Monday, October 27, 2008
Ashamed to be a Journalist
Michael Malone, a longtime 4 generation journalist, has a refreshing column on the current demise of journalism http://tinyurl.com/mediasdecline. It is very similar to the comment made in class today about the reporter who retired because of the Anna Nicole Smith coverage. Where have the basics of journalism gone? How can media outlets be trusted when they back political candidates. They can be trusted now only as PR for that candidate and the values that candidate holds. Why has pride led journalist to leave journalism behind? We need a great awakening in the media. Some lines need to be drawn and soon. Trust in news sources is declining. If we cannot be trusted to give the facts where will people go? What will they be told? Will it be true? It is not our job it is our obligation and responsibility. We as journalists cannot take that charge as a boost to our ego, but as a weight we must carry. When you think you've become objective, forget it buddy you're nobody I want to get news from.
Good Journalism Rejected. Hello Censorship!
Recently Senator Jospeh Biden was interviewed by a Florida TV station and had the following experience http://tinyurl.com/6fobun . The Obama Campaign's reaction to the interview is what is more interesting than the reaction of Biden. No more interviews for asking tough questions? What is even better, is that no interviews until after the election. Sure every campaign has this right and the McCain campaign has tried to limit coverage, but really guys? How can we expect to do our jobs as journalists if we can only play slow pitch softball with politicians? We need some bean ball throwing, crashing at home plate, 100 mph pitch baseball. If the candidates don't want to play, find a new arena to play in. Americans have the right to know what our leaders will do. I cannot trust any politician no matter how long he has "served" us as long as he can't account for why he acts the way he does. We need to gauge their moral compass test their value judgement and leadership skills. Running and hiding is just fine when you get lost in the sea on congress, but as the head of the United States of America you cannot run and hide. As a journalist Barabara West was asking very legitimate questions. Often times we can tell they are good questions because the candidates don't want to answer them. That is journalism. McCain and Obama showed during the debates how well they could recite memorized responses and stump speeches. When they have interviews we see their glorious facade fade away. Journalism exposes, clarifies, and reports. Sugar coating is for posters and lapel pins.
Monday, October 13, 2008
When Whats Given Isn't Good Enough
The San Francisco Bay Area is home to some of the most outspoken progressive thinkers in the country. It sets the stage for activists from Berkley to San Francisco to San Jose to make national news about extravagant protests. In the midst of this mayhem, there is a radio station that has the self proclaimed mission to give "right thinking from the left coast." Hot Talk 560 KSFO is a conservative news talk radio that is home to former weatherman Brian Sussman. For twenty years Sussman was a highly regarded weatherman. He has left his green screen days behind him and taken us making a face on the radio. For several years he has accompanied the morning crew headed by Leee Rodgers, while also hosting his own drive time show in the afternoon. Now that he has been given the chance to speak about more than the weather he feels his passion for truth and right can be heard.
Sussman won't claim to be a typical "mainstream journalist." He makes it a point to let all sides peak their mind on the issues, but will not back down that "the right is right." Rather than fall into the stereotype of a radical with no facts, he emphasises heavily issues that he knows very well. His background as a meteorologist gives him a strong footing to fight what he believes is the lie about man made global warming. Sussman believes that journalism requiers all sides to be shown, and his role is to show what the big news netwroks won't aknowledge. While he doesn't share news that show both sides of the story, he feels he is filling a forgotten niche that people want to hear. Brian belives that democracy is kept alive by having more people educated on the issues rather than spoon fed information from an elite few.
Sussman won't claim to be a typical "mainstream journalist." He makes it a point to let all sides peak their mind on the issues, but will not back down that "the right is right." Rather than fall into the stereotype of a radical with no facts, he emphasises heavily issues that he knows very well. His background as a meteorologist gives him a strong footing to fight what he believes is the lie about man made global warming. Sussman believes that journalism requiers all sides to be shown, and his role is to show what the big news netwroks won't aknowledge. While he doesn't share news that show both sides of the story, he feels he is filling a forgotten niche that people want to hear. Brian belives that democracy is kept alive by having more people educated on the issues rather than spoon fed information from an elite few.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Electronic Journalism Gone too Far
I'll be the first to admit that the following individual was not trying to be a journalist, but I post this article to prove a point. David Kernell was charged with hacking Governor Sarah Palin's private email account. see http://tinyurl.com/hackingjournalist The 20 year old son of a democratic Tenessee state representative posted screen shots of her email on the internet.
After our discussion in class on Monday, I was thinking about the argument about presenting truth is journalism. This young man was doing just that. In some twisted way we can justify and condone his acts as those of an industrius journalist bent on ensuring that we know the kind of person Palin is. There is an obscene amount of information available to those who are desperate enough to get it. Where he crossed the line is he used deception to obtain it.
We need to know now as journalists, where will I say enough is enough and not cross the line. Yesterday at work in the classical 89 newsroom, my co-worker was doing a story on the elctronic voting machines that will be used for the first time in a general election here in Utah. The election official told him off the record that the county would be short on voting machines. It may not seem like a big deal, but really thats a big deal even in a state as lopsided as Utah. The reporter wanted to put that fact in his story, but be able to attribute it. He then called back and verified a few menial facts with the official and purposely burried the voting machine shortage fact in the list. The official said yes to all on the record. Now any way you paint it, he used deception. Should the official have been more attentive, yes. Is it the public's right to know that the state can't or won't provide the adequate amount of machines, yes. But where does the public's need to know cross the line of national security and privacy? In my opinion my co-worker did not cross the line, David Kernell did and he will pay.
This post is really to make you think. Where will I decide to just sit on information for the good of the public or an individual? When will I decide to omit information to respect another person, and sacrifice a scoop? You can print almost anythign you want, but should you?
That's why we have the Intelligence Identities Protection Act http://tinyurl.com/identityprotection. The public's opportunity to know does not mean it is ok for them to know. What say you?
After our discussion in class on Monday, I was thinking about the argument about presenting truth is journalism. This young man was doing just that. In some twisted way we can justify and condone his acts as those of an industrius journalist bent on ensuring that we know the kind of person Palin is. There is an obscene amount of information available to those who are desperate enough to get it. Where he crossed the line is he used deception to obtain it.
We need to know now as journalists, where will I say enough is enough and not cross the line. Yesterday at work in the classical 89 newsroom, my co-worker was doing a story on the elctronic voting machines that will be used for the first time in a general election here in Utah. The election official told him off the record that the county would be short on voting machines. It may not seem like a big deal, but really thats a big deal even in a state as lopsided as Utah. The reporter wanted to put that fact in his story, but be able to attribute it. He then called back and verified a few menial facts with the official and purposely burried the voting machine shortage fact in the list. The official said yes to all on the record. Now any way you paint it, he used deception. Should the official have been more attentive, yes. Is it the public's right to know that the state can't or won't provide the adequate amount of machines, yes. But where does the public's need to know cross the line of national security and privacy? In my opinion my co-worker did not cross the line, David Kernell did and he will pay.
This post is really to make you think. Where will I decide to just sit on information for the good of the public or an individual? When will I decide to omit information to respect another person, and sacrifice a scoop? You can print almost anythign you want, but should you?
That's why we have the Intelligence Identities Protection Act http://tinyurl.com/identityprotection. The public's opportunity to know does not mean it is ok for them to know. What say you?
Adapting to the Market: Thats whats happening to the news
The Frontline piece on what is happening to the news media brought out some very important issues about where our industry is going. They question the efficacy of large public owned newspapers and the credibility of the new electronic journalists. I believe that there is a lot of hype over what is simply the market shifting to please its audience. The news industry has proven to be very dynamic over the past two or three hundred years. It shouldn't surprise us that old methods and technologies will be phased out to meet the needs of a new generation.
I find it hard to believe that the consolidation of the news agencies will result in a horribly distorted market. The thirst for knowledge in toady's society is insatiable. If people were truly content with any information, there would be no market for bloggers, online news casts, and online news agencies. Despite the criticism from the mainstream journalists, the news is more subject to the viewers wants and needs. This development is a double edged sword. The viewers decide what is important to them and so they are fed. As the sword is swung the other way, other potentially important stories are left behind and people will only learn what they want to learn. With news commentary gaining more momentum over traditional news casts we can expect less news and more analysis.
We can have faith however that in our competitive market, if there is a void of more news and information, someone will fill it. Where there is profit to be made, you'll find a capitalist. America's rising generation has plenty of computer savvy capitalists. The example of rocketboom.com is a perfect to show how entrepreneurs will fill the void mainstream media outelts leave open. Information flows through what used to be gatekeepers without much control. People decide what is important, the media needs to tell us what is happening, why we should care, and how it will affect us.
Don't hold your breathe PBS, your old time journalists aren't making a comeback. They are stickin around in the 70's with thier polyester and liesure suits.
I find it hard to believe that the consolidation of the news agencies will result in a horribly distorted market. The thirst for knowledge in toady's society is insatiable. If people were truly content with any information, there would be no market for bloggers, online news casts, and online news agencies. Despite the criticism from the mainstream journalists, the news is more subject to the viewers wants and needs. This development is a double edged sword. The viewers decide what is important to them and so they are fed. As the sword is swung the other way, other potentially important stories are left behind and people will only learn what they want to learn. With news commentary gaining more momentum over traditional news casts we can expect less news and more analysis.
We can have faith however that in our competitive market, if there is a void of more news and information, someone will fill it. Where there is profit to be made, you'll find a capitalist. America's rising generation has plenty of computer savvy capitalists. The example of rocketboom.com is a perfect to show how entrepreneurs will fill the void mainstream media outelts leave open. Information flows through what used to be gatekeepers without much control. People decide what is important, the media needs to tell us what is happening, why we should care, and how it will affect us.
Don't hold your breathe PBS, your old time journalists aren't making a comeback. They are stickin around in the 70's with thier polyester and liesure suits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
