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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
