For this weeks "Worth a Look" I chose the story "The Media's Olympics." The link is here: http://www.journalism.org/node/12484
This story focused on where the media focused it's attention in the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. As we all know Michael Phelps was the star of the games, but it was amazing to me statistically how little any other Olympic athletes were featured in the media. The article stated that Swimming and diving filled 38% of the news coverage and that was four times the next nearest sport and other than gymnastics and track and field no other sport received even 1%. My question for the media is why is this? Why did the media chose to focus all of it's efforts and time on just one major focus. Granted Michael Phelps broke numerous records and is a truly amazing athlete, everyone at the Olympics is an amazing athlete, that is why they are there. We have been talking about bias in class and I think looking into a story like this is a great example of bias.
Misty May and Kerri Walsh won their 112th consecutive game and the Gold Medal in China, but still their accomplishments were not covered nearly as intensely as Michael Phelps. I think as journalist students we need to ask ourselves why this is? Is it because they are women? Do people just not care about beach Volley Ball? What makes swimming so special?
Another interesting question we could ask ourselves would be, how did we in the U.S. cover the Summer Olympics opposed to different countries coverage? Did other countries spread their coverage out over all of the different sports? We as journalists are responsible for covering things equally and as the statistics prove in this article that is not what was done. By giving such little attention to other sports we hindered the country from seeing/focusing on all of the great accomplishments at the Olympics and only focusing on very few.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20512
I thought that this article highlighted a very real issue: if the First Amendment grants the freedom of both speech and press, how can any institution [in this case, political] draw a line over which journalists should not cross? Despite the fact that the cartoon, published in LareDOS, and alternative newspaper, cast Mayor Salinas in a poor light, it is the right of the paper to present him in this fashion. However, should the publication be allowed to "criticize" him for the role he had in approving "the lease or sale of city airport property for a mall on land that includes the Casa Blanca wetland"? Having not seen the original article, it's easy for me to say that the journalists who wrote it should have played the part of a neutral party, rather than criticizing the mayor. Regardless of the role that the paper played, it never should have been removed from city hall; by removing the publication, Mayor Salinas was effectively removing the rights of the First Amendment.
On page two of our reading, Kovach and Rosentiel write that "We need news to live our lives...protect ourselves... [and] identify friends and enemies." When a publication is pulled from City Hall, what do the citizens have to rely on? Mayor Salinas clearly violated the First Amendment when he was caught on video removing the papers; no matter how badly he was presented in the article, his own actions dug him into an even deeper ditch.
Along the same line, I think it's very important to ask what happens when news is distorted? Can citizens really rely on news to draw lines between friends and enemies? Likewise, what happens when news cannot be reported for safety reasons [i.e. military tactics, etc.] Does this "half news" really provide citizens with enough information to draw real conclusions about who their friends and foes should be? In relation to LareDOS, news presented with a liberal/conservative bias obviously shapes opinions differently. With all of these factors, I think it's important to think about how we as journalists can be counted on to be trustworthy.
I thought that this article highlighted a very real issue: if the First Amendment grants the freedom of both speech and press, how can any institution [in this case, political] draw a line over which journalists should not cross? Despite the fact that the cartoon, published in LareDOS, and alternative newspaper, cast Mayor Salinas in a poor light, it is the right of the paper to present him in this fashion. However, should the publication be allowed to "criticize" him for the role he had in approving "the lease or sale of city airport property for a mall on land that includes the Casa Blanca wetland"? Having not seen the original article, it's easy for me to say that the journalists who wrote it should have played the part of a neutral party, rather than criticizing the mayor. Regardless of the role that the paper played, it never should have been removed from city hall; by removing the publication, Mayor Salinas was effectively removing the rights of the First Amendment.
On page two of our reading, Kovach and Rosentiel write that "We need news to live our lives...protect ourselves... [and] identify friends and enemies." When a publication is pulled from City Hall, what do the citizens have to rely on? Mayor Salinas clearly violated the First Amendment when he was caught on video removing the papers; no matter how badly he was presented in the article, his own actions dug him into an even deeper ditch.
Along the same line, I think it's very important to ask what happens when news is distorted? Can citizens really rely on news to draw lines between friends and enemies? Likewise, what happens when news cannot be reported for safety reasons [i.e. military tactics, etc.] Does this "half news" really provide citizens with enough information to draw real conclusions about who their friends and foes should be? In relation to LareDOS, news presented with a liberal/conservative bias obviously shapes opinions differently. With all of these factors, I think it's important to think about how we as journalists can be counted on to be trustworthy.
Following NPR's Example?
This story caught my attention with its positive focus and its focus on NPR. With so many media websites and blogs pointing to what the industry does wrong, we need an example of credible news sources exemplifying strong journalistic techniques. As we are told repeatedly, the opportunities for error in the media industry are many (showing bias, getting the facts wrong, not utilizing the resources we've been given, not informing the public about issues that matter....). It's nice to see that some media types agree on credible sources to follow.
The focus on health care during this election season demonstrates rule number two in the journalism handbook: loyalty to its citizens. Their research showcased weaknesses in the system, but provided effective models for change in European countries. With the obvious weaknesses, should journalists be pressing candidates even more on proposed changes? Hopefully information revealed in a nonpartisan manner will involve more people in informed discussions about issues like health care.
Because it is nonprofit, NPR may just as well represent journalism in its purest form. Is it because they have no financial motivations that their coverage succeeds in appearing truly balanced and substantive? How can we emulate NPR's focus in the commercial sector? It's clearly difficult, with a mass audience more interested in the latest exploits of Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers' purity rings, and the status of A-Rod and Madonna's relationship. But all media can at least look to NPR as an example of how to exhibit all of the elements of journalism.
The focus on health care during this election season demonstrates rule number two in the journalism handbook: loyalty to its citizens. Their research showcased weaknesses in the system, but provided effective models for change in European countries. With the obvious weaknesses, should journalists be pressing candidates even more on proposed changes? Hopefully information revealed in a nonpartisan manner will involve more people in informed discussions about issues like health care.
Because it is nonprofit, NPR may just as well represent journalism in its purest form. Is it because they have no financial motivations that their coverage succeeds in appearing truly balanced and substantive? How can we emulate NPR's focus in the commercial sector? It's clearly difficult, with a mass audience more interested in the latest exploits of Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers' purity rings, and the status of A-Rod and Madonna's relationship. But all media can at least look to NPR as an example of how to exhibit all of the elements of journalism.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Deadline on "Free" Press in China
This story stood out for me. Over the summer, I read a critique of the Olympic games in Beijing. One of the writers pointed out the very difficult environment the Chinese authority create for a journalist. Now with the center of the media world focused on Beijing, the People's Republic of China "relaxed" the restrictions for the press for the duration of the games. However as Richard Lapchick reported for ESPN that was not the case. The latest story now is, despite the optimistic hopes of some, the PRC will reinstate their restrictions on journalists mid-October.
Several of ABC's announcers (I want to say Bob Costas and Matt Lauer) mentioned how the games presented the PRC with the chance to announce it's arrival as one of the world powers. I find that frightening. Frightening that a government can impose such authority over the presses while upseting Tibetan monks (they're monks, for God's sake! It's in their job description to be calm and peaceful!), and still become a global power, to the point where the rest of the world will be answering to them soon.
Kovach and Rosenstiel quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, "No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will." They conclude with, "A free press thus became the people's first claim on their government" (17). How then is the press and the people to respond to China's restrictions? What is the next step as far as global free press and how are we to go about getting there?
Several of ABC's announcers (I want to say Bob Costas and Matt Lauer) mentioned how the games presented the PRC with the chance to announce it's arrival as one of the world powers. I find that frightening. Frightening that a government can impose such authority over the presses while upseting Tibetan monks (they're monks, for God's sake! It's in their job description to be calm and peaceful!), and still become a global power, to the point where the rest of the world will be answering to them soon.
Kovach and Rosenstiel quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, "No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will." They conclude with, "A free press thus became the people's first claim on their government" (17). How then is the press and the people to respond to China's restrictions? What is the next step as far as global free press and how are we to go about getting there?
Should limits be imposed on "business" expenses?
I chose to blog about this story from the Poynter website, which discusses Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's large expenses on "business" trips. Since we have been talking about Palin a lot in class, the headline caught my eye. According to Al Tompkins, Palin charged $43, 490 in travel expenses to the state because her "duty station" is in Juneau, Alaska but she often works out of Anchorage so she can claim any spending in Anchorage as a business expense. I thought this might be a good article to talk about in class because Tompkins also addressed this trend as a common problem throughout the country, not just for Palin. Palin simply gets all of the bad press for it because she has been suddenly thrust into the national spotlight, but governor's in New York, Texas, and Wisconsin were all claiming similar travel expenses on their business trips. I was plesantly surprised to find out that the title ("Palin Claims Per Diems While Staying Home") wasn't entirely fitting and that the article actually provided some valuable information about our country's state executives.
With the amount of time we have spent in class talking about the amount of publicity Palin has been getting (good and bad), I thought that this article, which covers the entire spectrum of an issue people have been chastising Palin about, would be a good point for discussion. Also, on an unrelated note, I thought the end of this post would be a good place to plug my blog in for anyone interested in Michigan football or Detroit sports.
With the amount of time we have spent in class talking about the amount of publicity Palin has been getting (good and bad), I thought that this article, which covers the entire spectrum of an issue people have been chastising Palin about, would be a good point for discussion. Also, on an unrelated note, I thought the end of this post would be a good place to plug my blog in for anyone interested in Michigan football or Detroit sports.
Young Adults Overwhelmed by Election News
For this week's "Worth A Look," I chose a story published by Northwestern University, which I found on Poynter Online through the "Jim Romenesko's Media News" link. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/09/mmcstudy.html
I chose to blog about this story for a few reasons. First, the headline caught my attention because I certainly can sympathize with young people feeling overwhelmed by all the election coverage in the media -- after all, this topic dominates our news at the moment. As a young person, I do feel that it can be a bit overwhelming to sift through it all and attempt to take a stand or formulate an opinion; whether it be about a party, a presidential candidate or a running-mate/potential vice-president. And, while it is said that young people are the most important voters and have the most at stake and the most to say, this article posits that many young people are steering clear of 2008 election news on the internet because they feel bombarded with information and choices. I also chose this story for another reason: I feel that it relates to our reading thus far and our discussions of the elements of journalism -- specifically, element #2: "It's (journalism's) first loyalty is to citizens."
Bearing this in mind, journalists have a duty and an obligation to bring the news to the people. It is our job to inform people about that which they need and have a desire -- and also, have a right -- to know. If you look at this story in terms of this important element of journalism, it creates an interesting dichotomy between telling the people what they want and need to know, and telling them too much -- in essence, overwhelming them with information. While it is true that the majority of us, as Americans, feel a desire and a need to know what is going on with the election, is there a line to be drawn? Is there a such thing as too much information, just as there can be too little information? Is there a point where enough is enough; where we are being fed more than we need to know about the candidates, their running mates, and so forth (for instance, all the controversy about Bristol Palin's pregnancy)? Are Americans perhaps growing tired of all the election hubbub and therefore getting to the point where we almost don't care anymore? And, being both journalists AND citizens, do we look at this differently from those two standpoints? In other words, as journalists, do we feel the intense media coverage of the election is okay because it is "necessary" information, but as American citizens do we feel that it is overwhelming and just too much to process?
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/09/mmcstudy.html
I chose to blog about this story for a few reasons. First, the headline caught my attention because I certainly can sympathize with young people feeling overwhelmed by all the election coverage in the media -- after all, this topic dominates our news at the moment. As a young person, I do feel that it can be a bit overwhelming to sift through it all and attempt to take a stand or formulate an opinion; whether it be about a party, a presidential candidate or a running-mate/potential vice-president. And, while it is said that young people are the most important voters and have the most at stake and the most to say, this article posits that many young people are steering clear of 2008 election news on the internet because they feel bombarded with information and choices. I also chose this story for another reason: I feel that it relates to our reading thus far and our discussions of the elements of journalism -- specifically, element #2: "It's (journalism's) first loyalty is to citizens."
Bearing this in mind, journalists have a duty and an obligation to bring the news to the people. It is our job to inform people about that which they need and have a desire -- and also, have a right -- to know. If you look at this story in terms of this important element of journalism, it creates an interesting dichotomy between telling the people what they want and need to know, and telling them too much -- in essence, overwhelming them with information. While it is true that the majority of us, as Americans, feel a desire and a need to know what is going on with the election, is there a line to be drawn? Is there a such thing as too much information, just as there can be too little information? Is there a point where enough is enough; where we are being fed more than we need to know about the candidates, their running mates, and so forth (for instance, all the controversy about Bristol Palin's pregnancy)? Are Americans perhaps growing tired of all the election hubbub and therefore getting to the point where we almost don't care anymore? And, being both journalists AND citizens, do we look at this differently from those two standpoints? In other words, as journalists, do we feel the intense media coverage of the election is okay because it is "necessary" information, but as American citizens do we feel that it is overwhelming and just too much to process?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Should we have to bring papers to class?
Found this story on Romenesko at Poynter Online and thought it was especially appropriate for our class. Some NYU J-students don't think they should have to bring hard copy newspapers to class, and would rather do their news reading on the internet and iPhones. The third section titled "Getting beyond print" is what Poynter was primarily linking.
I don't know honestly know what to make of the writer. She claims to be a supporter (and "maven") of new media, but then says she is surprised to learn that people get paid to write blogs. I get the feeling when she sees the word "blog" she thinks Livejournal, instead of, say, the Huffington Post or other more news-oriented Web sites.
I do agree with her that forums like blogs and technology like iPhones need to be included in the discussion as a medium for journalism. But saying that the New York Times is a "a big waste of trees" is dumb. (Well it's dumb until they perfect the electronic newspaper)
But is does bring up a good point for those of here at UNH. Do you think it's worth paying to have the New York Times in class?
I personally think there's a wider breadth of national and international news than what we get in the Boston Globe, but am kind of annoyed that I'm also paying for news that I have absolutely no use for (i.e. NYC news and City oriented restaurant and Arts sections)
I don't know honestly know what to make of the writer. She claims to be a supporter (and "maven") of new media, but then says she is surprised to learn that people get paid to write blogs. I get the feeling when she sees the word "blog" she thinks Livejournal, instead of, say, the Huffington Post or other more news-oriented Web sites.
I do agree with her that forums like blogs and technology like iPhones need to be included in the discussion as a medium for journalism. But saying that the New York Times is a "a big waste of trees" is dumb. (Well it's dumb until they perfect the electronic newspaper)
But is does bring up a good point for those of here at UNH. Do you think it's worth paying to have the New York Times in class?
I personally think there's a wider breadth of national and international news than what we get in the Boston Globe, but am kind of annoyed that I'm also paying for news that I have absolutely no use for (i.e. NYC news and City oriented restaurant and Arts sections)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)