the numbers are more equally and people aren't just getting old, white, uppermiddleclass men's view of the news.
In other related news, there has been controversy at the Loyola Phoenix about a shout-out done by the Sports Section (run by two males), but read by the copy editors, managing editor and the editor-in-chief (six females) before it went to press.
The offensive statement written by Raf Onak read: "Rihanna should have known that Brown doesn't take any crap from anyone: Is ya man, on the flow? If he ain't let me know. Let me see if you can run it, run it, girl indeed I can run it, run it. Obviously he's a man who likes to be in charge."
The apology also written by Onak read: "In response to 12.11.09's Shout-Out to Chris Brown, I apologize to my fellow students, professors and administrators who were offended and disappointed by the crude comments. The decision to ridicule domestic violence was inappropriate and ill-considered. I did not intend to condone or reward the event that occurred. Neither I, nor the Loyola Phoenix as a newspaper, justifies domestic abuse in any way, shape or form. The Shout-Out to Brown was intended to be a joke and was not aimed to hurt anyone. We apologize to those who were dismayed in the process and appreciate the letters of concern."
Personally, I don't have the responsibility of reading the sports section before it goes to press. The editor-in-chief and managing editor were not aware of the Chris Brown/Rihanna domestic abuse situation, therefore, they read it and didn't think twice about it. I conveyed to them my deep disappointment in them and in Onak for writing such an absurdly offensive "joke" in the Phoenix that represents the student body and that the whole staff pours so much energy into just to see our reputation harmed by his carelessness.
The Women Studies and Gender Studies department are holding a forum to further discuss the issue of domestic abuse in the media. It is important that these women have brought this important topic to the forefront of the university's attention. However, I believe the Phoenix as part of the media has a greater responsibility to take a role in the dialogue that is continuing on campus. It is important to acknowledge the role we play in creating dialogue about women and gender issues such as this.
I asked one of my mentors/professors to write me a recommendation letter, which she was happy to do, but with a small warning. She wanted me to know that she hadn't ever put much stock in organizations that are for subgroups of the profession. "We're all journalists," she said. "Regardless of our gender or our race."
This was a woman who was in the newsroom being her tough, hard-nosed journalist self while the men around her doubted her right and/or ability to be there.
In all of the newsrooms I've been in since then, either visiting or working, I've never felt that anyone doubted my right to be there because I was a woman. I've never had a man talk down to me in an interview because I'm just a little girl reporter. I know our society is not "post-gender" but it just does not make any sense to me that my gender would ever hold me back. However, the numbers don't lie so in the Alternet article, I agree that women benefit from the feminist media because it promotes their interests. Hopefully, there will be a time when the numbers are more equally and people aren't just getting old, white, uppermiddleclass men's view of the news.
In other related news, there has been controversy at the Loyola Phoenix about a shout-out done by the Sports Section (run by two males), but read by the copy editors, managing editor and the editor-in-chief (six females) before it went to press.
The offensive statement written by Raf Onak read: "Rihanna should have known that Brown doesn't take any crap from anyone: Is ya man, on the flow? If he ain't let me know. Let me see if you can run it, run it, girl indeed I can run it, run it. Obviously he's a man who likes to be in charge."
The apology also written by Onak read: "In response to 12.11.09's Shout-Out to Chris Brown, I apologize to my fellow students, professors and administrators who were offended and disappointed by the crude comments. The decision to ridicule domestic violence was inappropriate and ill-considered. I did not intend to condone or reward the event that occurred. Neither I, nor the Loyola Phoenix as a newspaper, justifies domestic abuse in any way, shape or form. The Shout-Out to Brown was intended to be a joke and was not aimed to hurt anyone. We apologize to those who were dismayed in the process and appreciate the letters of concern."
Personally, I don't have the responsibility of reading the sports section before it goes to press. The editor-in-chief and managing editor were not aware of the Chris Brown/Rihanna domestic abuse situation, therefore, they read it and didn't think twice about it. I conveyed to them my deep disappointment in them and in Onak for writing such an absurdly offensive "joke" in the Phoenix that represents the student body and that the whole staff pours so much energy into just to see our reputation harmed by his carelessness.
The Women Studies and Gender Studies department are holding a forum to further discuss the issue of domestic abuse in the media. It is important that these women have brought this important topic to the forefront of the university's attention. However, I believe the Phoenix as part of the media has a greater responsibility to take a role in the dialogue that is continuing on campus. It is important to acknowledge the role we play in creating dialogue about women and gender issues such as this.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
text messaging
"We consider that a society has a network of communications systems, we can see that there are key junctures or nodal points where significant information is stored, and from where it is transmitted to other parts of the system ... individuals or groups who control access to those points wield great power."
Information is such an important commodity that the control of information comes into play in any power struggle situation.
"The organized church comes immediately to mind, as does insider trading."
These two organizations being compared is very interesting to him because the control of information, depending on what the information is and who is controlling it, can have vastly different impacts.
These theories about information and power get my passion for journalism fired up (even though it's been kind of depressing to love journalism so much these days). Journalism is about effectively and fairly delivering information. It bothers me so much when people criticize the media about not supplying accurate information when really that should be the mission of all journalists. Journalists are not part of the establishment or at least I think they shouldn't be. It isn't the journalists versus the public. It is us versus them, the people versus the establishment, but journalists are part of the people!
One example of this in the media is the John Mayer song, "Waiting on the World to Change," where he sings
"When you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cuz when they own the information ooohhh,
They can bend it all they want."
Well, while you're waiting, Mr. Mayer, and criticizing the media. They're out there trying to change the world by supplying the public with the information they deserve.
On a short note about the text messaging article, I think communicate skills will be maintained even though people text so much. I honestly believe that article blows it all a little out of proportion, but I do worry about the literacy issue and young adults thinking it's acceptable to write like they text-talk. However, I found this very interesting article from Technology Review, which argues that you used to be able to be semi-literate and still function socially, but now with technology you need to be fully literate to be able to communicate online so technology actually creates more motivation for literacy.
Finally, though with technology and social life there are so many different ways to connect with people. However, it's not always communication that you want ... like break-ups on text messages. I thought Drew Barrymore's quote from the end of this trailer for the movie, He's Just Not That Into You sums up how technology can be a really downer.
Information is such an important commodity that the control of information comes into play in any power struggle situation.
"The organized church comes immediately to mind, as does insider trading."
These two organizations being compared is very interesting to him because the control of information, depending on what the information is and who is controlling it, can have vastly different impacts.
These theories about information and power get my passion for journalism fired up (even though it's been kind of depressing to love journalism so much these days). Journalism is about effectively and fairly delivering information. It bothers me so much when people criticize the media about not supplying accurate information when really that should be the mission of all journalists. Journalists are not part of the establishment or at least I think they shouldn't be. It isn't the journalists versus the public. It is us versus them, the people versus the establishment, but journalists are part of the people!
One example of this in the media is the John Mayer song, "Waiting on the World to Change," where he sings
"When you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cuz when they own the information ooohhh,
They can bend it all they want."
Well, while you're waiting, Mr. Mayer, and criticizing the media. They're out there trying to change the world by supplying the public with the information they deserve.
On a short note about the text messaging article, I think communicate skills will be maintained even though people text so much. I honestly believe that article blows it all a little out of proportion, but I do worry about the literacy issue and young adults thinking it's acceptable to write like they text-talk. However, I found this very interesting article from Technology Review, which argues that you used to be able to be semi-literate and still function socially, but now with technology you need to be fully literate to be able to communicate online so technology actually creates more motivation for literacy.
Finally, though with technology and social life there are so many different ways to connect with people. However, it's not always communication that you want ... like break-ups on text messages. I thought Drew Barrymore's quote from the end of this trailer for the movie, He's Just Not That Into You sums up how technology can be a really downer.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Video Games and Violence
Though this YouTube video was obviously made by kids and it kind of freaks me out, I think it is a huge stretch to assume that if a kid plays violent video games he or she will be more aggressive, violent, and might end up as a sociopath.
A recent article by Michael Ubaldi is cleverly entitled Care and Feeding of Your Scapegoat. I agree with Ubaldi's argument that we want to find someone or something to blame for the decline of society so we don't have to look at ourselves and ask what we're doing wrong. Instead, we want to say that the reason for the Columbine school shootings is obviously: those kids listened to Marilyn Manson, were obsessed with Hitler and played violent video games. But Ubaldi cites a study by Christopher Ferguson, professor at the Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice Department of Texas A&M University. Ferguson's research had similar findings to Dmitri Williams of the University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign. Ferguson argues that "the Columbine murderers, shooters aren't warped video game addicts, nor do they give significant attention to the hobby, but instead are by all appearances plain, old sociopaths." This may seem obvious, yet it is not often enough discussed about the behavioral issues children already have regardless of the amount of video games they play.
My generation has become extremely desensitized to violence. Guns on T.V. don't even phase me, neither do bombs, murders, rapes, or any of the other unpleasant things that are on every television program and the nightly news. Maybe this speaks to my parent's laisezz-faire attitude to raising children, but I don't remember not being able to watch any movies when I was younger even if they had violence in them. They even let me want X-files, which gave me nightmares. (The music still freaks me out to this day and I hate it.) Regardless of my personal experiences, my generation has been constantly surrounded by media our entire lives. You can keep it on the Disney Channel 24/7, but even in Sleeping Beauty Prince Charming slays the dragon by stabbing it directly in the heart.
For young children, there are many more positive media experiences for them to have (or better yet they could go outside and play). It doesn't make sense to expose them to violence regardless of its effects. I guess it is my lack of game playing experience that leaves me unable to rationalize why playing violent video games could possibly be fun.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Semiotics
The articles for this week were very, very dense. Though I believe I understand the basic concepts of semiotics now I feel a little overwhelmed with jargon.
One thing I wish would have been explored further is the cultural aspect of semiotics. It is touched on in all the articles, but never fully explored. I find it interesting that semiotics has became a very intercultural discipline. The study of signs and how they are interpreted varies greatly between cultures, which in turn would make cross cultural studies extremely fascinating.
In the Chandler article, there is a very interesting quote from anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss who coined the term bricolage: "the process of creating something is not a matter of the calculated choice and use of whatever materials are technically best-adapted to a clearly predetermined purpose, but rather it involves a 'dialogue with the materials and means of execution."
In the discussion of the role mediums play in semiotics, my mind automatically went to the different mediums that media uses to communicate with audiences. While the content is about the same whether you hear a news story on a television, radio or read it in a newspaper, magazine or on the Web the way you interpret it might be different because of the medium. (Newspapers and magazines are always the best because I love to read and there is more time to give the depth of the issue than on most television and radio programs. YAY PRINT!)
In reference to the Gorny article, I find it very ironic while semiotics can be broadly seen as a study in communications field no one can efficiently communicate what the semiotics actually is. But at least Gorny, as a semiotician, has a sense of humor, as seen by this quote, "SEMIOTICS IS THAT WHICH IS CALLED SEMIOTICS BY THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES SEMIOTICIANS."
In this video clip, Blagojevich was trying to send a more forceful message by using expletives, but he was the one who got the message from Senate: "You're impeached!" (I watched this video at least six times.)
An hilarious example of semiotics is the signs all around Illinois with Rod Blagojevich's name on them, which are being taken down as I type. The signs used to communicate the governor and its ability to provide services to the people of Illinois. However, they have come to be associated with the corruption of Illinois' politics particularly the governor's office. Gov. Pat Quinn is trying to communicate the removal as a sign of the end of the Blagojevich scandal and the beginning of better governing in Illinois. One can only hope.
Also in the CNN article, is the statement, An employee standing nearby as the picture was taken away said, "Do we need someone to throw a shoe?"
Late last year, an Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush during a press conference in Iraq to communicate his hatred and disgust of Bush's policies in Iraq over the past six years. This reference has resurfaced throughout American culture. I also read an account of shoes being thrown at signs with Bush's picture during the inauguration. While this is a very deep insult in Iraqi culture, it has now become a part of American culture as well. This demonstrates the increased inconnectedness of signs in a globalized world.
One thing I wish would have been explored further is the cultural aspect of semiotics. It is touched on in all the articles, but never fully explored. I find it interesting that semiotics has became a very intercultural discipline. The study of signs and how they are interpreted varies greatly between cultures, which in turn would make cross cultural studies extremely fascinating.
In the Chandler article, there is a very interesting quote from anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss who coined the term bricolage: "the process of creating something is not a matter of the calculated choice and use of whatever materials are technically best-adapted to a clearly predetermined purpose, but rather it involves a 'dialogue with the materials and means of execution."
In the discussion of the role mediums play in semiotics, my mind automatically went to the different mediums that media uses to communicate with audiences. While the content is about the same whether you hear a news story on a television, radio or read it in a newspaper, magazine or on the Web the way you interpret it might be different because of the medium. (Newspapers and magazines are always the best because I love to read and there is more time to give the depth of the issue than on most television and radio programs. YAY PRINT!)
In reference to the Gorny article, I find it very ironic while semiotics can be broadly seen as a study in communications field no one can efficiently communicate what the semiotics actually is. But at least Gorny, as a semiotician, has a sense of humor, as seen by this quote, "SEMIOTICS IS THAT WHICH IS CALLED SEMIOTICS BY THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES SEMIOTICIANS."
In this video clip, Blagojevich was trying to send a more forceful message by using expletives, but he was the one who got the message from Senate: "You're impeached!" (I watched this video at least six times.)
An hilarious example of semiotics is the signs all around Illinois with Rod Blagojevich's name on them, which are being taken down as I type. The signs used to communicate the governor and its ability to provide services to the people of Illinois. However, they have come to be associated with the corruption of Illinois' politics particularly the governor's office. Gov. Pat Quinn is trying to communicate the removal as a sign of the end of the Blagojevich scandal and the beginning of better governing in Illinois. One can only hope.
Also in the CNN article, is the statement, An employee standing nearby as the picture was taken away said, "Do we need someone to throw a shoe?"
Late last year, an Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush during a press conference in Iraq to communicate his hatred and disgust of Bush's policies in Iraq over the past six years. This reference has resurfaced throughout American culture. I also read an account of shoes being thrown at signs with Bush's picture during the inauguration. While this is a very deep insult in Iraqi culture, it has now become a part of American culture as well. This demonstrates the increased inconnectedness of signs in a globalized world.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Safir-Whorf hypothesis seems very logical to me because it is in the discussion of concepts that makes the concepts resonant with us. The words social justice have different meaning to me than they would a Chinese person because of the historical linguistic meanings of words and their combinations have been vastly different in the two different cultures.
This article in the Economist discusses Darwinist concepts, but what interested me the most is the Darwinist theory that justice is “probably an evolved phenomenon.”
The discourse in Western society and in SAE languages over centuries influenced by the Enlightenment, the Protestant Reformation, and even as far back as the ancient Greeks and Romans has probably contributed to the evolution of the sense of justice.
To connect this to the concept of e-mail, I think my generation thinks much differently about e-mail but our thought processes are still evolutionarily linked to spoken communication. I don’t think e-mail has been around long enough to actually affect our thought processes yet.
However, I do think many people I know could benefit from the Jerz article. I’ve received the strangest, most informal e-mails that I find extremely rude because the person has not taken the time to greet me, identify themselves, and identify their reason for e-mailing. Any time you’re e-mailing someone you’re taking up some of his or her time. It is only polite to take up as little as possible by being direct as possible about what it is you want from that person.
This article in the Economist discusses Darwinist concepts, but what interested me the most is the Darwinist theory that justice is “probably an evolved phenomenon.”
The discourse in Western society and in SAE languages over centuries influenced by the Enlightenment, the Protestant Reformation, and even as far back as the ancient Greeks and Romans has probably contributed to the evolution of the sense of justice.
To connect this to the concept of e-mail, I think my generation thinks much differently about e-mail but our thought processes are still evolutionarily linked to spoken communication. I don’t think e-mail has been around long enough to actually affect our thought processes yet.
However, I do think many people I know could benefit from the Jerz article. I’ve received the strangest, most informal e-mails that I find extremely rude because the person has not taken the time to greet me, identify themselves, and identify their reason for e-mailing. Any time you’re e-mailing someone you’re taking up some of his or her time. It is only polite to take up as little as possible by being direct as possible about what it is you want from that person.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)