Reading Response 2

In the Element’s chapters, the topic of truth and loyalty came up a lot. I think that a lot of the reason behind citizens’ mistrust in journalists comes from the number of journalists, editors or CEOs in the past that manipulated or abused that trust. It’s always difficult to gain back trust after it’s been lost. Another part of the Element’s chapters that caught my attention was Walter Lippmann’s explanation for journalism. He really broke it down to a science, and it shows how very disciplined the job has to be. A part of the reading that took me by surprise was journalists’ need to remain separate/independent from things that they cover and reading about William Safire’s description of Independence of Mind. This ties in with the principle of remaining unbiased. It was really shocking reading about the many journalists who were fired on the spot for supporting things they believed in, but they were breaking the rule against participating in political activity while working as a journalist. During the News Reporting readings, there was a chapter on interviewing, which I really found helpful. I liked the comparison of investigative reporters to attorneys. After working in a law office I understand how having a question ready for every possible answer is vital, and it can also really make a difference in an interview.

Podcast Responses

Slate’s The Gist: Puppies Don’t Win Pulitzer’s

            Mike Pesca was the main speaker of this podcasts; however, he had several guest speakers talking about various topics and included some funny voice recordings of celebrities at The Emmys. From the trail of Bob McDonnell all the way to a new app that Pesca describes as “the next twitter,” popular topics of today were discussed.

            I enjoyed listening to Pesca because he kept things interesting. Overall, the podcast seemed upbeat, and he used a few seconds of techno music to represent a shift in topic each time he changed the subject. When he was explaining each topic, he used sarcastic remarks to emphasize his opinion. One example of when he did this was while he was discussing the Bob McDonnell trial. He mocked the defenses’ main argument with ridiculous alternatives to support McDonnell’s innocence.

            Not only was Pesca able to keep the podcast upbeat with his humor and music, but also his guest speakers talked about some innovative topics. He had the CEO of a new app called Yo join in on the podcast, and he told listeners a little about where the app originated and how it is useful for communication in Israel. Pesca explained this app as the next twitter because its ability to send the message “yo” with a simple click of a button.

            Although I enjoyed listening to the majority of the podcast, I felt the remainder of it was mostly to advertise. I don’t listen to a lot of podcasts, so I don’t really know if that is a normal thing to do, but I noticed a lot of Pesca’s airtime was used to encourage his audience to download the Yo app or subscribe to Harry’s razors, so he really lost my interest there.

BBC World Service: Global News

            After listening to Pesca’s entertaining podcast, this one was a bit hard to bear. It was a typical newscast, and the podcast had a lot of great, useful information; however, it lacked the ability to hold my attention. The assortment of topics the podcast discussed ranged from militant activity, Ebola, James Foley’s death and some pop culture news.

            The speakers that went into more depth with each topic ended up being recordings of reporters for the story. Although the recordings were very helpful in learning more about the topics, they were very poorly replayed during this podcast. While a female reporter was giving a recap on the emotional events of the James Foley memorial, there were some technical mistakes made and the recording and podcast speaker were talking at the same time. It was very distracting, and I wasn’t able to focus on what the reporter was trying to say.

            Other recordings that were replayed during the podcast also seemed a bit fuzzy or bad quality, and the information being given during those recordings were crucial to learning more. During the Ebola report, the woman trying to explain the amount of possibly infected victims seemed to have a bad connection because there was a lot of background noise in her report.

            The podcast was also boring, and the long gaps of silence between topics didn’t really help my attention span. The pauses also were a little confusing. At first, I actually thought I’d accidentally paused the podcast because the gap of silence lasted so long.

            I don’t’ mean to really criticize the podcast because it really went into depth with some very important topics that interested me; however, I believe they could’ve ensured that the podcast quality was a little better before posting it to the pubic.

Overall, I’d have to say that if these two podcasts were able to combine, they’d make better news. Mike Pesca’s upbeat attitude was easy to listen and pay attention to, but I wish he’d brought in a few more serious topics, like the Global News did, rather than spend time telling us about Harry’s razors and other advertisements.

First Reading

One of the things I enjoyed about the reading was trying to define what the truth is. If reporting on the truth is a pivotal piece of journalism - which it is - we all need to come to an agreement on what the truth is. Unfortunately, this is inherently flawed because we all bring our own personal backgrounds and biases into our reporting even if we don't mean to. Personal experience and opinion always seem to find a way into what would otherwise be "just the facts."

Another point that I thought was interesting was regarding the health and livelihood of journalism. Does it even matter anymore with the way technology is advancing? Everyone thinks they are a journalist, now. When someone hears about something and relays it - whether it be via Facebook, Twitter or a blog - they have now become a reporter of information, and others could accept that as a form of journalism. Who is to say this information is any less valuable than another news source?

Lab 2 post (podcasts)

NPR Tech podcast:
There were several topics discussed on this podcast: hackers looking for weaknesses in software, electronic devices being used to repel sharks, how renting apartments in San Francisco using sites like VRBO is affecting the housing market, tech security breaches (DefCon conference) and buying cheap drones/making drones.

Although this podcast addressed some very interesting topics, it was kind of all over the place. The transitions between the different topics was awkward because they didn't saying anything about switching to a new topic. I would have liked this podcast more if there had been some kind of roadmap at the beginning telling me what was going to be talked about and what order the discussions points were going to be in.
I did like the way each story was structured, however. Each story was broken up with interviews of experts in the different fields. One reporter interviewed a speaker at the DefCon conference and another interviewed a student that was researching using drones to create a 3D map of a college campus. These interviews helped keep the stories interesting since there were no visuals.

Dan Carlin: Common Sense-The Wages of Fear:
This podcast discussed the 4th amendment and what happens when our system is run on fear. "In order to be free we must be brave."

Unlike the NPR podcast, this podcast was about one topic. I liked the focus on one topic, but there was not a lot to break it up. Carlin tried to keep his podcast interesting by using quotes and more of a narrative style. He also began with a hypothetical situation to hook his audience and addressed the audience as "you". I did like the conversational style, but I found myself getting more distracted because Carlin was the only person talking on the podcast.
The topic of the podcast was interesting and Carlin brought up some points about national security that I hadn't heard before. Unfortunately, because Carlin was the only person on the podcast it was more opinion based and had shades of his biases.

I don't know if I can necessarily say that one podcast was better than the other. They were presented in very different formats. If NPR gave more structure to their podcast and presented the audience with a roadmap of their discussion points it would have been more enjoyable to listen to. On the other hand, if Carlin's podcast had been a little shorter and he had included some interviews or had other people talking in some capacity I would've had a better experience with his podcast.

Week One Reading

    This week's reading is mainly about the history of journalism, the nature of news, the journalists' roles, and the changing media landscape.

    In The Element of Journalism, the authors well defined the truth and objectivity of the news. The authors claimed that the truth and objectivity of journalism were not absolute.  But good journalists should make every effort to present enough information for the readers to make their own minds.      

    With the development of the technology, new media quickly occupied the media market and totally changed the media landscape. The 2008 Pew study showed that more and more people got news  online, and young generation had less interests in reading news. Whether or not newspapers will disappear in the future is always debated by people.  

    The same question also bothers Chinese scholars and journalists. Last month, a top student in the college entrance examination showed interests studying Journalism in college. Several journalists persuaded him to change his mind during the interview because of the low salary and the changing environment. Finally, that student decided to take economics as his major. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqgj/jryw/2014-06-28/content_11912556.html

    This was just a small case. But it did show that many people lack confidence in traditional media area.

   In the book of News Reporting and Writing, the authors thought that some legacy companies would continue to thrive, but they would like to hire young people who have multiple skills to deal with emerging media environment. 

   In my opinion, journalists are still needed by the market. A good journalist must be really passionate about journalism, good at storytelling and familiar with multiple reporting skills. Also he or she must have the consciousness of the society. 

    

Week 1 Reading Response

While reading, I was struck by the concepts of "we media" and "citizen journalism". Having lived in St. Louis, I have followed the events in Ferguson fairly closely. Potentially emotionally-charged events tend to result in confusion, at least immediately after the fact. So many conflicting reports from so many there can exacerbate those feelings of confusion or disbelief. The differences between accounts of those actually there in Ferguson were striking. Given the amount of conflicting information, it was difficult for the public to judge which was accurate. 

In this rise of citizen journalism, how can the general public sift through all of the various accounts available to determine what is factual and accurate? Do they accept reports from professional journalists who may not be at the scene over accounts of those observing the event firsthand? Which is true? Or, is the "real story" some combination of the accounts out there available via social media, television news sources, and print news? Will the rise of citizen journalism result in the public perceiving that journalists are less credible than before? And if so, how can we combat that?

Honestly, I’m still stuck on the answer to most of these questions.

Week One Reading Response

I'm convinced that journalists are all optimists or they don't really understand the profession they are getting into. At least that was my take away from the reading.

The reading seemed to paint a bleak picture of the news industry, but new media is the most galvanizing part about the journalism field, not to mention all the transferable skills. With the proliferation of media sources because of the internet, it seems that young students and recent graduates have a leg up in the industry because, as the book mentions, we have skills that many older people in the industry may not––graphic and video skills, as well as social media acumen.

I believe that younger generations are still connected to the news, just in a different way. The internet and other "consolidated" forms of media can be very profitable with the amount of money news sources stand to make through advertising on their webpages when they get a high amount of traffic. The book was absolutely right by making the assertion that young people don't watch news on television anymore. There is a plethora of reasons for this, and one I encountered as an avid social media user during the outrage in Ferguson, MO. I have encountered numerous young people express their disdain for major news sources like CNN and MSNBC because of their obstructed news coverage, many claiming that social media websites have become some of the most credible sources for our news.

Younger news watchers have become leery of the traditional news correspondence, and are turning online to seek out news that is raw and untainted. Even though media has become so fragmented, it would seem that there would be profitability in "real time" news coverage online that appeals to a younger audience.

Week 1 Post

One of the main focuses of the reading was the future of journalism and the transition from print to Web formats. In order to survive most major newspapers now have websites and some even post articles on social media sites. The fate of small local newspapers was also brought up. While some hyper local papers have garnered a loyal following in their communities others have fallen by the wayside.

I observed this transition firsthand when I worked for The Journal, a small newspaper in Seneca, SC. The journalists and editors at this paper were very stuck in their ways and didn’t really feel that Web was important because they were writing for an older audience. As a result their website was pretty terrible.

This reading resonated with me because I know how frustrating it can be when a legacy news outlet doesn’t want to get with the times. I knew the paper had a lot of potential, but because of its local focus and the staff wanting to appeal to an older audience the paper couldn’t realize its full potential.

            This weeks reading really focused on the role that news plays in the publics’ lives, and I was surprised to read about the amount of impact that journalists have and their “power” over society.

            A journalist’s job is tough, and the reading really emphasizes that aspect because not only is it a journalist’s job to inform the public, which is what I always thought of it as, but journalists also have to consider things like what the public wants and what they need. When writing an article, I never realized that journalist’s have to keep in mind their audiences’ different beliefs or what they are going to want to read about that day, so it’s not just about tracking down a good story and telling people about it.

            Another main point of the reading that really stuck out to me was the changing community for journalism. Now people don’t have to wait for a news article to come out, and they have the ability to post news themselves on websites. So a journalist’s job isn’t just reporting the news anymore; it also includes photos, videos, editing websites, blogs, etc. It was interesting to see how the roles of journalists have changed and are always changing.