Reflection

Exploring my thoughts in depth about the future of news was completely worthwhile. As a journalist that is something I should be doing if I wish to remain marketable and relevant in the news business.

Putting those thoughts into three different formats was a good exercise in making sure I fully understood what it was I was trying to say. That kind of practice  helps to see potential short comings in a thought process. Therefore I think the critical analysis went deeper as a result.

I think some things could've been more guided, more specific. Such as in what ways would journalistic principles be impacted, ex. privacy, ethics, etc... and how the impacted future be different from today.

I had a great time working on it though, it was nice to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on something rather than just facts, or someone else's story.

Do you want to be fast or do you want to be right?

The internet has changed news and mass media in many ways. The most significant way is speed. No need to print anything anymore, just a click and it's out there. The rush to be the first has become the thing that matters the most in journalism. Being first means you could go viral, it gives credibility that cannot be bought.

It has also created a career field of vultures. Instead of relying on tried and true journalism techniques, like thorough, consistent source development, good news/reporter instincts and the benefit of wisdom and experience, now the theory is to hover over anything that might bleed, I mean lead.

As soon as a whiff of a detail is in the air, 50 journalists are drafting it for a story set to go out in minutes. Twitter makes the process even faster since it only has to be a sentence.

Fact checking is for later, verifications and red teams are for later if at all. If something is wrong, editing is electronic and can be done at any time.

Go.

Run with it.

Put it out there.

The reward for the (even slim) chance that you'll be the first and get it right is worth the risk of getting it wrong 100 times.

Americans don't punish news outlets for being inaccurate. They just reward who is first, and therefore in effect punish whoever is slow, even if they are right.

Instant gratification.

We are a nation that becomes bored quickly, and everything has become replaceable. Which means the value of everything we are and have is dropping.

When there are 2000 stories on the same thing, the only one that is sure to set out is the first one. It is the last leg journalists have to stand on.

Newton wasn't the only recent major news event to see inaccuracy in reporting in order to be fast.

One of the greatest (or perhaps worst) speed over accuracy moments in recent memory was with the Boston Bomber. CNN incorrectly identified the bomber. The innocent person they identified almost died as a result.

http://gawker.com/5994966/jon-stewarts-masterful-takedown-of-cnns-sloppy-boston-bombing-coverage-almost-makes-all-the-fucking-wrong-reporting-worth-it

That is no longer journalism, that is no longer in the realm of what is ok.

Journalism exists, in my most humble opinion to fulfill the public's need/right to know.

That public need does not come before an innocent person's life.

It's not a secret that news doesn't pay so well anymore and usually those in that job field work harder for less money than in years past.

The lack of revenue in profits does not equate loss of power and influence.

Mass media helps to shape public opinion.

It is the duty of those in positions of power to wield is justly.

Today's journalist's largely aren't doing that. They are just trying to be the next viral story, the page with the most likes today.

Take the Treyvon Martin case. It was largely touted as a black vs white case, even though neither of he men were white. I have no doubt that began as a incorrect and sensationalized detail from early reports in the news.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

The American people allow this to happen, and in fact encourage it. They do so by not fact checking, by not carefully choosing which news source to consume, to trust.

Instead their allegiance is always to the first instead of the correct.

Until the American people change, mass media likely will not change either.

Journalistic Ethics; to publish or not to publish

Scenario: A reporter attends a public meeting of a municipal school board. During the meeting, the board votes to enter executive session and excludes the reporter and public from the meeting. The reporter exits, and a member of the school board close the door behind him, leaving an unidentified non-board member in the room. The reporter remains on the outside of the door and overhears clearly the conversation, which turns out to be a discussion about how the town should resolve a threatened lawsuit brought by parents who allege that a school principal has sexually abused numerous students on the school grounds during school hours over an extended period. The unidentified non-board member appears by reference to be a lawyer for the parents. Is the reporter acting ethically by listening at the door? Should he publish the information he has learned? What if the principal has been, prior to the meeting, suspended and is not in contact with children?



The reporter is an ethically grey area by listening at the door. If he wasn't invited into the room then the conversation wasn't for him to hear, at the very least it's hard to consider it on the record. However if the conversation can be heard clearly, then anyone could have heard what was said, and in a way it would considered said in public. I think it would also be unethical to pretend he didn't hear anything at all.


 If I were that reporter I would use the conversation I heard as something to point me in the right direction in order to get information in a more ethical way to publish. Perhaps I would wait and ask the lawyer for a comment after the meeting was through. Just simply being able to identify the lawyer in a closed door meeting would serve the public's need to know but also not cross over into unethical ground. Just flat out asking the school board to explain themselves might lead to a more legitimate story as well. I think often journalism is so quick to want to expose something in a shocking way that as a profession journalists rarely act on good faith. I think the proper thing to do would be to level with the board and let them know what I had heard and ask them if they would answer questions for a story rather than have me write about what was overheard.

If the school board was worried about getting bad publicity then the location and time of the meeting with the lawyer should have been more carefully calculated. And there is a public right to know when there is a possibility that students are still attending a school that employs a sexual predator.


It seemed like before the doors were closed the press had been invited, if they intended for them to only be invited for a portion of the meeting, it would've been in their best interest to communicate that ahead of time. I would likely base this decision on what I heard and if I felt the information was important enough to share with the public. I would attempt to find a more reliable source for the information first though.

It's important for the reporter to consider that if no one else heard the conversation behind closed doors and everyone there denies it then it might look like the reporter is lying or fabricating a story. There is also the attorney-client privilege to consider.

I would be very careful if I were the reporter. If I felt I had a duty to inform the public based on what I heard I would frame the story with phrases like "from what it seemed like" or "from what it sounded like".  That way the observance is being shared but not necessarily being stated as a fact.

I think this speaks to a larger question the USA has been asking lately since the Snowden incident…..is it ok to eavesdrop? Honestly I think it is ok to access information or conversations that are somewhat public. I do not think it is ok to wire tap or intrude upon someone's home to eavesdrop. It is a grey area, but I think the answer would lie in the fact if others have access to the information as well then it's really public, not private.

If a person uses Facebook or Verizon they are using that companies service, therefore that company has access to their information and conversations, therefore it is not really completely private. If Facebook can read your messages without you knowing it why shouldn't the gov't be able to monitor them, especially if the stated purpose is to find dangerous red flags? It is not a clear cut answer, I do believe there is sound logic on each side of the argument.

Overall I think it would depend on the situation if eavesdropping is ok or not. I think the ends could possibly justify the means.

Music To My Ears: Disney's "Let It Go"

"Let It Go" A critique of the two versions. 
In the movie "Frozen", the movie's big pivotal moment and big sweeping songs comes from Queen Elsa, the song is called "Let It Go". 
In it she sings about losing control of her powers to freeze everything and people finding out her secret, she also sings about her newfound freedom in isolation where she can be free.
Her voice is done by Idina Menzel, of broadway fame from "Wicked" and "Rent" and from TV's "Glee". She sings the song as it is heard in the movie. It was the version that was nominated (and won) an Oscar. It is magnificent in every way. 






Her softness in the beginning portrays Elsa's sadness, but her voice gains strength as Elsa does and finishes strong. In fact when I saw the movie the first time I thought her singing was too good to belong to a young girl queen in a disney movie.


The "soundtrack" version of the song and the one that plays as the credits roll was performed by Demi Lovato, known for her work on the Disney Channel, and a few pop hits on the radio.

Her version is not bad. If I had never heard Menzel's version I probably would've liked Lovato's. Alas though that is not how it happened.

Lovato is singing a pop song and Menzel is singing a power ballad of transformation. In Menzel's version Elsa transforms and courageously embraces her reality, flaws and all. It is a powerful message to young girls. A message they have memorized word for word.

Lovato's pop song sounds good and feels good, and that's the problem. The pain and triumph are missing. The lyrics are those you hum blindly too or mistaken terrible never knowing the difference because knowing the phrase "Let It Go" is all that really matters in order to sing along.

There just isn't enough depth, there's no story.

The song tells a story and that's what makes it so great. Disney does that like few others in the entertainment business. It is certainly their magic in my opinion.

Take a few moments to listen to Lovato's and see what you think:










In a movie where Disney broke the norm in their story line, and with their big song, they should have stayed the course and broke tradition and not had a pop version recorded.

Frozen is quite notably the first movie Disney has done that explicitly points out in very deliberate fashion that you cannot marry a man you just met. The entire movie revolves around those you should truly trust and romance is removed from that equation. Repunzel toyed with this idea and Brave pursued it fully, but just not quite as loudly as Frozen did.


The fans got the final word on this matter though, Menzel's version topped Lovato's on the Billboard charts and she was invited to perform it at the Oscar's rather than Lovato.

Little girls everywhere belt the song out like Menzel, I think few even realize Lovato recorded the song as well.

It's probably best for Lovato to realize she is competing with a broadway star out of her league and just "Let It Go."

Citizen Journalism: The Cons

Citizen Journalism:

The collection, dissemination, and analysis of news and information by the general public, especially by means of the internet.

Source


According to Mashable.com:

"The concept of citizen journalism (also known as "public", "participatory", "democratic", "guerrilla" or "street" journalism) is based upon public citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information." Citizen journalism should not be confused with community journalism or civic journalism, both of which are practiced by professional journalists. Collaborative journalism is also a separate concept and is the practice of professional and non-professional journalists working together. Citizen journalism is a specific form of both citizen media and user generated content."

Source

The images above provide a stark contrast of two different approaches to gathering news information.

One method takes longer, while the other is almost instantaneous.

Both could be misleading, but only one goes through minimal editing, fact checking, and general feedback.

Citizen journalism has its merits, but it also has its hinderances. It possesses a rushed but very up to date feel.

That characteristic can help a reader feel like they are really there as something is happening, like they aren't missing anything.

While that has value, most journalists know that there's almost always more to a story than meets the eye. Without digging, without interviews and many reactions it's difficult to grasp the scope of what is happening. It's hard to even know what the story is sometimes.

Mark Glasner writes in a Sept. 27, 2006 article for PBS Media Shift:

The New West website has chosen to use the term “Unfiltered” for its citizen journalism contributions, and runs the following instructions for people to contribute: “Don’t let the ‘citizen journalism’ title scare you. Your post doesn’t have to be a structured article. It can be a rant, a rave, a rhyme, a short comment, a novel — anything you feel like writing. We just want to hear what’s on your mind.”

Unfiltered can be powerful, but also dangerous.

Without context a story can look very different and it's difficult to undo first impressions of a story.

Citizen journalism lacks context, and often that context is important.

Context ties into journalistic ethics. Just because you can 'sell' a story to look and sound a certain way, does that mean you should? Does that make it accurate?

There is plenty of spin in the media at the professional level, trying to cut through that kind of noise exponentially with citizen journalists seems next to impossible.

There is certainly a place for citizen journalism as the table, but it will never take over the place already reserved for traditional professional journalism.

This just in…..

Welcome!

As an aspiring journalist, I wanted to create a place specifically to discuss journalism and how it is changing.

Print publications have a long history in the USA. I think an argument could be made that they are at least one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Freedom of the press is after all important enough to be part of the 1st amendment.

Print journalism is shifting though and it has for a while. It is no longer the same as it was with Ben Franklin or even anything from 20 years ago.

Though mediums change the mission of the journalist does not. The need to share information remains the same.

Communication is the key.

So please feel free to share your thoughts and perspectives on the changing landscape of journalism with me.


Cheers!