The semester is over, but da blog rolls on! Frankly, this story to me was too big NOT to blog on.
Anybody who follows sports knows that the NFL's Detroit Lions are on the verge of history. Bad history. They lost Sunday to the New Orleans Saints 42-7 to fall to 0-15 with one game to play in the season. No NFL team has finished a season winless since it was expanded to 16 games in 1978. To add insult to injury, a pesky flu bug has passed through the team. (Sick of losing?)
After Sunday's game, Lions head coach Rod Marinelli held his post-game press conference. Columnist Rob Parker of The Detroit News was there. Parker has asked Marinelli throughout the season about his defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, who is also Marinelli's son-in-law.
This question, however, was markedly different.
Parker asked, "On a light note, do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"
Marinelli ignored the question in the moment, but the sense of a personal attack has been a talking point throughout the sports media. I was listening to the Dan Patrick radio show when Adam Schefter of the NFL Network made an appearance and blasted Parker for becoming the story rather than reporting it.
Parker published an apology in his column Monday, saying that his relationship with Marinelli is "different". He also added the following:
"What might have seemed like a personal attack wasn't...Who knows, Marinelli, a straight shooter who never goes off script, might actually have given us a funny quote. He didn't. My attempt failed. And because of that, my attempt at humor may have seemed slighted, cruel, and even insensitive. For that, I apologize."
Parker also appeared on ESPN's "First Take", a morning show which he frequently contributes to, to explain his position. (Click the video)
Marinelli finally broke his silence Monday, saying Parker crossed the line "big time", saying that going after his daughter was out of bounds.
"I just think anytime you attack my daughter, I got a problem with that -- in a room of stink, and as a man, and it was premeditated," Marinelli said. "I think there's something wrong with that, yeah."
When asked if he had read Parker's apology, Marinelli responded: "I didn't read it, I was just told a little bit about it, and I don't accept anything."
Marinelli also told the media that any attempt to stir him up, as he believes Parker intended to do, is futile: "I can shoulder anything you bring -- easy. I can shoulder anything you bring."
In our class, among others, we talked frequently about the relationships between journalists and those they cover. Did Parker assume too much about his relationship with Marinelli? Is Parker's question be out of line, no matter how close he and Marinelli would be?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Da Final: Blog Edition
1. The Question of Objectivity
News judgment is a complex and mysterious process of triage that is left to journalists to perform
“The Big Picture, page 69
I had a particularly interesting experience with this idea firsthand while writing the benchmark article a couple of weeks ago. Without going into too much detail, I had a hands-on lesson acquainting myself with the need to be fair and balanced on the benchmark’s subject matter.
One side of the issue was, to me, laughably ludicrous. So, at first, I found it difficult to phrase the descriptions of that side without showing bias. I took a step back and realized that Professor Worsham and whoever else wrote out the explanation for the Benchmark probably felt the same way I did. However, they did all they could to present the information in such a way as to help us write about it objectively. I do not believe they would have assigned us this particular topic for the benchmark if they did not think we could be objective about it.
With this perspective in mind, I put my personal differences with the opinion aside, and wrote what I believe to be an objective article. I suppose I’ll know by the score I receive on it and whether or not I get into the program. Regardless, I feel a lot more confident in myself and my objectivity after the assignment.
That’s the way I hope it will be out in the real journalistic world. I hope that whoever assigns me my stories will know who I am and know what I am capable of. Since I am seeking to enter the sports journalism world, I know that objectivity will be key. So many national sports analysts are accused of “homerism” or rooting for the teams they either played on or are from. I want to try and avoid that perception on air, but that doesn’t mean I can’t root for my Cubbies.
2. The Question of Excellence
Ideals of excellence exist to raise standards of human achievement, or at least to keep us from slipping toward chaos or depravity.
“The Big Picture”, page 129
A lot of people, as “The Big Picture” points out, connect excellence to the sheer number of people who visit a web site, subscribe to a magazine, or pay to see a movie. For example, the #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was the remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. It received almost universally bad reviews, particularly when compared to the original. Yet because it sold $31 million worth of tickets over three days it becomes, as movies.yahoo.com reported, “an environmental as well as a political statement" according to Chris Aronson, Fox's senior vice president of domestic distribution. Huh?!? Since when did Keanu Reeves make any kind of statement beyond “I know kung fu” or “I am an F-B-I agent”?
I thought the most profound aspect of defining excellence in journalism comes from what “The Big Picture” described as “The Three Graces of Journalism”: Truth, Context, and Independence. All three are interconnected and inherently dependent upon each other. In any case, vigilance allows each of these to be amplified in order to use journalism as a means to its principal end: to inform the public of what is going on around them and allow them to decide what they will do about it. Excellence in journalism, I feel, must do both, even though most modern journalists only focus on the former nowadays.
In observing the website for KUTV Channel 2 in Salt Lake City throughout the semester, there was nothing to necessarily distinguish it as significantly “excellent”. There was the news of the day. There were polls seeking viewer input. There were blogs from the sports anchors and meteorologists (although none from the regular news anchors…hmm). But the thing more prominent than these to me was the ads. Ads were everywhere: big ads, small ads, ads as big as your head. Obviously, the businesses advertising on the page see it as excellent, otherwise they wouldn’t advertise there. Again, that excellence seems to be driven more by the number of visitors to KUTV’s site than the regular everyday news content of the site. Does that mean excellence is defined in our day by the number of ads a publication or newscast has? If so, heaven help us.
3. The Question of Truth
The most obvious precondition of good journalism – or even of mediocre journalism, for that matter – is truth.
“The Big Picture”, page 45
There’s an old-timey hymn in the LDS hymnbook which I really like, but we hardly ever sing. It’s Hymn 272, which is called, “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” I quote the second verse:
Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.
Since it’s in an LDS hymnbook, it’s safe to assume the “truth” referred to should have a capital “T”. Absolute truth is a concept we Mormons feel like we have a pretty good grasp on.
The quest for “journalistic” truth, although different, should inspire the same level of urgency. But we ask ourselves, “Oh say, what is journalistic truth?” In “The Big Picture”, truth is described as having two faces: getting it right and getting it all. Without it, there is no such thing as news; we merely engage in gossip, rumors, etc. Trouble is, we find ourselves in a news world appearing to be more concerned with viewership than depth of truth.
Another bout between truth and modern journalism is the willingness of the modern news viewer to act upon the “truth” they are given. If one merely allows news to come to them and nothing is done with that news, there may be an increase in knowledge, but not necessarily intelligence. Intelligence is defined in chapter five of “The Big Picture” as “our relative ability to assimilate, store, process, and apply knowledge” (85). Since the spectrum of “news” has been broadened (or lowered, if you’re a Koppelite), the modern news viewer’s knowledge likely follows the same pattern. The trouble comes with regards to the depth of this truth, and how it inspires change. When was the last time you or I were truly motivated to act by a news story we saw? What about for the regular John or Jane Doe?
4. The Question of the Future
The reality is that the abundance of news and ubiquity of choice do not necessarily translate into a better news environment for consumers.
“A New Model for News”, page 37
Old media is dying. There’s no getting around that. As we covered explicitly in class, the internet is the considerably less-than-silent killer. As the rising generation gets more tech-savvy, their news-gathering potential is limitless. However, though the generation itself is rising, some aspects of it are not. Rather than intimately connecting with an artist through a whole album, we pick only the song or songs we want from iTunes or Pandora. Instead of reading a whole newspaper or magazine, we head to Huffington Post, NYTimes.com, etc.
In the process, the depth and breadth of journalism is drying up, leaving behind it a shallow reservoir of headlines and recycled updates. I found the study in the AP’s “A New Model for News” eye-opening as I considered my own news viewing habits, particularly since I began this class. For whatever reason (perhaps you, Dr. Cressman) I started getting the Daily Herald delivered to my apartment at the beginning of the semester. At first, I was pretty excited getting the newspaper because I loved getting the paper at home growing up. However, I surprised myself when I hardly picked it up. When they started to pile up, we threw them out. When I wanted my news, I got on my handy laptop or (after Election Day) on my BlackBerry. The newspaper I once ran out to get every day was now just a nuisance.
What does this mean for my future? I still feel secure. Web sites still need people to write their content, after all. In fact, having done a lot of web writing this semester between my 239 blog and my e-magazine for my 101 class, I’ve come to enjoy it. I could comfortably write for a web site after experiencing what I have this semester. A quote from “Journalism 2.0” (page 8) really helps fortify these optimistic feelings:
This is a book about people, not technology. Sure, there’s a lot of technology in
the pages to follow, but if you boil it all down to its core, its essence, you’ll find
people trying to extend a noble and grounded craft into a new and unpredictable
landscape. And it’s the people who matter, not the latest software or Web site. If
the people in this equation learn how make technology work for them, the rest is
just details.
Amen, paragraph from a book I downloaded as a PDF. Amen.
5. The Question of Conduct
Ideology is a complicated blend of personality, experience, and principle.
“The Big Picture”, page 124
*I will always remember that I represent myself, my family, Brigham Young University, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*I will respect and admire the history of journalism, and seek to capture the vision of those who pioneered its virtues.
*As a sports journalist, I will recognize that truth is just as much what happens off the field, court, or rink as what happens on it. The quest for both is essential.
*I will seek to be loyal to my readers, my employer, and my sources.
*I will remove myself, whenever possible, from covering a story in which I could not escape blatant subjectivity or which would compromise my moral standards.
* I will be flexible and receptive to the changing innovations and advances in technology with respect to how it impacts journalism as a whole and my job as a journalist.
*I will seek to live up to a quote by the late journalist and author David Halberstam: “Being a professional means doing your job on the days you don’t feel like doing it.”
News judgment is a complex and mysterious process of triage that is left to journalists to perform
“The Big Picture, page 69
I had a particularly interesting experience with this idea firsthand while writing the benchmark article a couple of weeks ago. Without going into too much detail, I had a hands-on lesson acquainting myself with the need to be fair and balanced on the benchmark’s subject matter.
One side of the issue was, to me, laughably ludicrous. So, at first, I found it difficult to phrase the descriptions of that side without showing bias. I took a step back and realized that Professor Worsham and whoever else wrote out the explanation for the Benchmark probably felt the same way I did. However, they did all they could to present the information in such a way as to help us write about it objectively. I do not believe they would have assigned us this particular topic for the benchmark if they did not think we could be objective about it.
With this perspective in mind, I put my personal differences with the opinion aside, and wrote what I believe to be an objective article. I suppose I’ll know by the score I receive on it and whether or not I get into the program. Regardless, I feel a lot more confident in myself and my objectivity after the assignment.
That’s the way I hope it will be out in the real journalistic world. I hope that whoever assigns me my stories will know who I am and know what I am capable of. Since I am seeking to enter the sports journalism world, I know that objectivity will be key. So many national sports analysts are accused of “homerism” or rooting for the teams they either played on or are from. I want to try and avoid that perception on air, but that doesn’t mean I can’t root for my Cubbies.
2. The Question of Excellence
Ideals of excellence exist to raise standards of human achievement, or at least to keep us from slipping toward chaos or depravity.
“The Big Picture”, page 129
A lot of people, as “The Big Picture” points out, connect excellence to the sheer number of people who visit a web site, subscribe to a magazine, or pay to see a movie. For example, the #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was the remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. It received almost universally bad reviews, particularly when compared to the original. Yet because it sold $31 million worth of tickets over three days it becomes, as movies.yahoo.com reported, “an environmental as well as a political statement" according to Chris Aronson, Fox's senior vice president of domestic distribution. Huh?!? Since when did Keanu Reeves make any kind of statement beyond “I know kung fu” or “I am an F-B-I agent”?
I thought the most profound aspect of defining excellence in journalism comes from what “The Big Picture” described as “The Three Graces of Journalism”: Truth, Context, and Independence. All three are interconnected and inherently dependent upon each other. In any case, vigilance allows each of these to be amplified in order to use journalism as a means to its principal end: to inform the public of what is going on around them and allow them to decide what they will do about it. Excellence in journalism, I feel, must do both, even though most modern journalists only focus on the former nowadays.
In observing the website for KUTV Channel 2 in Salt Lake City throughout the semester, there was nothing to necessarily distinguish it as significantly “excellent”. There was the news of the day. There were polls seeking viewer input. There were blogs from the sports anchors and meteorologists (although none from the regular news anchors…hmm). But the thing more prominent than these to me was the ads. Ads were everywhere: big ads, small ads, ads as big as your head. Obviously, the businesses advertising on the page see it as excellent, otherwise they wouldn’t advertise there. Again, that excellence seems to be driven more by the number of visitors to KUTV’s site than the regular everyday news content of the site. Does that mean excellence is defined in our day by the number of ads a publication or newscast has? If so, heaven help us.
3. The Question of Truth
The most obvious precondition of good journalism – or even of mediocre journalism, for that matter – is truth.
“The Big Picture”, page 45
There’s an old-timey hymn in the LDS hymnbook which I really like, but we hardly ever sing. It’s Hymn 272, which is called, “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” I quote the second verse:
Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.
Since it’s in an LDS hymnbook, it’s safe to assume the “truth” referred to should have a capital “T”. Absolute truth is a concept we Mormons feel like we have a pretty good grasp on.
The quest for “journalistic” truth, although different, should inspire the same level of urgency. But we ask ourselves, “Oh say, what is journalistic truth?” In “The Big Picture”, truth is described as having two faces: getting it right and getting it all. Without it, there is no such thing as news; we merely engage in gossip, rumors, etc. Trouble is, we find ourselves in a news world appearing to be more concerned with viewership than depth of truth.
Another bout between truth and modern journalism is the willingness of the modern news viewer to act upon the “truth” they are given. If one merely allows news to come to them and nothing is done with that news, there may be an increase in knowledge, but not necessarily intelligence. Intelligence is defined in chapter five of “The Big Picture” as “our relative ability to assimilate, store, process, and apply knowledge” (85). Since the spectrum of “news” has been broadened (or lowered, if you’re a Koppelite), the modern news viewer’s knowledge likely follows the same pattern. The trouble comes with regards to the depth of this truth, and how it inspires change. When was the last time you or I were truly motivated to act by a news story we saw? What about for the regular John or Jane Doe?
4. The Question of the Future
The reality is that the abundance of news and ubiquity of choice do not necessarily translate into a better news environment for consumers.
“A New Model for News”, page 37
Old media is dying. There’s no getting around that. As we covered explicitly in class, the internet is the considerably less-than-silent killer. As the rising generation gets more tech-savvy, their news-gathering potential is limitless. However, though the generation itself is rising, some aspects of it are not. Rather than intimately connecting with an artist through a whole album, we pick only the song or songs we want from iTunes or Pandora. Instead of reading a whole newspaper or magazine, we head to Huffington Post, NYTimes.com, etc.
In the process, the depth and breadth of journalism is drying up, leaving behind it a shallow reservoir of headlines and recycled updates. I found the study in the AP’s “A New Model for News” eye-opening as I considered my own news viewing habits, particularly since I began this class. For whatever reason (perhaps you, Dr. Cressman) I started getting the Daily Herald delivered to my apartment at the beginning of the semester. At first, I was pretty excited getting the newspaper because I loved getting the paper at home growing up. However, I surprised myself when I hardly picked it up. When they started to pile up, we threw them out. When I wanted my news, I got on my handy laptop or (after Election Day) on my BlackBerry. The newspaper I once ran out to get every day was now just a nuisance.
What does this mean for my future? I still feel secure. Web sites still need people to write their content, after all. In fact, having done a lot of web writing this semester between my 239 blog and my e-magazine for my 101 class, I’ve come to enjoy it. I could comfortably write for a web site after experiencing what I have this semester. A quote from “Journalism 2.0” (page 8) really helps fortify these optimistic feelings:
This is a book about people, not technology. Sure, there’s a lot of technology in
the pages to follow, but if you boil it all down to its core, its essence, you’ll find
people trying to extend a noble and grounded craft into a new and unpredictable
landscape. And it’s the people who matter, not the latest software or Web site. If
the people in this equation learn how make technology work for them, the rest is
just details.
Amen, paragraph from a book I downloaded as a PDF. Amen.
5. The Question of Conduct
Ideology is a complicated blend of personality, experience, and principle.
“The Big Picture”, page 124
*I will always remember that I represent myself, my family, Brigham Young University, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*I will respect and admire the history of journalism, and seek to capture the vision of those who pioneered its virtues.
*As a sports journalist, I will recognize that truth is just as much what happens off the field, court, or rink as what happens on it. The quest for both is essential.
*I will seek to be loyal to my readers, my employer, and my sources.
*I will remove myself, whenever possible, from covering a story in which I could not escape blatant subjectivity or which would compromise my moral standards.
* I will be flexible and receptive to the changing innovations and advances in technology with respect to how it impacts journalism as a whole and my job as a journalist.
*I will seek to live up to a quote by the late journalist and author David Halberstam: “Being a professional means doing your job on the days you don’t feel like doing it.”
Monday, December 8, 2008
Mugshots: The Next Big Thing In Journalism?
An article on CNN.com caught my attention this morning which discussed the journalistic value of mugshots.
Wait, mugshots? You mean, the usually awful pictures they take of you when you are arrested?
Yep, the very same.
The CNN article notes that the use of mugshots in journalism is spreading, particularly in areas with high crime rates. For example, on the home pages of such newspapers as Newsday (New York City) and the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, there are links to mugshots of those recently arrested in the area.
The Palm Beach Post deputy managing editor, Tim Burke says the feature attracts several thousand clicks a day.
"It's just another way to get readers online," Burke said. "There's low risk and a high level of consumer saleability."
The article also explores a $1 Clearwater (Fla.) publication called "Local MugSHOTS", one of many weekly magazines filled with, well, local mugshots. It has a circulation of 250,000 in nine states.
Its publisher, Max Cannon, sees it as a public service, particularly in low/middle income communities.
"The publication seems to sell best where the crime takes place," Cannon said.
But couldn't one (myself) make the argument that this is just another form of sensationalistic journalism?
John Watson, associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington, DC was also interviewed for the article, and made a similar argument.
"Here's a bad guy. Is that a public service? Maybe if you look at it with a very jaundiced eye," Watson said. "If you were really doing a public service, you'd point out specifics."
CNN notes that "some publications, such as Local MugSHOTS, offer only names and charges, The Palm Beach Post adds the date and time of the arrest. Newsday provides a few paragraphs of details regarding the incident."
Imperfect though it may be, Watson sees the value in mugshot journalism.
"We like being frightened without being in actual peril," Watson said. "These are pictures of monsters who actually exist, and we can look at them from the safety of wherever we are, and they disappear when we close the book."
That may be true, but is just another example of giving the public something they want rather than something they need, as Ted Koppel would argue? Is this new journalistic fad because of the simplified tastes of the reader or the need of publications to entertain in order to attract readership? Is it both?
Wait, mugshots? You mean, the usually awful pictures they take of you when you are arrested?
Yep, the very same.
The CNN article notes that the use of mugshots in journalism is spreading, particularly in areas with high crime rates. For example, on the home pages of such newspapers as Newsday (New York City) and the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, there are links to mugshots of those recently arrested in the area.
The Palm Beach Post deputy managing editor, Tim Burke says the feature attracts several thousand clicks a day.
"It's just another way to get readers online," Burke said. "There's low risk and a high level of consumer saleability."
The article also explores a $1 Clearwater (Fla.) publication called "Local MugSHOTS", one of many weekly magazines filled with, well, local mugshots. It has a circulation of 250,000 in nine states.
Its publisher, Max Cannon, sees it as a public service, particularly in low/middle income communities.
"The publication seems to sell best where the crime takes place," Cannon said.
But couldn't one (myself) make the argument that this is just another form of sensationalistic journalism?
John Watson, associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington, DC was also interviewed for the article, and made a similar argument.
"Here's a bad guy. Is that a public service? Maybe if you look at it with a very jaundiced eye," Watson said. "If you were really doing a public service, you'd point out specifics."
CNN notes that "some publications, such as Local MugSHOTS, offer only names and charges, The Palm Beach Post adds the date and time of the arrest. Newsday provides a few paragraphs of details regarding the incident."
Imperfect though it may be, Watson sees the value in mugshot journalism.
"We like being frightened without being in actual peril," Watson said. "These are pictures of monsters who actually exist, and we can look at them from the safety of wherever we are, and they disappear when we close the book."
That may be true, but is just another example of giving the public something they want rather than something they need, as Ted Koppel would argue? Is this new journalistic fad because of the simplified tastes of the reader or the need of publications to entertain in order to attract readership? Is it both?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Statsaholic.com Shows Newspapers Playing Catch-Up Online
In my Comms 101 class last night, our professor, Robert Walz, introduced me to a website that I find fascinating. It's called Statsaholic.com, and it allows you to enter domain names and compare the web traffic between sites. For instance, you could discover whether Google or Yahoo! gets visited more from month to month (It's pretty close).
So, with respect to our class, I first started by comparing different newspapers' websites:
USA Today beats the NY Times in unique visitors per month regularly, but the Times is narrowing the margin, especially in November. Both got about 15 million unique visits (UV) each during November.
In a more local context, The Salt Lake Tribune surpassed the Deseret Morning News this past summer, and hasn't fallen back behind yet. They each get around a 1/2 million UV per month.
Moving to TV news, CNN.com takes FoxNews.com and msnbc.com behind the proverbial woodshed. Not even close.
Since we have talked in class about the future of journalism and its online nature, I thought it important to compare the TV news sites to newspapers sites and news on sites like Yahoo! and Google.
Not even close.
In this comparison between the #1 site in three categories of journalism (Online= news.yahoo.com, TV= cnn.com, Newspaper= usatoday.com), Yahoo! News and CNN are doubling up USA Today in regards to unique visitors. You'll also notice that CNN once had a sizable lead on Yahoo!, but Yahoo! has closed the gap, even taking a small lead in the late summer.
Speaking locally, the top TV site in SLC, ksl.com, also doubles up on sltrib.com.
So, what does this mean with regards to our class?
That if the internet really is the future of newspapers, then they really need to beef up their online content. What do newspapers need to do with their web sites to close the gap?
So, with respect to our class, I first started by comparing different newspapers' websites:
USA Today beats the NY Times in unique visitors per month regularly, but the Times is narrowing the margin, especially in November. Both got about 15 million unique visits (UV) each during November.
In a more local context, The Salt Lake Tribune surpassed the Deseret Morning News this past summer, and hasn't fallen back behind yet. They each get around a 1/2 million UV per month.
Moving to TV news, CNN.com takes FoxNews.com and msnbc.com behind the proverbial woodshed. Not even close.
Since we have talked in class about the future of journalism and its online nature, I thought it important to compare the TV news sites to newspapers sites and news on sites like Yahoo! and Google.
Not even close.
In this comparison between the #1 site in three categories of journalism (Online= news.yahoo.com, TV= cnn.com, Newspaper= usatoday.com), Yahoo! News and CNN are doubling up USA Today in regards to unique visitors. You'll also notice that CNN once had a sizable lead on Yahoo!, but Yahoo! has closed the gap, even taking a small lead in the late summer.
Speaking locally, the top TV site in SLC, ksl.com, also doubles up on sltrib.com.
So, what does this mean with regards to our class?
That if the internet really is the future of newspapers, then they really need to beef up their online content. What do newspapers need to do with their web sites to close the gap?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Citizen Journalism and the Mumbai Attacks: "We're All Journalists Now"
Many around the world are referring to the tragedy in Mumbai as "India's 9/11". The blood, horror, and carnage spread by the terrorists does frighten us now, just as it did seven years ago.
In a sense, modern technology made this act of terrorism even more frightening. Because of Twitter, Flickr and other services, people around the world were thrust into first-hand accounts of what was going on, while the big media outlets tried feverishly to keep pace.
Imagine what it would have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around on the REAL 9/11. People in the towers or on the planes would have been able to let us all know what was really going on.
The question is: Is this necessarily a good thing for journalism?
Robert Creamer, a political organizer and strategist, is a contributor for The Huffington Post. He blogged about two colleagues of his who texted them from Mumbai. As he pondered the significance of this event and its coverage, he identified two key points:
"First, experiencing terrorism -- attacks on innocent civilians -- from the stand point of the victims themselves really drives home in no uncertain terms that it is completely morally repugnant.
"Second, our experience Thursday demonstrated once again how dramatically technology has forced us all into the same neighborhood."
But is this a neighborhood in which we really want to be? Does it do us any good to see raw pictures of dead and bloodied bodies in the streets? Will reading about cold-blooded murder from those who see it firsthand draw people to the news, or push them away?
Even more pressing of a question: Will it inspire future attacks?
Mira Veda, an Indian recording artist, posted her comments on The Huffington Post as well, saying that more coverage of the Mumbai terror will lead to more attacks.
"The ruthless terrorist attacks aimed at high profile luxury establishments in Mumbai were specifically orchestrated towards Britons and Americans to get premium media coverage."
"The tactical and strategic gain for the perpetrators creates an ominous future of fear for us but seems to produce favorable results for them. Every news channel, print media and virtual medium is bombarded with the same message: Fear. Mission successful."
That fear seems to expand with the fact that the terrorists were using modern technology to their advantage. The Courier-Mail out of Queensland, Australia is reporting that the terrorists used BlackBerrys in order to track the news feeds and international reaction of the goings-on.
It is rumored that Indian authorities even asked those on Twitter to stop reporting on the anti-terror operations, so as not to aid the terrorists.
Amy Gahran, a writer on Poynter.org, is exploring the rumor on her blog. In the meantime, she wrote a column on Poynter regarding "Responsible Tweeting". She seeks to educate Twitter users in the finer points of journalism. Essentially she is saying that this request, true or not, is a milestone for citizen journalism.
Again, I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. What I see on the nightly news or the cable networks is at least edited and somewhat censored (or at least warned about) so I can avoid the graphic nature if I choose to. Being thrust into the scene via Twitter and such puts me in an uncomfortable spot as a news viewer.
Perhaps the most poignant piece on this issue comes from Forbes magazine. They called the Mumbai attacks "Twitter's Moment", thrusting it into the mainstream of journalism. Referring to the rumored self-censorship, Forbes declares:
"If it's true, it's a breakthrough. It's the sort of challenge journalists covering combat have long grappled with: What information should you share? Who decides what you can write? To what end?"
These are questions we have grappled with in our class, and likely still will. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, just as we think we have the answers, citizen journalism changes the questions.
The Forbes article (and thus, this blog post) comes to a conclusion we have also come to in our class, and that I have admitted personally from the beginning.
"We're all journalists now. Let's just hope none of us wind up being combat reporters, as so many in Mumbai did this week."
In a sense, modern technology made this act of terrorism even more frightening. Because of Twitter, Flickr and other services, people around the world were thrust into first-hand accounts of what was going on, while the big media outlets tried feverishly to keep pace.
Imagine what it would have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around on the REAL 9/11. People in the towers or on the planes would have been able to let us all know what was really going on.
The question is: Is this necessarily a good thing for journalism?
Robert Creamer, a political organizer and strategist, is a contributor for The Huffington Post. He blogged about two colleagues of his who texted them from Mumbai. As he pondered the significance of this event and its coverage, he identified two key points:
"First, experiencing terrorism -- attacks on innocent civilians -- from the stand point of the victims themselves really drives home in no uncertain terms that it is completely morally repugnant.
"Second, our experience Thursday demonstrated once again how dramatically technology has forced us all into the same neighborhood."
But is this a neighborhood in which we really want to be? Does it do us any good to see raw pictures of dead and bloodied bodies in the streets? Will reading about cold-blooded murder from those who see it firsthand draw people to the news, or push them away?
Even more pressing of a question: Will it inspire future attacks?
Mira Veda, an Indian recording artist, posted her comments on The Huffington Post as well, saying that more coverage of the Mumbai terror will lead to more attacks.
"The ruthless terrorist attacks aimed at high profile luxury establishments in Mumbai were specifically orchestrated towards Britons and Americans to get premium media coverage."
"The tactical and strategic gain for the perpetrators creates an ominous future of fear for us but seems to produce favorable results for them. Every news channel, print media and virtual medium is bombarded with the same message: Fear. Mission successful."
That fear seems to expand with the fact that the terrorists were using modern technology to their advantage. The Courier-Mail out of Queensland, Australia is reporting that the terrorists used BlackBerrys in order to track the news feeds and international reaction of the goings-on.
It is rumored that Indian authorities even asked those on Twitter to stop reporting on the anti-terror operations, so as not to aid the terrorists.
Amy Gahran, a writer on Poynter.org, is exploring the rumor on her blog. In the meantime, she wrote a column on Poynter regarding "Responsible Tweeting". She seeks to educate Twitter users in the finer points of journalism. Essentially she is saying that this request, true or not, is a milestone for citizen journalism.
Again, I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. What I see on the nightly news or the cable networks is at least edited and somewhat censored (or at least warned about) so I can avoid the graphic nature if I choose to. Being thrust into the scene via Twitter and such puts me in an uncomfortable spot as a news viewer.
Perhaps the most poignant piece on this issue comes from Forbes magazine. They called the Mumbai attacks "Twitter's Moment", thrusting it into the mainstream of journalism. Referring to the rumored self-censorship, Forbes declares:
"If it's true, it's a breakthrough. It's the sort of challenge journalists covering combat have long grappled with: What information should you share? Who decides what you can write? To what end?"
These are questions we have grappled with in our class, and likely still will. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, just as we think we have the answers, citizen journalism changes the questions.
The Forbes article (and thus, this blog post) comes to a conclusion we have also come to in our class, and that I have admitted personally from the beginning.
"We're all journalists now. Let's just hope none of us wind up being combat reporters, as so many in Mumbai did this week."
Friday, November 21, 2008
Reunited, And It Feels So Good
The Santa Rosa (CA) Press Democrat featured an article Thursday about a happy reunion of epic journalistic proportions.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are epic journalistic figures for their reporting of the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon. A high-up source nicknamed "Deep Throat" supplied information to the reporters as they progressed in the investigation.
"Deep Throat" went public with his story in 2005. He is Mark Felt, now a sprightly 95 years old. Under Nixon, he had been the No. 2 man in the FBI, and looked to succeed J. Edgar Hoover.
Last week, Woodward and Bernstein went to Felt's home in Santa Rosa, California to thank him for his service. Interestingly enough, it was Bernstein's first time actually meeting Felt. Woodward had always met with the shadowy figure.
"It was a private visit-- a closing of the circle," Bernstein said. "We are both very glad we did it. It was evident he was glad."
This story reminded me of the glory days of investigative reporting. In many respects, it is a shell of its former self as more and more of it becomes trivial drivel.
Is it because of 24-hour news and the constant need to feed the beast, as we watched in class today? Is it fear? Are today's reporters too soft?
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are epic journalistic figures for their reporting of the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon. A high-up source nicknamed "Deep Throat" supplied information to the reporters as they progressed in the investigation.
"Deep Throat" went public with his story in 2005. He is Mark Felt, now a sprightly 95 years old. Under Nixon, he had been the No. 2 man in the FBI, and looked to succeed J. Edgar Hoover.
Last week, Woodward and Bernstein went to Felt's home in Santa Rosa, California to thank him for his service. Interestingly enough, it was Bernstein's first time actually meeting Felt. Woodward had always met with the shadowy figure.
"It was a private visit-- a closing of the circle," Bernstein said. "We are both very glad we did it. It was evident he was glad."
This story reminded me of the glory days of investigative reporting. In many respects, it is a shell of its former self as more and more of it becomes trivial drivel.
Is it because of 24-hour news and the constant need to feed the beast, as we watched in class today? Is it fear? Are today's reporters too soft?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Blogger, Texas Ranger?
We know Chuck Norris for many things: action star, Total Gym and Mike Huckabee pitchman, inspiration for a lever on Conan's show, as well as countless jokes.
But is he a journalist?
On the right-wing website townhall.com, Norris is a regular contributor, having written about a column a week for the site throughout 2008. The article that caught my attention was this one about Proposition 8.
Here's some samples of what Norris has to say:
"The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage. "
"On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony."
"Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken."
Townhall.com does not have a corner on the market for celebrity journalists. Semi-regular columnists for The Huffington Post include Harry Shearer and Jamie Lee Curtis.
So, are they journalists because they do somewhat regular writing for news-like web sites?
Is our decision to call them journalists or not skewed because we have seen them in movies or TV shows?
But is he a journalist?
On the right-wing website townhall.com, Norris is a regular contributor, having written about a column a week for the site throughout 2008. The article that caught my attention was this one about Proposition 8.
Here's some samples of what Norris has to say:
"The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage. "
"On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony."
"Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken."
Townhall.com does not have a corner on the market for celebrity journalists. Semi-regular columnists for The Huffington Post include Harry Shearer and Jamie Lee Curtis.
So, are they journalists because they do somewhat regular writing for news-like web sites?
Is our decision to call them journalists or not skewed because we have seen them in movies or TV shows?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
ESPN: Kickin' It Old School
So, remember my blog post about ESPN not reporting the alleged Brett Favre info-sharing story? If not, continue to scroll down. The last thing I wrote in that article was my anticipation of what ESPN's ombudsman, LeAnne Schreiber, would have to say about the whole thing.
Well, Schreiber has spoken.
In her latest column published this week, Schreiber praised ESPN for excersing "old-school journalistic ethics" with regards to the Favre story.
Still, though, the perception that the network was favoring or protecting Favre is hard to overcome. Schreiber asked ESPN's news director Vince Doria his reasoning for delaying the Favre coverage.
"When a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part," Doria said. "We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it."
So, Schreiber's final verdict is summed up thus:
"ESPN had a genuine old school moment. If ESPN had them more often, it would have a better chance of winning the perception game."
So, do you agree? Does true journalism include holding off on reporting character-damaging allegations towards those with seemingly good character? What about the John Edwards story as a precedent?
Well, Schreiber has spoken.
In her latest column published this week, Schreiber praised ESPN for excersing "old-school journalistic ethics" with regards to the Favre story.
Still, though, the perception that the network was favoring or protecting Favre is hard to overcome. Schreiber asked ESPN's news director Vince Doria his reasoning for delaying the Favre coverage.
"When a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part," Doria said. "We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it."
So, Schreiber's final verdict is summed up thus:
"ESPN had a genuine old school moment. If ESPN had them more often, it would have a better chance of winning the perception game."
So, do you agree? Does true journalism include holding off on reporting character-damaging allegations towards those with seemingly good character? What about the John Edwards story as a precedent?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Who or What Is Martin Thomas Eisenstadt?
By now, most of us have heard the story first reported by Fox News about how Sarah Palin allegedly did not know that Africa was a continent, in addition to her not knowing all the countries in North America. Who would have leaked such seemingly damaging information?
Martin Eisenstadt, that's who.
In his blog post today, Eisenstadt, who served as a foreign policy advisor/Jewish liaison to the McCain campaign and as head of the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy, proudly took responsibility for the leak. MSNBC and a blog called The New Republic reported the leak.
He said he did so did so because, "I don’t want [Fox News] to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer a la Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this."
Well, that sounds all well and good, except for one thing:
It appears that Martin Eisenstadt does not exist.
Bloggers William K. Wolfrum from Shakesville and Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones did some digging and concluded back in JUNE AND JULY, respectively, that the whole Eisenstadt thing is a hoax.
Wolfrum unequivocally stated, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy."
The confusion seems to come from the fact that a Michael Eisenstadt works for the Washington Institute, and is a noted foreign policy expert. He has said publicly he is not M. Thomas Eisenstadt.
MSNBC's David Shuster has admitted it may have been made up, and The New Republic has retracted its post.
This collaboration of information originally comes from The Huffington Post.
In our class, we talk about the importance of not only getting stuff first, but getting it right. How long would it have taken MSNBC and The New Republic to do a bit of research and realize the whole thing was a sham?
Is the nature of modern journalism at fault? Was the need to get the story right sacrificed to get it reported first? Are journalists more susceptible now to these sorts of things than they have been before?
Martin Eisenstadt, that's who.
In his blog post today, Eisenstadt, who served as a foreign policy advisor/Jewish liaison to the McCain campaign and as head of the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy, proudly took responsibility for the leak. MSNBC and a blog called The New Republic reported the leak.
He said he did so did so because, "I don’t want [Fox News] to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer a la Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this."
Well, that sounds all well and good, except for one thing:
It appears that Martin Eisenstadt does not exist.
Bloggers William K. Wolfrum from Shakesville and Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones did some digging and concluded back in JUNE AND JULY, respectively, that the whole Eisenstadt thing is a hoax.
Wolfrum unequivocally stated, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy."
The confusion seems to come from the fact that a Michael Eisenstadt works for the Washington Institute, and is a noted foreign policy expert. He has said publicly he is not M. Thomas Eisenstadt.
MSNBC's David Shuster has admitted it may have been made up, and The New Republic has retracted its post.
This collaboration of information originally comes from The Huffington Post.
In our class, we talk about the importance of not only getting stuff first, but getting it right. How long would it have taken MSNBC and The New Republic to do a bit of research and realize the whole thing was a sham?
Is the nature of modern journalism at fault? Was the need to get the story right sacrificed to get it reported first? Are journalists more susceptible now to these sorts of things than they have been before?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Journalism In an Identity Crisis?
A forum was held at the Salt Lake Library last night by the National Press Club. The topic? "The Future of Journalism". The forum was a joint venture between the NPC and the communications departments of the University of Utah and Utah State University.
The conclusion? Something we already knew: the Internet is changing journalism, but not necessarily for the better. This will happen until a way is found to make information on the Internet viable, the panel said.
"You can have all the bells and whistles you want, but unless there is actual content there, people won't come back," said Ted Pease, former department chairman at USU.
Essentially, the panelists decided that the future of journalism lies in the fundamentals. Being seen as a credible professional is more important than ever.
However, the Internet also makes this difficult, according to Con Psarras, KSL's news director. He said that because of instant updates by so many citizen journalists, it is harder to verify information.
"Our problem is educating the consumers to the value and essence of the information," Psarras said. "It's almost like (news organizations) need a disclaimer that says these facts have been checked."
A very interesting read for our class. Maybe it would be worth discussing next week. Thanks to Clayton Norlen for writing this article for the Deseret Morning News.
The conclusion? Something we already knew: the Internet is changing journalism, but not necessarily for the better. This will happen until a way is found to make information on the Internet viable, the panel said.
"You can have all the bells and whistles you want, but unless there is actual content there, people won't come back," said Ted Pease, former department chairman at USU.
Essentially, the panelists decided that the future of journalism lies in the fundamentals. Being seen as a credible professional is more important than ever.
However, the Internet also makes this difficult, according to Con Psarras, KSL's news director. He said that because of instant updates by so many citizen journalists, it is harder to verify information.
"Our problem is educating the consumers to the value and essence of the information," Psarras said. "It's almost like (news organizations) need a disclaimer that says these facts have been checked."
A very interesting read for our class. Maybe it would be worth discussing next week. Thanks to Clayton Norlen for writing this article for the Deseret Morning News.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Supreme Court and the F-Word
Lost in the awe-inspiring mass of information thta was Election Day, was a Supreme Court case on the use of profanity in broadcasting. An in-depth report can be found thanks to the McClatchy Washington Bureau.
The case, known as FCC v. Fox Television Stations, is the highest-profile free speech case of the year. Fox claims that the FCC's policy change towards "the f-word" came without explanation and inhibits free speech.
The FCC meanwhile, defends its ability to levy fines upwards of $325,000 for even a fleeting f-bomb. The change came after Bono's acceptance speech during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, where a celebratory f-word flew from his lips.
The conservative justices seem to be siding with the FCC, saying that the f-word is merely shock value. Others have trouble finding concrete reasons why the policy became more strict, and seem to be fine with the occasional swear word.
So, with regards to our class...
*Do hefty fines for unintentional profanity inhibit free speech?
*Should profanity on the airwaves be protected by free speech?
The case, known as FCC v. Fox Television Stations, is the highest-profile free speech case of the year. Fox claims that the FCC's policy change towards "the f-word" came without explanation and inhibits free speech.
The FCC meanwhile, defends its ability to levy fines upwards of $325,000 for even a fleeting f-bomb. The change came after Bono's acceptance speech during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, where a celebratory f-word flew from his lips.
The conservative justices seem to be siding with the FCC, saying that the f-word is merely shock value. Others have trouble finding concrete reasons why the policy became more strict, and seem to be fine with the occasional swear word.
So, with regards to our class...
*Do hefty fines for unintentional profanity inhibit free speech?
*Should profanity on the airwaves be protected by free speech?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama Gives 'em Da Boot (But He's Not Alone)
If you've been following this election (and who hasn't?) you've probably known that Barack Obama has himself a fancy campaign plane. Obama has been accompanied on his plane by a bevy of reporters from all across the country.
Until now.
In this last week before Election Day, Obama has shuffled the reporters around, removing some from the plane. His campaign states that this is being done due to a lack of seats.
What's catching attention is the fact that the reporters are from three papers that recently endorsed John McCain: The Washington Times, The Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post. Each paper's side of the story can be found on the respective links.
According to The Drudge Report, the spaces are being offered to "network bigwigs" and two black magazines, Essence and Jet.
The campaign denies that the political leanings of the papers are linked to the decision.
In fairness, McCain has done the same thing this campaign. Joe Klein from Time and Maureen Dowd of The New York Times were barred from his plane for being critical of McCain and his campaign.
So, more interesting questions for our class:
*Is freedom of the press being slighted?
*Is it really worth it for papers to endorse candidates if it leads to these conflicts?
*Is endorsing candidates a journalistic responsibility? Which element of journalism would it fall under?
Until now.
In this last week before Election Day, Obama has shuffled the reporters around, removing some from the plane. His campaign states that this is being done due to a lack of seats.
What's catching attention is the fact that the reporters are from three papers that recently endorsed John McCain: The Washington Times, The Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post. Each paper's side of the story can be found on the respective links.
According to The Drudge Report, the spaces are being offered to "network bigwigs" and two black magazines, Essence and Jet.
The campaign denies that the political leanings of the papers are linked to the decision.
In fairness, McCain has done the same thing this campaign. Joe Klein from Time and Maureen Dowd of The New York Times were barred from his plane for being critical of McCain and his campaign.
So, more interesting questions for our class:
*Is freedom of the press being slighted?
*Is it really worth it for papers to endorse candidates if it leads to these conflicts?
*Is endorsing candidates a journalistic responsibility? Which element of journalism would it fall under?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
World Series: Tainted by Television?
As all us baseball fans know, the World Series is currently in a state of stormy limbo.
Game 5 between the Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Rays began Monday night in Philadelphia, and is still not over. It was suspended in the middle of the 6th inning due to a nasty winter rain, which has continued today, even turning into snow in some parts of Philly. The game is scheduled to resume Wednesday night.
This comes on the heels of Saturday's Game 3 delayed by 91 minutes for rain and not beginning until nearly 10 PM Eastern time.
The decision to suspend the game ultimately was in the hands of Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. There is mixed reaction not only to his decision, but a number of factors that some say tied Selig's hands.
One main culprit being pointed out is the game's late start (8 PM Eastern). The weather was pleasant during the day on Monday, and the forecasts leading up to the game suggested it would be so up until the evening. So, why not just switch the game to the afternoon?
The media, particularly the Fox Network, that's why.
Phil Sheridan of the Philadelphia Inquirer boldly wrote today that the game was a "farce" and should have been stopped when the rain first began in the 3rd or 4th inning. He emphasized the point that in a regular-season game, the stoppage would have come quickly, or the game would have been moved. But, since Fox insists on scheduling games to start in prime-time, there was nothing that could be done.
"In October, the game went on," Sheridan said. "And Major League Baseball should be ashamed for allowing its most important game of the year to deteriorate into an embarrassing mess because of slavish obedience to its pimp, the Fox Television Network."
Oh, snap!
Gary Shelton of the St. Petersburg Times, hometown paper of the Rays, also expressed his displeasure (albeit less brash), saying this:
"Doesn't Major League Baseball think more of its sport than that? After a while, isn't someone concerned about the players' safety? Is the love of ad revenues so great? (Check that. It's a silly question.)"
Well, of course, the newspapers of both teams are going to be upset with MLB and Fox, but no one from Fox itself is going to have the fortitude to call them out on it, right?
Wrong.
FoxSports.com's Senior Baseball Writer, Ken Rosenthal, called out his own bosses. Here are a few of his gems:
"I can't believe I'm writing this, but Major League Baseball needs a reminder and maybe even a kick to the head."
"World Series games should not start anywhere near 10 p.m. ET."
"Yes, I work for FOX, but someone please tell me: How exactly was the late start good for the game?" (Referring to Game 3)
So, what do you think?
*Does the media have too much power in sports?
*What reaction will Fox have to Rosenthal's loyalty to the citizen over his own employers?
*Does this impact Fox's journalistic credibility? Do they want any?
Game 5 between the Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Rays began Monday night in Philadelphia, and is still not over. It was suspended in the middle of the 6th inning due to a nasty winter rain, which has continued today, even turning into snow in some parts of Philly. The game is scheduled to resume Wednesday night.
This comes on the heels of Saturday's Game 3 delayed by 91 minutes for rain and not beginning until nearly 10 PM Eastern time.
The decision to suspend the game ultimately was in the hands of Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. There is mixed reaction not only to his decision, but a number of factors that some say tied Selig's hands.
One main culprit being pointed out is the game's late start (8 PM Eastern). The weather was pleasant during the day on Monday, and the forecasts leading up to the game suggested it would be so up until the evening. So, why not just switch the game to the afternoon?
The media, particularly the Fox Network, that's why.
Phil Sheridan of the Philadelphia Inquirer boldly wrote today that the game was a "farce" and should have been stopped when the rain first began in the 3rd or 4th inning. He emphasized the point that in a regular-season game, the stoppage would have come quickly, or the game would have been moved. But, since Fox insists on scheduling games to start in prime-time, there was nothing that could be done.
"In October, the game went on," Sheridan said. "And Major League Baseball should be ashamed for allowing its most important game of the year to deteriorate into an embarrassing mess because of slavish obedience to its pimp, the Fox Television Network."
Oh, snap!
Gary Shelton of the St. Petersburg Times, hometown paper of the Rays, also expressed his displeasure (albeit less brash), saying this:
"Doesn't Major League Baseball think more of its sport than that? After a while, isn't someone concerned about the players' safety? Is the love of ad revenues so great? (Check that. It's a silly question.)"
Well, of course, the newspapers of both teams are going to be upset with MLB and Fox, but no one from Fox itself is going to have the fortitude to call them out on it, right?
Wrong.
FoxSports.com's Senior Baseball Writer, Ken Rosenthal, called out his own bosses. Here are a few of his gems:
"I can't believe I'm writing this, but Major League Baseball needs a reminder and maybe even a kick to the head."
"World Series games should not start anywhere near 10 p.m. ET."
"Yes, I work for FOX, but someone please tell me: How exactly was the late start good for the game?" (Referring to Game 3)
So, what do you think?
*Does the media have too much power in sports?
*What reaction will Fox have to Rosenthal's loyalty to the citizen over his own employers?
*Does this impact Fox's journalistic credibility? Do they want any?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Trash-Talking Reporters?
It seems that the Brett Favre story I blogged on earlier in the week is evolving into a war of words featuring Jay Glazer, the FoxSports.com reporter who first broke the story.
In an interview with USA Today's Michael McCarthy, Glazer is still ticked about ESPN's handling of the story, as was revealed by ProFootballTalk.com, who still aren't satisfied with ESPN's coverage of Favre.
Glazer went so far as to say that he viewed that ESPN internal memo as a personal attack. His goal now is to make ESPN "miserable". Here's what he suggests:
"It's disappointing. What we should do as a result is start keeping score. If they want to talk about credibility, let's keep score, starting from Week One of last year, and see who broke what, who was right and who was wrong. I don't think they'd want that."
Sounds like a journalistic slobber-knocker, eh?
McCarthy later referred to a piece in yesterday's issue of SportsBusiness Daily (I'd link to it, but you need to shell out a load of money to subscribe. I figure y'all could save some dough). Writer John Ourand interviewed ESPN's director of news, Vince Doria. He thought that Glazer's story was an attack on Favre's character, and that is why ESPN waited to independently confirm it.
"This was never about ESPN saying the story was wrong. Jay Glazer is a fine reporter," Doria said.
We all know that we live in a journalistic world where the scoop is king. Reporters take pride in breaking stories, to be sure. Is there a conflict of interest when a reporter's pride/ego is hurt? Does it affect his reporting? Could his priorities shift from reporting for public good to reporting out of vengeance? If so, how will it affect his credibility?
In an interview with USA Today's Michael McCarthy, Glazer is still ticked about ESPN's handling of the story, as was revealed by ProFootballTalk.com, who still aren't satisfied with ESPN's coverage of Favre.
Glazer went so far as to say that he viewed that ESPN internal memo as a personal attack. His goal now is to make ESPN "miserable". Here's what he suggests:
"It's disappointing. What we should do as a result is start keeping score. If they want to talk about credibility, let's keep score, starting from Week One of last year, and see who broke what, who was right and who was wrong. I don't think they'd want that."
Sounds like a journalistic slobber-knocker, eh?
McCarthy later referred to a piece in yesterday's issue of SportsBusiness Daily (I'd link to it, but you need to shell out a load of money to subscribe. I figure y'all could save some dough). Writer John Ourand interviewed ESPN's director of news, Vince Doria. He thought that Glazer's story was an attack on Favre's character, and that is why ESPN waited to independently confirm it.
"This was never about ESPN saying the story was wrong. Jay Glazer is a fine reporter," Doria said.
We all know that we live in a journalistic world where the scoop is king. Reporters take pride in breaking stories, to be sure. Is there a conflict of interest when a reporter's pride/ego is hurt? Does it affect his reporting? Could his priorities shift from reporting for public good to reporting out of vengeance? If so, how will it affect his credibility?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
ESPN Sends, Then Retracts DO NOT REPORT Memo for Favre Bombshell
If everyone else is reporting on a story, does that mean you ought to report on it, too? You'd think so, but an interesting case is developing within the Worldwide Leader in Sports.
It all began this past Sunday when Jay Glazer of FoxSports.com reported that legendary quarterback Brett Favre, now with the New York Jets, had contacted the Detroit Lions before their game with Favre's old team, the Green Bay Packers, on September 14.
Favre is alleged to have given the Lions inside information on how to stop the Packers. It didn't really matter, since the Packers still won 48-25.
Favre has denied the report, texting Sports Illustrated's Peter King, saying it was "total BS". Lions coach Rod Marinelli has officially not commented on the situation. Those who have commented on it include every major sports outlet nationwide.
Except ESPN.
It would seem odd that the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports" wouldn't jump all over this story. It was odd enough that Mike Florio openly questioned ESPN on his blog at profootballtalk.com. Just hours after that initial posting, Florio received an internal ESPN memo from an anonymous source.
Under the heading **DO NOT REPORT**, the memo said the following:
“Yesterday, FoxSports reported that Brett Favre spent 60 to 90 minutes before the Week Two game between the Lions and the Packers educating the Detroit coaching staff regarding the Packers’ offensive strategies. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY RELIABLE SOURCES THIS REPORT IS NOT TRUE. We did NOT report it yesterday.
"Today, the NFL responded to the report, saying even if Favre did this he did not break any league rules. We are NOT reporting it today, because that would mean airing the erroneous report. DO NOT REPORT IT.” (Emphasis included in original)
Florio went on to denounce this explanation, saying that, if anything, ESPN should have made itself look good compared to a competitor by reporting the inaccuracy of the story.
And then came today, in which Favre met with the media for his weekly press conference.
Favre told reporters that he was called by his friend and former Lions president Matt Millen for an invitation to go hunting. Besides general talk about football nothing else was discussed.
"I didn't give him any game-planning," Favre said. "I haven't been in that offense in over a year. I don't know what else to tell you. It was pretty simple."
Now that Favre has talked, ESPN has lifted its ban on the story.
Why the sudden change? Florio received another internal communication from ESPN today saying that the story was "hot". Florio remains skeptical about ESPN, stating that if they still believe it's false, why did they wait to report it.
So, in relation to our class, some interesting questions are raised:
*Does ESPN's prominence in the sporting world obligate them to report on a story such as this? Do they owe that to their viewers?
*Was ESPN taking the moral high road by not reporting the story?
*Shouldn't ESPN be lauded for waiting to verify the story through their own sources? Why is Florio so skeptical?
When ESPN's ombudsman writes on this, it will be interesting to see what happens.
It all began this past Sunday when Jay Glazer of FoxSports.com reported that legendary quarterback Brett Favre, now with the New York Jets, had contacted the Detroit Lions before their game with Favre's old team, the Green Bay Packers, on September 14.
Favre is alleged to have given the Lions inside information on how to stop the Packers. It didn't really matter, since the Packers still won 48-25.
Favre has denied the report, texting Sports Illustrated's Peter King, saying it was "total BS". Lions coach Rod Marinelli has officially not commented on the situation. Those who have commented on it include every major sports outlet nationwide.
Except ESPN.
It would seem odd that the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports" wouldn't jump all over this story. It was odd enough that Mike Florio openly questioned ESPN on his blog at profootballtalk.com. Just hours after that initial posting, Florio received an internal ESPN memo from an anonymous source.
Under the heading **DO NOT REPORT**, the memo said the following:
“Yesterday, FoxSports reported that Brett Favre spent 60 to 90 minutes before the Week Two game between the Lions and the Packers educating the Detroit coaching staff regarding the Packers’ offensive strategies. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY RELIABLE SOURCES THIS REPORT IS NOT TRUE. We did NOT report it yesterday.
"Today, the NFL responded to the report, saying even if Favre did this he did not break any league rules. We are NOT reporting it today, because that would mean airing the erroneous report. DO NOT REPORT IT.” (Emphasis included in original)
Florio went on to denounce this explanation, saying that, if anything, ESPN should have made itself look good compared to a competitor by reporting the inaccuracy of the story.
And then came today, in which Favre met with the media for his weekly press conference.
Favre told reporters that he was called by his friend and former Lions president Matt Millen for an invitation to go hunting. Besides general talk about football nothing else was discussed.
"I didn't give him any game-planning," Favre said. "I haven't been in that offense in over a year. I don't know what else to tell you. It was pretty simple."
Now that Favre has talked, ESPN has lifted its ban on the story.
Why the sudden change? Florio received another internal communication from ESPN today saying that the story was "hot". Florio remains skeptical about ESPN, stating that if they still believe it's false, why did they wait to report it.
So, in relation to our class, some interesting questions are raised:
*Does ESPN's prominence in the sporting world obligate them to report on a story such as this? Do they owe that to their viewers?
*Was ESPN taking the moral high road by not reporting the story?
*Shouldn't ESPN be lauded for waiting to verify the story through their own sources? Why is Florio so skeptical?
When ESPN's ombudsman writes on this, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Vince Young Has His Say
So, remember my last blog post about ESPN's ombudsman talking about how the media treated Vince Young? You should, since it's just below this post...
Anyway, Young had his own say today after his Tennessee Titans had practice. The interview was conducted by MSNBC's Tom E. Curran, and appears on the MSNBC page, as well as a summary on ESPN's.
In essence, Young seems miffed at the media, as this quote seems to suggest:
“I feel like they’re writing my legacy,” Young said. “They’re writing my story. I’m a great guy, a great humble guy. I’ve done a whole lot in my career in just three years and for [the media] to do stuff like that to try to make me look bad for some reason — I don’t know why — but they’re just writing my legacy.”
When asked specifically about his supposed mental instability, Young had this to say:
“I don’t want to talk about that. That’s something else the media made people think like that. I know who I am, everyone knows who I am as a person. They know good and well, I ain’t trying to commit suicide or all that kind of crap.
"It was just a story everybody wanted to write. It was hot and everybody need [sic] to make their money, feed their viewers. I always get the bad end but I just brush that off and use that as motivation for myself.” (Emphasis added)
So, does Young make a fair point? Did the media sensationalize his condition to get more viewers, or were they simply reporting what they felt to be true? Will this affect his legacy, as he seems to suggest?
Anyway, Young had his own say today after his Tennessee Titans had practice. The interview was conducted by MSNBC's Tom E. Curran, and appears on the MSNBC page, as well as a summary on ESPN's.
In essence, Young seems miffed at the media, as this quote seems to suggest:
“I feel like they’re writing my legacy,” Young said. “They’re writing my story. I’m a great guy, a great humble guy. I’ve done a whole lot in my career in just three years and for [the media] to do stuff like that to try to make me look bad for some reason — I don’t know why — but they’re just writing my legacy.”
When asked specifically about his supposed mental instability, Young had this to say:
“I don’t want to talk about that. That’s something else the media made people think like that. I know who I am, everyone knows who I am as a person. They know good and well, I ain’t trying to commit suicide or all that kind of crap.
"It was just a story everybody wanted to write. It was hot and everybody need [sic] to make their money, feed their viewers. I always get the bad end but I just brush that off and use that as motivation for myself.” (Emphasis added)
So, does Young make a fair point? Did the media sensationalize his condition to get more viewers, or were they simply reporting what they felt to be true? Will this affect his legacy, as he seems to suggest?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Examining privacy in a see-all, tell-all media environment (with Football!)
As you've probably figured out by now, I love sports. Sportsy-sports-sports.
Anyway, one might think that the elements in journalism wouldn't apply as much in the sports world. Truth is what happens on the field or the court. A sportswriter needs only to convey what went on at the game, along with some post-game interviews mixed in, right?
Well, just as news has become a 24-hour a day medium, sports has done the same, and more space needs to be filled on the tube and the web. As such, sports news has had to change and become a more sound form of journalism. Recently, sports networks and their websites have even hired ombudsmen to critique the journalistic quality of their programming.
This post sparks from an article by ESPN's ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber, formerly a sports editor for the New York Times. You can read it here.
The debate revolves around Vince Young, quarterback for the Tennessee Titans. He suffered an injury in this season's opening game on September 7. Happens all the time, right? Well, Young has had some on-the-field struggles during his brief pro career, and he has told the press that it has had a negative effect on him mentally, even to the point of considering retirement. This injury seemed to add to his mental strain.
On September 8, the day after Young's injury, he went to watch Monday Night Football at a friend's house. Trouble is, no one from the Titans knew that's where he was. Titans coach Jeff Fisher called Nashville police for help in finding where Young was, concerned about his state of mind. Young was later found to be no threat to himself or others.
Why would Fisher do this? ESPN obtained a copy of the police report the following Friday, September 12, which described that Young's therapist had coach Coach Fisher that Young had mentioned suicide and left the therapist's office with a gun. ESPN then published an article on their web site entitled "Fisher reached out to police because therapist said Young mentioned suicide". The story also was covered on various ESPN TV programs.
Schreiber writes, "There was a 36-hour period when viewers and readers, taking the story at face value, flooded my mailbox with serious questions about the journalistic ethics of publishing information from a therapist about a person's mental state."
The police report, as it turns out, happened to be very poorly worded. Coach Fisher later said in an interview with ESPN's Chris Mortensen that Young has no personal therapist, but visits with one that works for the team, Sheila Peters. He also said that Mike Mu, Young's local marketing manager, had called Peters on the Monday night in question and told her that Young had mentioned suicide.
So, even though it wasn't the therapist that released the information, it was still some serious privacy invasion by ESPN, right? Not so fast, says Schreiber. She explains that ESPN didn't break the story. The police report was first obtained legally by the local paper in Nashville, which then went on the AP wire. At that point, Schreiber says that ESPN "had an obligation to assess the information as best they could and present it responsibly to their audience."
Schreiber also describes how the executive editor of ESPN.com, Patrick Stiegman, did not want to rush the story, and warned his writers to not jump to conclusions. They needed to persist in corroborating the police report. Schreiber's final verdict was that "ESPN could not and should not have kept that information out of the news."
So, do you agree with Schreiber? Does any news organization have an obligation to publish a story that they obtained in such a way? Is this even really news?
Anyway, one might think that the elements in journalism wouldn't apply as much in the sports world. Truth is what happens on the field or the court. A sportswriter needs only to convey what went on at the game, along with some post-game interviews mixed in, right?
Well, just as news has become a 24-hour a day medium, sports has done the same, and more space needs to be filled on the tube and the web. As such, sports news has had to change and become a more sound form of journalism. Recently, sports networks and their websites have even hired ombudsmen to critique the journalistic quality of their programming.
This post sparks from an article by ESPN's ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber, formerly a sports editor for the New York Times. You can read it here.
The debate revolves around Vince Young, quarterback for the Tennessee Titans. He suffered an injury in this season's opening game on September 7. Happens all the time, right? Well, Young has had some on-the-field struggles during his brief pro career, and he has told the press that it has had a negative effect on him mentally, even to the point of considering retirement. This injury seemed to add to his mental strain.
On September 8, the day after Young's injury, he went to watch Monday Night Football at a friend's house. Trouble is, no one from the Titans knew that's where he was. Titans coach Jeff Fisher called Nashville police for help in finding where Young was, concerned about his state of mind. Young was later found to be no threat to himself or others.
Why would Fisher do this? ESPN obtained a copy of the police report the following Friday, September 12, which described that Young's therapist had coach Coach Fisher that Young had mentioned suicide and left the therapist's office with a gun. ESPN then published an article on their web site entitled "Fisher reached out to police because therapist said Young mentioned suicide". The story also was covered on various ESPN TV programs.
Schreiber writes, "There was a 36-hour period when viewers and readers, taking the story at face value, flooded my mailbox with serious questions about the journalistic ethics of publishing information from a therapist about a person's mental state."
The police report, as it turns out, happened to be very poorly worded. Coach Fisher later said in an interview with ESPN's Chris Mortensen that Young has no personal therapist, but visits with one that works for the team, Sheila Peters. He also said that Mike Mu, Young's local marketing manager, had called Peters on the Monday night in question and told her that Young had mentioned suicide.
So, even though it wasn't the therapist that released the information, it was still some serious privacy invasion by ESPN, right? Not so fast, says Schreiber. She explains that ESPN didn't break the story. The police report was first obtained legally by the local paper in Nashville, which then went on the AP wire. At that point, Schreiber says that ESPN "had an obligation to assess the information as best they could and present it responsibly to their audience."
Schreiber also describes how the executive editor of ESPN.com, Patrick Stiegman, did not want to rush the story, and warned his writers to not jump to conclusions. They needed to persist in corroborating the police report. Schreiber's final verdict was that "ESPN could not and should not have kept that information out of the news."
So, do you agree with Schreiber? Does any news organization have an obligation to publish a story that they obtained in such a way? Is this even really news?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Tales from Sports Journalism with Dan Sheldon
Dan Sheldon joined Salt Lake City's KUTV Channel 2 in September 2005 as a sports reporter and anchor. He reports on weekdays, anchors the sports on weekend mornings, and co-anchors "Talkin’ Sports", a half-hour sports show on Sunday nights at 10:30. His KUTV profile website can be found here, and his blog here.
The reason Sheldon got into journalism is what he calls "the search for truth". In the world of sports, it would seem that truth is just what the box score tells you, but Sheldon says some digging is still required.
"Whether that's doing some digging to see if steroid use is a significant danger to local high school athletes or cutting through the spin to see if the Utes really have moved past what happened last year with Wyoming, all of it boils down to the search for truth," he said.
When it comes to his definition of "good" journalism, Sheldon says it's "aggressive, accurate storytelling that informs the viewer". KUTV, he says, does well with this, always striving to be "right" rather than "first". These views of journalism have remained constant since he began his college studies in journalism.
Even though his views remain the same, Sheldon recognizes that the profession is changing.
"Until we all figure out a way to best utilize the Internet (and monetize it properly), jobs are at risk," he said.
When it comes to citizen journalism, Sheldon feels that, in Sports, the passion of fans makes it difficult for a fair and balanced report.
"I think people know and appreciate the difference between, for instance, a sportswriter filing a report online and a fan blogging about his favorite team," he said. "I believe both have a place while serving different purposes."
For those aspiring journalists out there, Sheldon's simple advice is this: "You really have to want it."
"Once you get your foot in the door though, there's amazing thing that happens in that first job," he said. "If you work hard and are dependable, you'd be blown away by how far ahead you can get just by showing up and being consistent. It takes more than that as you move up the ranks, but those qualities will get well on your way."
The reason Sheldon got into journalism is what he calls "the search for truth". In the world of sports, it would seem that truth is just what the box score tells you, but Sheldon says some digging is still required.
"Whether that's doing some digging to see if steroid use is a significant danger to local high school athletes or cutting through the spin to see if the Utes really have moved past what happened last year with Wyoming, all of it boils down to the search for truth," he said.
When it comes to his definition of "good" journalism, Sheldon says it's "aggressive, accurate storytelling that informs the viewer". KUTV, he says, does well with this, always striving to be "right" rather than "first". These views of journalism have remained constant since he began his college studies in journalism.
Even though his views remain the same, Sheldon recognizes that the profession is changing.
"Until we all figure out a way to best utilize the Internet (and monetize it properly), jobs are at risk," he said.
When it comes to citizen journalism, Sheldon feels that, in Sports, the passion of fans makes it difficult for a fair and balanced report.
"I think people know and appreciate the difference between, for instance, a sportswriter filing a report online and a fan blogging about his favorite team," he said. "I believe both have a place while serving different purposes."
For those aspiring journalists out there, Sheldon's simple advice is this: "You really have to want it."
"Once you get your foot in the door though, there's amazing thing that happens in that first job," he said. "If you work hard and are dependable, you'd be blown away by how far ahead you can get just by showing up and being consistent. It takes more than that as you move up the ranks, but those qualities will get well on your way."
Monday, October 6, 2008
A Bitter Wind from the Great White North?
Thumbing through the New York Times today, I found a very interesting story with implications on both sides of of the Border, but not the Border we usually talk about. It also deals with our topic of discussion today about whether editorials/opinion columns are journalism.
You can read it here. (Hey! I learned how to hyperlink!)
The heart of the matter is cloumnist Heather Mallick. She usually writes for the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) website (http://www.cbc.ca/), and also for website for a paper in London, The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/). In editorial columns for each of these websites last month, Mallick expressed her strong dislike for Sarah Palin. The Guardian piece is available here.
Attacking Palin is nothing new, as we well know here. However, one of Mallick's columns drew the ire of Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, host of the show "On the Record". Van Susteren ripped Mallick's Sep. 5 column for the CBC site, which described Palin as having a "toned-down version of the porn actress look", and described her supporters as "white trash". Van Susteren called the column "beyond vicious".
As a result of the American publicity, in addition to over 300 complaints to the CBC ombudsman, Vince Carlin, the column was removed from the CBC site by publisher John Cruickshank. It is still readable on Mallick's personal site here. (Watch out! There's some language in there!)
Here's where it gets interesting: Carlin and Cruickshank said that, as a result of the column, the editing of opinion items would be more strict, and that columns like Mallick's would only work in the future if it was labeled as satire. Specifically, they stated:
“Even in a work of opinion, facts should be respected and arguments should reasonably flow from these facts.”
Mallick defended her column, stating that is was "straightforward political commentary, admittedly with jokes".
Again, interesting questions are raised:
Is this guideline necessary for opinion pieces to be considered journalism?
Would they be considered journalism if they weren't regulated?
Does Mallick really need to provide facts in order to claim that Republicans are "white trash"?
Should Mallick have to either label or justify/defend her column to get it published?
If it were an American journalist writing it, would the response be any different?
You can read it here. (Hey! I learned how to hyperlink!)
The heart of the matter is cloumnist Heather Mallick. She usually writes for the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) website (http://www.cbc.ca/), and also for website for a paper in London, The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/). In editorial columns for each of these websites last month, Mallick expressed her strong dislike for Sarah Palin. The Guardian piece is available here.
Attacking Palin is nothing new, as we well know here. However, one of Mallick's columns drew the ire of Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, host of the show "On the Record". Van Susteren ripped Mallick's Sep. 5 column for the CBC site, which described Palin as having a "toned-down version of the porn actress look", and described her supporters as "white trash". Van Susteren called the column "beyond vicious".
As a result of the American publicity, in addition to over 300 complaints to the CBC ombudsman, Vince Carlin, the column was removed from the CBC site by publisher John Cruickshank. It is still readable on Mallick's personal site here. (Watch out! There's some language in there!)
Here's where it gets interesting: Carlin and Cruickshank said that, as a result of the column, the editing of opinion items would be more strict, and that columns like Mallick's would only work in the future if it was labeled as satire. Specifically, they stated:
“Even in a work of opinion, facts should be respected and arguments should reasonably flow from these facts.”
Mallick defended her column, stating that is was "straightforward political commentary, admittedly with jokes".
Again, interesting questions are raised:
Is this guideline necessary for opinion pieces to be considered journalism?
Would they be considered journalism if they weren't regulated?
Does Mallick really need to provide facts in order to claim that Republicans are "white trash"?
Should Mallick have to either label or justify/defend her column to get it published?
If it were an American journalist writing it, would the response be any different?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Cost-Cutting Hits Close to Home?
In between sessions of General Conference today, I found a story on the web site for the Deseret Morning News that is fitting after our discussions about cost-cutting in journalism.
As you can read here: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700263712,00.html, a longtime Utah anchor has been pulled off the air. Randall Carlisle from KTVX Channel 4, Salt Lake City's ABC affiliate, will not be returning ot the air after 17 years in Utah.
Carlisle said he was not told specifically why his contract won't be renewed, but other clues suggest the reason why. KTVX was sold by Clear Channel this spring to Newport Television LLC. a Kansas City group. In mid-June, 15% of KTVX's workforce was laid off, and the programming schedule was changed in mid-August to eliminate the 4 PM newscast.
He holds no ill will towards KTVX, saying "It is what it is." He would like to remain in Salt Lake City, but can't find new work until his contract officially ends in December.
So, is Carlisle's dismissal part of a cost-cutting venture, or merely a coincidence? Given all we have discussed over the last week, in addition to watching "News War", it is something worth a ponder, to be sure.
As you can read here: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700263712,00.html, a longtime Utah anchor has been pulled off the air. Randall Carlisle from KTVX Channel 4, Salt Lake City's ABC affiliate, will not be returning ot the air after 17 years in Utah.
Carlisle said he was not told specifically why his contract won't be renewed, but other clues suggest the reason why. KTVX was sold by Clear Channel this spring to Newport Television LLC. a Kansas City group. In mid-June, 15% of KTVX's workforce was laid off, and the programming schedule was changed in mid-August to eliminate the 4 PM newscast.
He holds no ill will towards KTVX, saying "It is what it is." He would like to remain in Salt Lake City, but can't find new work until his contract officially ends in December.
So, is Carlisle's dismissal part of a cost-cutting venture, or merely a coincidence? Given all we have discussed over the last week, in addition to watching "News War", it is something worth a ponder, to be sure.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
NEWS WAR!!!
Watching "News War" yesterday was an interesting experience. One person I was particularly interested to hear from was His Eminence, Ted Koppel. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised about how he feels towards modern journalism, but it was just so stunning to hear him talk in so forceful a tone.
What I was the most surprised to hear was his declaration that giving the people what they want to hear over what they need to hear was the greatest tragedy in modern American journalism was mind-blowing. I guess I had just assumed that what we wanted and needed to hear were the same thing. Maybe that just makes me a product of this modern age...
So, what do you think? Is Koppel's statement justified or just a bit of journalistic hyperbole?
What I was the most surprised to hear was his declaration that giving the people what they want to hear over what they need to hear was the greatest tragedy in modern American journalism was mind-blowing. I guess I had just assumed that what we wanted and needed to hear were the same thing. Maybe that just makes me a product of this modern age...
So, what do you think? Is Koppel's statement justified or just a bit of journalistic hyperbole?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
'Gotcha' Journalism
About 20 years ago or so, there was a character Dana Carvey would play during a segment on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" known simply as "The Grumpy Old Man". He would randomly rant about the direction the modern world was headed. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, look here (You might want to stop it at about the 1:40 mark--Trust me):
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4303/saturday-night-live-grumpy-old-man
I bring this up because some people might have had the same feeling listening to John McCain vent to Katie Couric during her follow-up interview with Sarah Palin. If you haven't seen it yet, take a look here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/30/am.mccain.palin.gotcha.cnn
So, who or what is to blame for this era of "gotcha" journalism? Is it the individual journalists or is it the news organizations as a whole? Can it be totally contributed to what some would say as the decay of traditional journalistic values?
Some other questions also come to mind:
*If it were a Town Hall meeting or some other public function, would McCain have called out the media in such a way? Did he rant just because it was a one-on-one interview?
*What about Katie Couric's response? Does she think McCain's evaluation of "gotcha" journalism is fair or accurate?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4303/saturday-night-live-grumpy-old-man
I bring this up because some people might have had the same feeling listening to John McCain vent to Katie Couric during her follow-up interview with Sarah Palin. If you haven't seen it yet, take a look here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/30/am.mccain.palin.gotcha.cnn
So, who or what is to blame for this era of "gotcha" journalism? Is it the individual journalists or is it the news organizations as a whole? Can it be totally contributed to what some would say as the decay of traditional journalistic values?
Some other questions also come to mind:
*If it were a Town Hall meeting or some other public function, would McCain have called out the media in such a way? Did he rant just because it was a one-on-one interview?
*What about Katie Couric's response? Does she think McCain's evaluation of "gotcha" journalism is fair or accurate?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Things Overheard in a Taco Bell Drive-up Line
So, I had just gotten out of work this afternoon, and was waiting in the drive-up at Taco Bell. I flipped around the radio, and eventually landed on The Dan Patrick Show. For those of you who don't know, Dan Patrick was a major host of SportsCenter on ESPN for years and years before leaving them recently for his own show, loosely affiliated with Sports Illustrated.
Anyway, he was discussing something I think is very pertinent to our class. A link is found at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/8601/
The story is about an interview between Michael Phelps (yes, THAT Michael Phelps) and Dan Le Batard, a Miami Sports Radio Host whose goal is to make every interview memorable.
Basically, Le Batard asked Phelps about the coolest thing that's happened to him since the Olympics. Phelps, who was only there to promote the Kellogg's products his face now graces, side-stepped the question by talking about the Kellogg's-related charity he had just set up. Then the interesting stuff began...
Le Batard then said, “That was a nice move there, Michael, because you just segued right into what it is that you were selling there, when that can’t be the coolest thing to happen to you since the Olympics."
Phelps mentioned Kellogg's again and raising swimming awareness or something. In reference to a less-than-savory photo of Phelps in a nightclub, Le Batard then asked, “Do you go into the nightclub with these Kellogg’s products and just drop them on the floor with your face on them?”
Phelps decided enough was enough, and ended the interview, but not before accidentally not hanging up the phone right away and saying this about Le Batard: "That guy was an idiot, that was ridiculous."
Le Batard later called into The Dan Patrick Show to defend his method of journalism, which you can listen to by following the link.
So, this brings up a few interesting questions with regards to our class:
Was Le Batard fair to Michael Phelps?
Did he press that last point too hard?
Could Michael Phelps have gone off script and had some fun with it?
Does he have a responsibility to the media to answer their questions?
Has he developed a poor relationship with the media after this incident?
Anyway, he was discussing something I think is very pertinent to our class. A link is found at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/8601/
The story is about an interview between Michael Phelps (yes, THAT Michael Phelps) and Dan Le Batard, a Miami Sports Radio Host whose goal is to make every interview memorable.
Basically, Le Batard asked Phelps about the coolest thing that's happened to him since the Olympics. Phelps, who was only there to promote the Kellogg's products his face now graces, side-stepped the question by talking about the Kellogg's-related charity he had just set up. Then the interesting stuff began...
Le Batard then said, “That was a nice move there, Michael, because you just segued right into what it is that you were selling there, when that can’t be the coolest thing to happen to you since the Olympics."
Phelps mentioned Kellogg's again and raising swimming awareness or something. In reference to a less-than-savory photo of Phelps in a nightclub, Le Batard then asked, “Do you go into the nightclub with these Kellogg’s products and just drop them on the floor with your face on them?”
Phelps decided enough was enough, and ended the interview, but not before accidentally not hanging up the phone right away and saying this about Le Batard: "That guy was an idiot, that was ridiculous."
Le Batard later called into The Dan Patrick Show to defend his method of journalism, which you can listen to by following the link.
So, this brings up a few interesting questions with regards to our class:
Was Le Batard fair to Michael Phelps?
Did he press that last point too hard?
Could Michael Phelps have gone off script and had some fun with it?
Does he have a responsibility to the media to answer their questions?
Has he developed a poor relationship with the media after this incident?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
New E-Magazine
Howdy, Y'all!
Just wanted to direct you towards my E-Magazine for my Comms 101 class. It's a weekly preview and review of each new episode of "The Office". Check it out at http://mortysoffice.7h.com.
Just wanted to direct you towards my E-Magazine for my Comms 101 class. It's a weekly preview and review of each new episode of "The Office". Check it out at http://mortysoffice.7h.com.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
I Knew I Picked A Good One!
SO, like I mentioned on here, I decided to follow the Web Site of KUTV Channel 2 News in Salt Lake City for the semester. Look what I found: http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=e2110e73-ac8a-46de-ba77-c28b47b951dd&rss=991
A story on how the Utah State Government is increasingly using Twitter. How about that?
A story on how the Utah State Government is increasingly using Twitter. How about that?
RIP Mary Garber
Touching tribute to a pioneer of sportswriting from North Carolina, Ms. Mary Garber in the Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/sports/23garber.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
Since I want to be a sportswriter, I've been doing a lot of research into the lives and backgrounds of some of my journalistic idols: Buster Olney, Tim Kurkjian, etc. Many of them have a reverence for Garber, because she excelled in her field at a time when everyone was doing their best to exclude women from the sportswriting profession. Now, it seems that women reporting on sports have been popping up more and more. What an age we live in...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Building Blocks of News
For the first part of the activity, I thought it was kinda tedious, more like "Building Blocks of Snooze". (Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all semester. Try the veal.)
However, as things went on, I saw the bigger picture. Yes, the work was repetitive, but news writing itself is repetitive. These are the principles that have been tried and tested to help us succeed. So, it was good to see everything all broken down and explained in such a way that is easy to remember and actually a little bit fun.
However, as things went on, I saw the bigger picture. Yes, the work was repetitive, but news writing itself is repetitive. These are the principles that have been tried and tested to help us succeed. So, it was good to see everything all broken down and explained in such a way that is easy to remember and actually a little bit fun.
Monday, September 22, 2008
What a Class!
Just got out of our class discussion. Boy, what a time!
I have to explain: I am not just a journalism buff, but a HUGE American history buff. Seeing just how closely these two things intertwine was fascinating for me. I know not everyone will share the same kind of enthusiasm I have for this kind of stuff, but I just thought it was a very entertaining class period.
I'll probably post again later today about the NewsU assignment. See you then!
I have to explain: I am not just a journalism buff, but a HUGE American history buff. Seeing just how closely these two things intertwine was fascinating for me. I know not everyone will share the same kind of enthusiasm I have for this kind of stuff, but I just thought it was a very entertaining class period.
I'll probably post again later today about the NewsU assignment. See you then!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
An Odd Apology
As some of you may know, I am an aspiring sports journalist, for either print or broadcast (maybe both...tee hee). Anyway, I have been more sensitive lately to the things that sports journalists and broadcasters do and say. Probably has something to do with this class...
Anyway, I was watching the Monday Night Football game on ESPN (AFTER I went to FHE, for all of you who wish to question my motives...ha ha). It just hapened to coincide with the NFL's recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month. As such, they played the Spanish announcer's call of a play coming out of a commercial. That's where it got interesting...
Tony Kornheiser, the quasi-comic relief in the booth, said after the Spanish call, "I took high school Spanish, either he said he's not going to be caught, or please pick up my dry cleaning tomorrow." I thought it was funny, since I served a Spanish-speaking mission and I currently teach Spanish at the MTC, and know what it's like to have no idea what's going on.
Apparently, someone thought it was, in the words of the Commish, "funny faux pas, not funny ha-ha", because Kornheiser then issued this odd apology later in the game: "I said something before which I shouldn't have said, I apologize for it. Not my first mistake, undoubtedly won't be my last, but a 100% apology." Huh?
I suppose it's just Tony trying to be extra-cautious, since it isn't his first mistake: he's gotten into hot water with ESPN before over comments about their awards show, The ESPY's. Still, I think he had no need to apologize for this one. There was no malicious intent. Just shows the kind of world we live in, where everyone takes offense to everything.
Anyway, I was watching the Monday Night Football game on ESPN (AFTER I went to FHE, for all of you who wish to question my motives...ha ha). It just hapened to coincide with the NFL's recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month. As such, they played the Spanish announcer's call of a play coming out of a commercial. That's where it got interesting...
Tony Kornheiser, the quasi-comic relief in the booth, said after the Spanish call, "I took high school Spanish, either he said he's not going to be caught, or please pick up my dry cleaning tomorrow." I thought it was funny, since I served a Spanish-speaking mission and I currently teach Spanish at the MTC, and know what it's like to have no idea what's going on.
Apparently, someone thought it was, in the words of the Commish, "funny faux pas, not funny ha-ha", because Kornheiser then issued this odd apology later in the game: "I said something before which I shouldn't have said, I apologize for it. Not my first mistake, undoubtedly won't be my last, but a 100% apology." Huh?
I suppose it's just Tony trying to be extra-cautious, since it isn't his first mistake: he's gotten into hot water with ESPN before over comments about their awards show, The ESPY's. Still, I think he had no need to apologize for this one. There was no malicious intent. Just shows the kind of world we live in, where everyone takes offense to everything.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Just How Specialized Can We Get?
In the Times the other day, I read about a new Internet video site named Shale.tv. The entire side is dedicated to Texas' Barnett Shale, a rich natural gas resource. The site will discuss things like "land-leasing rights, drilling legislation and public meetings of concerned citizens". Wow...
So, basically, these people believe that they can get enough viewers on this site about a huge slab of earth. I just find it so fascinating that in this time in history, the Internet has created such an access to such niche groups. There really is something for everyone. Crizazy.
So, basically, these people believe that they can get enough viewers on this site about a huge slab of earth. I just find it so fascinating that in this time in history, the Internet has created such an access to such niche groups. There really is something for everyone. Crizazy.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Hometown Media Outlet
Just a quick post to say that I will be covering the website of KUTV, Channel 2 in Salt Lake City for this semester. I have a special connection with KUTV which will be revealed at a later time. Toodles! http://www.kutv.com/Default.aspx
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Journalistic Overkill?
Howdy again! Not a whole lot of time tonight, but just a quick sports note.
I love sports. I want to be a sportswriter. That is why I am in the journalism program. As such, I watch a lot of ESPN. This week, just about every show I saw had some mention of the USC-Ohio State game, almost to the point that I was sick to see something more. No one, expected it to be a close game, and it wasn't! 35-3 USC,Fight On, Trojans! (My girlfriend is a USC gal.)
SO, the combination of the overabundance of coverage on what turned out to be an insignificant game have gotten the wheels in my head turning about Journalisitc Overkill/Over-reporting. How much reporting of a particular story is too much? Is is merely relative? What do y'all say?
I love sports. I want to be a sportswriter. That is why I am in the journalism program. As such, I watch a lot of ESPN. This week, just about every show I saw had some mention of the USC-Ohio State game, almost to the point that I was sick to see something more. No one, expected it to be a close game, and it wasn't! 35-3 USC,Fight On, Trojans! (My girlfriend is a USC gal.)
SO, the combination of the overabundance of coverage on what turned out to be an insignificant game have gotten the wheels in my head turning about Journalisitc Overkill/Over-reporting. How much reporting of a particular story is too much? Is is merely relative? What do y'all say?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Who Is a Journalist?
I reckon I should have had this as my first post, but I think it'll do right now...ha ha.
My answer to the question "Who is a journalist?" is a simple one, really. In my opinion, a journalist is simply one who seeks to inform another of what is going on/wants to have their information read. I know it's a vague answer, but it's also a very inclusive answer. It makes all of us journalists right here, right now.
Ponder on this question: Would any of us ever write anything if we did not think someone else would read it? What would be the point. This is blatantly obvious when we consider all the different aspects of media, but even writing on a personal level follows this logic, I believe. Writing a journal or diary, for instance, may seem like writing for the sake of writing, nothing more. HOWEVAH, we know that someone out there will read it one day: our descendants, our future selves, our nosy siblings or parents, etc. Whether we want to or not, we are informing them. They get to read all about how our parents didn't understand, that teachers were vampires, and that we were madly in love with a handful of different people at varying stages of our senior year of high school. For me that is why we write, consciously or subconsciously. Think of those who wrote the Scriptures. Clearly, Mormon had seen our day and knew he was writing/abridging for us, so that motivated him to do what he did. This applies to all writers of scripture, and then some. Even though something like the Song of Solomon isn't inspired writing, Solomon (or whoever wrote it) clearly wanted SOMEONE to read it, even if it was just the love(s) of his life. He didn't know it would get put in the Bible, but he knew it would be put in the hands of someone who would enjoy it.
Brining this back to us, the reason we write on this blog is so that someone else will read it and be informed (and give us credit, right Dr. Cressman?) The reason we want to go into journalism is because we want to inform others, through print or over the airwaves, of what is going on in the world around them. Whether we want to inform others for money or satisfaction is not as important as the fact that we want to be journalists so that we can inform others.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
My answer to the question "Who is a journalist?" is a simple one, really. In my opinion, a journalist is simply one who seeks to inform another of what is going on/wants to have their information read. I know it's a vague answer, but it's also a very inclusive answer. It makes all of us journalists right here, right now.
Ponder on this question: Would any of us ever write anything if we did not think someone else would read it? What would be the point. This is blatantly obvious when we consider all the different aspects of media, but even writing on a personal level follows this logic, I believe. Writing a journal or diary, for instance, may seem like writing for the sake of writing, nothing more. HOWEVAH, we know that someone out there will read it one day: our descendants, our future selves, our nosy siblings or parents, etc. Whether we want to or not, we are informing them. They get to read all about how our parents didn't understand, that teachers were vampires, and that we were madly in love with a handful of different people at varying stages of our senior year of high school. For me that is why we write, consciously or subconsciously. Think of those who wrote the Scriptures. Clearly, Mormon had seen our day and knew he was writing/abridging for us, so that motivated him to do what he did. This applies to all writers of scripture, and then some. Even though something like the Song of Solomon isn't inspired writing, Solomon (or whoever wrote it) clearly wanted SOMEONE to read it, even if it was just the love(s) of his life. He didn't know it would get put in the Bible, but he knew it would be put in the hands of someone who would enjoy it.
Brining this back to us, the reason we write on this blog is so that someone else will read it and be informed (and give us credit, right Dr. Cressman?) The reason we want to go into journalism is because we want to inform others, through print or over the airwaves, of what is going on in the world around them. Whether we want to inform others for money or satisfaction is not as important as the fact that we want to be journalists so that we can inform others.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
New Beginnings and NYC
Well, I've never blogged before, but when it becomes 30% of your grade magically, I guess that gives me more than enough reason to do it. Since all you Comms 239 comrades will be spying on me at some point, I'll give a brief introduction. I'm from Alpine, UT, 22 years young. I served my mission in San Antonio, Texas, and this is my third year at the Y.
Now on to the important stuff, I guess:
In the Times today, I found a very intriguing story regarding the measurement of radio ratings in New York City (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/business/10arbitron.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin). Arbitron, the head honcho of radio ratings, is trying out a new "personal people meter", about the size of a cell-phone, which records what radio stations people listen to. In the past, they would simply have people keep a diary of sorts. The problem is that some (make that the NYC Attorney General) are concerned that not enough minorities are being given these meters.
Why are radio ratings important, you ask? Money, money , money, money! The higher your ratings, the more you can get for advertising revenue. In essence, if not enough minorities are getting these meters, their minority-themed stations won't get solid ratings, and the ad revenue drops. In short, they are getting the proverbial shaft, and they can't dig it.
You would think in a place as diverse as New York City, this kind of thing wouldn't happen. I love New York, and not because a t-shirt told me to. I've been there about a dozen times, and one of the reasons I enjoy it so much is that it gets me out of the Utah bubble and experience so many different people and cultures. Funny that even in the greatest city in the world, minorities are still being under-appreciated.
I also thought it was interesting that this article came when we were trying to get that Race and Ethnicity assignment done. Ain't that a coinky-dink?
Now on to the important stuff, I guess:
In the Times today, I found a very intriguing story regarding the measurement of radio ratings in New York City (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/business/10arbitron.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin). Arbitron, the head honcho of radio ratings, is trying out a new "personal people meter", about the size of a cell-phone, which records what radio stations people listen to. In the past, they would simply have people keep a diary of sorts. The problem is that some (make that the NYC Attorney General) are concerned that not enough minorities are being given these meters.
Why are radio ratings important, you ask? Money, money , money, money! The higher your ratings, the more you can get for advertising revenue. In essence, if not enough minorities are getting these meters, their minority-themed stations won't get solid ratings, and the ad revenue drops. In short, they are getting the proverbial shaft, and they can't dig it.
You would think in a place as diverse as New York City, this kind of thing wouldn't happen. I love New York, and not because a t-shirt told me to. I've been there about a dozen times, and one of the reasons I enjoy it so much is that it gets me out of the Utah bubble and experience so many different people and cultures. Funny that even in the greatest city in the world, minorities are still being under-appreciated.
I also thought it was interesting that this article came when we were trying to get that Race and Ethnicity assignment done. Ain't that a coinky-dink?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
