The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported Thursday that more online journalists are jailed than print journalists.
The New York organization announced its yearly census of 125 jailed journalists− two fewer than last year’s total− around the world. Fifty-six of the journalists consider themselves bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors.
China led the group 28 jailed journalists. Twenty-four of China’s journalists worked online. Cuba is second with 21, followed by Myanmar, and Eritrea.
Although the article did not offer the number of American jailed journalists, which occasionally occurs, the findings go to show how influential the internet is affecting media in other countries.
According to CPJ executive director Joel Simon said, "Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other.”
With this influence comes the attention from repressive countries. International journalists do not have access to freedom of the press as compared to America’s. The internet has the ability to access millions of people on a daily basis, thus changing countries “public discourse." It's helpful to mention that one of the most common reasons these journalists were jailed is because they acted against national interests.
I attempt to think of American journalists and how our media would be if the threat of censorship and jail were daily reminders, instructing us how to do our jobs. That image is unimaginable. I've grown up and been educated in a nation where freedom of the press is continually being challenged and fought for. Discovering that other journalists are being imprisoned for challenging their nation's interest forces me to step back and appreciate what our country has built in the past 200 years.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Should citizen journalists be considered journalists
Twitter has become a tool for all, including the average Joe.
Ordinary people, or as we like to call them, “citizen journalists,” are posting about the Mumbai attacks, and Americans are following.
What constitutes a citizen journalist? The topic occasionally leads to discussions in my classes, and forces me to ask myself whether there is such a thing as a citizen journalist.
As thankful as I am for the Twitter feeds, cellphone images, and photographs pertaining to the attacks, citizen journalism is a convenient label.
Samuel Freedman, journalism professor and New York Times education columnist, states his opinion in a Poynter Institute post on the matter, "It is journalism according to the ethos of indie rock ‘n’ roll: Do It Yourself. For precisely such reasons, I despair over the movement’s current cachet. However wrapped in idealism, citizen journalism forms part of a larger attempt to degrade, even to disenfranchise journalism as practiced by trained professionals."
What separates a post about the attacks from a post about somebody’s cat that can bark like a dog? By all means, I’m not equaling the events, but there is a line that appears to separate what is considered citizen journalism. Am I against people who post coverage of events? No, not at all. What I don’t agree with is the title they are given. Much like careers in medicine or law, I believe journalism is a profession, and the word “journalist” should be reserved for those whose careers are in the field.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Muslim author questions why media cover Al Qaeda
I wanted to blog about yesterday's New York Times' article on Al Qaeda releasing a video acknowledging America’s President-elect Barack Obama . Never have I been so infuriated by a topic in which a newspaper has covered. Yet, I wasn’t sure of the media angle to pursue. Well, I found it.
Written by Sumbul Ali-Karamal, author of The Muslim Next Door: The Qur’an, the Media and that Veil Thing, her post on Mediachannel.org questions why the media cover Al Qaeda and not other Muslim leaders.
Ali-Karamal writes, “We claim we do not negotiate with terrorists. We claim we are conducting a war on terror. And yet, at least since 9/11, we too often legitimize terrorists.”
Kudos to her! Why do the media feel it necessary to report Qaeda’s thoughts of America? In essence, should I be upset at the New York Time’s article content?
Or should I be more upset by the fact that the media relay Qaeda’s message of hating America? Is it important we know how they feel about us when we already know they hate us?
Ali-Karamal supports her post by citing examples of how the terrorist group receives more coverage than Muslim religious and political leaders. Why is that? Maybe it’s because the media report what they feel attract readers. According to the media, this subject matter is important because that’s what they are reporting. I admit, I was drawn to the article and read it to the end. Had the media not reported it, I would have never known how Qaeda felt about the President-elect.
The Times’ reporters write, “The video by Mr. Zawahri, an Egyptian doctor who has long been Al Qaeda’s second-ranking operative, contains no specific warning of an attack against the United States. But he tells his followers that America ‘continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses.’”
If anything, this article moves me to support the war until Qaeda can no longer exist. I’m not upset they reported this, but I do see the validity in Ali-Karamal’s post. America can do everything to ward off the zealous hatred, but it will never happen. President-elect Obama wants a timeline for America to leave Iraq. Sadly, I predict more coverage will be given to Qaeda and their happiness in us leaving.
Written by Sumbul Ali-Karamal, author of The Muslim Next Door: The Qur’an, the Media and that Veil Thing, her post on Mediachannel.org questions why the media cover Al Qaeda and not other Muslim leaders.
Ali-Karamal writes, “We claim we do not negotiate with terrorists. We claim we are conducting a war on terror. And yet, at least since 9/11, we too often legitimize terrorists.”
Kudos to her! Why do the media feel it necessary to report Qaeda’s thoughts of America? In essence, should I be upset at the New York Time’s article content?
Or should I be more upset by the fact that the media relay Qaeda’s message of hating America? Is it important we know how they feel about us when we already know they hate us?
Ali-Karamal supports her post by citing examples of how the terrorist group receives more coverage than Muslim religious and political leaders. Why is that? Maybe it’s because the media report what they feel attract readers. According to the media, this subject matter is important because that’s what they are reporting. I admit, I was drawn to the article and read it to the end. Had the media not reported it, I would have never known how Qaeda felt about the President-elect.
The Times’ reporters write, “The video by Mr. Zawahri, an Egyptian doctor who has long been Al Qaeda’s second-ranking operative, contains no specific warning of an attack against the United States. But he tells his followers that America ‘continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses.’”
If anything, this article moves me to support the war until Qaeda can no longer exist. I’m not upset they reported this, but I do see the validity in Ali-Karamal’s post. America can do everything to ward off the zealous hatred, but it will never happen. President-elect Obama wants a timeline for America to leave Iraq. Sadly, I predict more coverage will be given to Qaeda and their happiness in us leaving.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Jumping the Gun
In what should have been a major headline in every paper across the country, Georgia's Rockdale Citizen newspaper appears to have almost committed a crime. The paper placed Obama's accomplishment of winning the election below the fold and with what seems to be smallest head count on the entire front page.
In response to the criticism the paper has received in blogs and from the public, the Rockdale responds, "When our readers went to bed Tuesday night, they knew that Obama had been elected their next president. What they did not know was who had been elected commission chairman [...] elected sheriff [...] elected to the board of education [...] elected clerk of courts and [...] elected to the board of commissioners. Our responsibility is to serve our readers, and those stories comprised the news package that led our front page."
What's surprising is that the editorial continues on to explain that none of the blogs commenting on the issue bothered to call the paper and ask why they formatted the front page as they did.
Had readers known the paper's focus to begin with, maybe there would not have been as much criticism as there currently is. I find this disheartening. It's an instance where as much as bloggers want to be thought of credible journalists, they received wind of a story and ran to publish it. Or maybe I'm being harsh, because it's the blogs that are criticizing the paper. Either way, a majority of us are quick to judge and some favor newspaper journalism over blogging.
In response to the criticism the paper has received in blogs and from the public, the Rockdale responds, "When our readers went to bed Tuesday night, they knew that Obama had been elected their next president. What they did not know was who had been elected commission chairman [...] elected sheriff [...] elected to the board of education [...] elected clerk of courts and [...] elected to the board of commissioners. Our responsibility is to serve our readers, and those stories comprised the news package that led our front page."
What's surprising is that the editorial continues on to explain that none of the blogs commenting on the issue bothered to call the paper and ask why they formatted the front page as they did.
Had readers known the paper's focus to begin with, maybe there would not have been as much criticism as there currently is. I find this disheartening. It's an instance where as much as bloggers want to be thought of credible journalists, they received wind of a story and ran to publish it. Or maybe I'm being harsh, because it's the blogs that are criticizing the paper. Either way, a majority of us are quick to judge and some favor newspaper journalism over blogging.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Research suggests link between teen pregnancy and racy sitcoms
A study released Monday suggests a link between teens that watch sexually explicit TV shows and pregnancy.
To be more specific, these teens were twice as likely as those who had limited exposure to these shows.
Published by the nonpartisan, nonprofit RAND Corp., researchers are quick to point out that factors may lead to pregnancy, and TV may be one of them.
“We were surprised to find this link,” said behavioral scientist Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author.
While yes, TV may be a factor, I don't think it should come as a surprise. What should come as a surprise is that this study is supposedly one of the first of its kind. Also, I'm not sure I believe there is as much of a likelihood as the findings suggest. Too many factors contribute to pregnancy for the cause to be narrowed to one, two, or even three reasons.
If a teen or adolescent is going to engage in sexual behaviors, he or she will. Sometimes the media is given too much credit, and this is one of them. While TV does contain racy sitcoms, should they feel responsible for the way teenagers behave? No. Some may say media educates, but parents ultimately need to be the ones to educate their children about sex and the consequence of that behavior.
To be more specific, these teens were twice as likely as those who had limited exposure to these shows.
Published by the nonpartisan, nonprofit RAND Corp., researchers are quick to point out that factors may lead to pregnancy, and TV may be one of them.
“We were surprised to find this link,” said behavioral scientist Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author.
While yes, TV may be a factor, I don't think it should come as a surprise. What should come as a surprise is that this study is supposedly one of the first of its kind. Also, I'm not sure I believe there is as much of a likelihood as the findings suggest. Too many factors contribute to pregnancy for the cause to be narrowed to one, two, or even three reasons.
If a teen or adolescent is going to engage in sexual behaviors, he or she will. Sometimes the media is given too much credit, and this is one of them. While TV does contain racy sitcoms, should they feel responsible for the way teenagers behave? No. Some may say media educates, but parents ultimately need to be the ones to educate their children about sex and the consequence of that behavior.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
70 percent of Americans believe journalists want Obama to win
I've been thinking of the media's current represention of both candidates and how the media is viewed liberal.
Just how many people believe the media is biased towards to the candidates?
According to the Pew Research Center, "By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4."
Eight percent of Americans say there isn't favoritism among journalists, and thirteen percent say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.
What's so surprising about this poll is that the margin is significantly higher than in previous elections. As compared to the 2004 election, the margin was 50%-22%, democrat to republican.
I think the media is doing a decent job at representing both candidates. Yes, sometimes there is the occasional misrepresentation, but that opinion can go either way.
If you read a recent column by Slate's “nonliberal” Jack Schafer, you’ll discover his view of working in the liberally dominated profession and why he’s not complaining. While a majority of reporters and editors are liberal, Schafer, a political minority at Slate, points that conservatives fill the commentariat in the way liberals fill mainstream reporting.
In Schafer's "The Liberal Media and How to Stop it," he writes, “The best press criticism isn't a column or a moan of disgust into a TV camera. It's writing a better story.”
If conservatives think there is a media bias towards liberal candidates and ideas, then they need to be writing the stories as well. Maybe then the American view of journalists will decrease that 61 percent candidate difference.
Just how many people believe the media is biased towards to the candidates?
According to the Pew Research Center, "By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4."
Eight percent of Americans say there isn't favoritism among journalists, and thirteen percent say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.
What's so surprising about this poll is that the margin is significantly higher than in previous elections. As compared to the 2004 election, the margin was 50%-22%, democrat to republican.
I think the media is doing a decent job at representing both candidates. Yes, sometimes there is the occasional misrepresentation, but that opinion can go either way.
If you read a recent column by Slate's “nonliberal” Jack Schafer, you’ll discover his view of working in the liberally dominated profession and why he’s not complaining. While a majority of reporters and editors are liberal, Schafer, a political minority at Slate, points that conservatives fill the commentariat in the way liberals fill mainstream reporting.
In Schafer's "The Liberal Media and How to Stop it," he writes, “The best press criticism isn't a column or a moan of disgust into a TV camera. It's writing a better story.”
If conservatives think there is a media bias towards liberal candidates and ideas, then they need to be writing the stories as well. Maybe then the American view of journalists will decrease that 61 percent candidate difference.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Journalism classes should be more than an elective
Due to changing graduation requirements, journalism classes are becoming an elective and threatening school newspapers, according to a recent article posted on poynter.org.
I admit, the thought of being part of my high school newspaper didn't cross my mind. Our newspaper consisted of a paper pamphlet with random articles. I didn't think highly of it. Look at me now- I'm a journalism major.
But with schools that take their paper seriously, enrollment numbers are down, worrying some teacher and students. This is disappointing. There are three reasons why a journalism class should be required. First, no matter the type of newspaper, writing is an important tool to learn in high school that carries into college; I often find myself thinking my research papers are written as news article.
Second, not only can a journalism class improve writing, but learning how to upload and design graphics are beneficial. These are desired skills in today's society. It makes you more marketable, and it gives you a jumpstart in college when working with media tools.
Finally, journalism affects our lives. When Americans pay attention to the news, they receive it from journalists! Knowing how reporters report may just make society a little less judgmental of the media.
I admit, the thought of being part of my high school newspaper didn't cross my mind. Our newspaper consisted of a paper pamphlet with random articles. I didn't think highly of it. Look at me now- I'm a journalism major.
But with schools that take their paper seriously, enrollment numbers are down, worrying some teacher and students. This is disappointing. There are three reasons why a journalism class should be required. First, no matter the type of newspaper, writing is an important tool to learn in high school that carries into college; I often find myself thinking my research papers are written as news article.
Second, not only can a journalism class improve writing, but learning how to upload and design graphics are beneficial. These are desired skills in today's society. It makes you more marketable, and it gives you a jumpstart in college when working with media tools.
Finally, journalism affects our lives. When Americans pay attention to the news, they receive it from journalists! Knowing how reporters report may just make society a little less judgmental of the media.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Saying goodbye to the AP
The New York Tribune Company is the first major newspaper to announce the cancellation of business with the Associated Press.
As part of the contract, the drop will occur in two years. Other papers that have given the two-year notice include The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, The Bakersfield Californian, The Post Register of Idaho Falls, and several other smaller newspapers.
The cancellation, which will officially begin in two years, arose out of new rates in which the AP will charge. The AP announced the new rate system in 2007. Currently, the AP charges newspapers for a news package typically based on the buyer's location and circulation. The new structure features offering all worldwide breaking news. For an additional cost, papers can by the premium package that included non-breaking news. In 2009, the new structure will go into effect.
I had no idea the AP decided to change their rate structure. Obviously, some newspapers across the country are unhappy with the decision.
According to editorsweblog.org, "The Post Register's (in Idaho Falls) editor and publisher Roger Plothow refers to the new fee structure as 'too rigid' and 'too expensive,' pointing out that the AP hasn't adapted too well to the changing newspaper industry."
It is unfortunate the AP has decided to change what they'll offer. From what I read in newspapers, a majority of stories are written by AP reporters. Also, a majority of news headlines aren't breaking ones. Yet, the AP will be charging extra for those stories. With the current financial situation in the newspaper industry, newspapers don't want to pay extra.
What's going to happen to the newspapers that have cancelled their AP subscription? Hyperlocalism is going to saturate those newspapers.
As part of the contract, the drop will occur in two years. Other papers that have given the two-year notice include The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, The Bakersfield Californian, The Post Register of Idaho Falls, and several other smaller newspapers.
The cancellation, which will officially begin in two years, arose out of new rates in which the AP will charge. The AP announced the new rate system in 2007. Currently, the AP charges newspapers for a news package typically based on the buyer's location and circulation. The new structure features offering all worldwide breaking news. For an additional cost, papers can by the premium package that included non-breaking news. In 2009, the new structure will go into effect.
I had no idea the AP decided to change their rate structure. Obviously, some newspapers across the country are unhappy with the decision.
According to editorsweblog.org, "The Post Register's (in Idaho Falls) editor and publisher Roger Plothow refers to the new fee structure as 'too rigid' and 'too expensive,' pointing out that the AP hasn't adapted too well to the changing newspaper industry."
It is unfortunate the AP has decided to change what they'll offer. From what I read in newspapers, a majority of stories are written by AP reporters. Also, a majority of news headlines aren't breaking ones. Yet, the AP will be charging extra for those stories. With the current financial situation in the newspaper industry, newspapers don't want to pay extra.
What's going to happen to the newspapers that have cancelled their AP subscription? Hyperlocalism is going to saturate those newspapers.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
To be a blogger!
According to a recent Slate.com article last week, there are various amounts of income a blogger can make.
Bloggers, such as LOLcat Empire, Perez Hilton, Jason Kottke, can rake in over $5,000 a month, leading the blogger's average income to be around $75,000.
The more hits a blog receives, the more it’s wanted for advertising purposes. In return, companies, such as Amazon.com and Google, hope to receive “clicks” on their ads and are willing to pay for advertisements on highly trafficked blogs.
Apparently, if you’re a good blogger, you can make a decent salary because of the number of visitors that look or read your blog. Furthermore, I had no idea some bloggers had made more than $200,000. The most significant conclusion I derive from this article is how blogs have impacted the Web’s readers.
I’m skeptical of blogs. My experience with blogs has been that they are mostly opinion based, and they appear to be more editorial, if anything else. The only difference, for me, between an editorial and a blog is that the reader can comment on a blog. If I want to read news, I’ll go to a news source. If I want commentary, I’ll read a blog.
Also, it’s become more difficult to conduct research on the Web. Search aggregators bring up blogs with the topic I’m looking for, and I don’t want a blog. Instead, I’m beginning to search the Simpson library’s databases to research, but I can only access those sources if I’m logged onto a network computer. If I weren’t a student, I’d have to pay for the databases. In order to make users pay more to use the Internet, will users eventually be forced to pay for credible information and be left with social, biased commentary?
On a side note, is there a blogging school where I can apply?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"Teaching" youth
Supporters of both parties are going to become a little more intense as each day brings us closer to the election.
In a recent FoxNews.com article, Republican Virginia teachers are upset by a mass e-mail sent out by the state's teacher union to its members in support of Democratic nominee Obama. The e-mail asked teachers to dress in blue this past Tuesday in representation of their support for Obama.
While "Obama Blue Day" may have been a good suggestion at the time to the union, Republican teachers view it as a way to influence students' views.
At the same time, New York teacher unions have been scrutinized for distributing thousands of Obama buttons to its members.
Ann Forte, New York Department of Education spokeswoman, said, "Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons."
I agree.
While I find these actions unacceptable, I cannot argue that they are not protected under the first amendment. But do I believe it's a form of propaganda? Yes, I do. Schools are institutions where youth should not be influenced, particularly by their educators. The media frenzy of who to support is not an appropriate setting where youths are easily persuaded. Students should not have to worry about theirs and their teachers' political beliefs juxtaposing.
Teachers should respect their students by not intentionally bringing personal views into the classroom. I find these union members' actions extremely disrespectful, and I'm disappointed in the fact that they are intentionally influencing America's youth. Education is about providing the individual with necessary tools to learn and form their own opinions.
In a recent FoxNews.com article, Republican Virginia teachers are upset by a mass e-mail sent out by the state's teacher union to its members in support of Democratic nominee Obama. The e-mail asked teachers to dress in blue this past Tuesday in representation of their support for Obama.
While "Obama Blue Day" may have been a good suggestion at the time to the union, Republican teachers view it as a way to influence students' views.
At the same time, New York teacher unions have been scrutinized for distributing thousands of Obama buttons to its members.
Ann Forte, New York Department of Education spokeswoman, said, "Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons."
I agree.
While I find these actions unacceptable, I cannot argue that they are not protected under the first amendment. But do I believe it's a form of propaganda? Yes, I do. Schools are institutions where youth should not be influenced, particularly by their educators. The media frenzy of who to support is not an appropriate setting where youths are easily persuaded. Students should not have to worry about theirs and their teachers' political beliefs juxtaposing.
Teachers should respect their students by not intentionally bringing personal views into the classroom. I find these union members' actions extremely disrespectful, and I'm disappointed in the fact that they are intentionally influencing America's youth. Education is about providing the individual with necessary tools to learn and form their own opinions.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Advertising to minorities: an avenue to pursue
In regards to our class discussions involving advertising, this most recent blog concerns just that topic. While in my African American Female Literature class, I began connecting our communications class to my literature class. It led me to ask myself, "How do minorities affect minorities?"
In my online search, I came across an interesting article, located on an online career website, pertaining to my question. According to the article, this media market has become a type of niche marketing. I fully believe the following statement in the article: "The advertising industry was founded on the belief that to sell products, you have to appeal to the majority."
It continues on to describe that the current market's "majority" is decreasing.
In today's society, the white population is increasingly becoming the minority. The United States, often referred to as being a melting pot, constantly has immigrants entering the country, or having children, that contribute to the term even more so. With more minorities affecting the target market, market strategies, and advertising in general, the mass media, as it relates to advertising, would appear to be an open market with endless opportunities to create and brand a product.
In my online search, I came across an interesting article, located on an online career website, pertaining to my question. According to the article, this media market has become a type of niche marketing. I fully believe the following statement in the article: "The advertising industry was founded on the belief that to sell products, you have to appeal to the majority."
It continues on to describe that the current market's "majority" is decreasing.
In today's society, the white population is increasingly becoming the minority. The United States, often referred to as being a melting pot, constantly has immigrants entering the country, or having children, that contribute to the term even more so. With more minorities affecting the target market, market strategies, and advertising in general, the mass media, as it relates to advertising, would appear to be an open market with endless opportunities to create and brand a product.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
It'll make him happier, I promise...almost
As we've been discussing advertisements in class, I never realized how, according to today's standards, advertisements nearly 60 and 50 years ago were so sexist.
I've noticed a common similarity among advertisements, particularly those in the 1950s. The media (marketers) specifically appealed to women by means of making them think of pleasing their husband. For example, this pictured advertisement uses something as simple as a meat thermometer to make sure dinner's cooked correctly for him.
I've noticed a common similarity among advertisements, particularly those in the 1950s. The media (marketers) specifically appealed to women by means of making them think of pleasing their husband. For example, this pictured advertisement uses something as simple as a meat thermometer to make sure dinner's cooked correctly for him.
Now, compare that to a similar item advertised on the Web. It states, "Using a Cooking or Meat Thermometer. Have you ever cut into a roast or a turkey to see if it has finished cooking? Have you ever paid what seemed like a fortune for a beautiful steak and have it come off the grill overcooked and dry? You DEFINITELY need to use a cooking or meat thermometer!"
What a change in the marketing media! While some may argue that maybe the media hasn't done enough to close the sexist gap, I believe today's ads create a more individual, empowering buyer attitude. Now, the media understands this concept of individualism. Instead of trying to please one or two persons, the buyer is expected to satisfy his own expectations.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Tactful coverage lead to quality journalism
Recent criticism has risen in the journalism field regarding the coverage of 3-year-old Martin Kudlis' funeral.
Kuldlis was killed in a Colorado ice cream shop last week when a two-car accident occurred outside the store. One of the vehicles crashed into the store, killing Kudlis and the two women in the vehicle. But this isn't what causes the commotion.
What some citizens, as well as journalists, have a problem with is that the Rocky Mountain News covered the funeral live via text messaging from a phone to the paper's Web site. Although the reporter had permission to cover the funeral, it appears the paper's "taste in coverage" is being questioned.
Michelle Ferrier, a columnist and managing editor, online community hubs, for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, wrote in an email, "I think the glitz of technology has taken over common sense."
Perhaps this is true.
In reference to Ferrier's comment, John Temple, Rocky Mountain News editor, publisher and president, wrote, "We must learn to use the new tools at our disposal. Yes, there are going to be times we make mistakes, just as we do in our newspaper. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try something. It means we need to learn to do it well. That is our mission."
Or maybe this is true?
When I first read Temple's article, "New tech raises taste questions," I couldn't help but be appalled that the paper literally had live coverage as the funeral proceeded. But the more I read into the article, I can't help but be drawn to Temple's point of view. The reporter was given permission from the parents. It's not as if he went to the funeral, and the family was shocked at his or her presence.
With the advancement of technology, the opportunities to cover events are becoming endless for journalists. As the chances for live coverage increases, reporters are given the ability for the public to react and empathize as the event is unfolding, thus creating a deeper connection to what is happening at the exact moment.
I see this as a positive advancement as long as it is tastefully accomplished. I can only hope the reporter texted from an area isolated from grieving family and friends.
Kuldlis was killed in a Colorado ice cream shop last week when a two-car accident occurred outside the store. One of the vehicles crashed into the store, killing Kudlis and the two women in the vehicle. But this isn't what causes the commotion.
What some citizens, as well as journalists, have a problem with is that the Rocky Mountain News covered the funeral live via text messaging from a phone to the paper's Web site. Although the reporter had permission to cover the funeral, it appears the paper's "taste in coverage" is being questioned.
Michelle Ferrier, a columnist and managing editor, online community hubs, for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, wrote in an email, "I think the glitz of technology has taken over common sense."
Perhaps this is true.
In reference to Ferrier's comment, John Temple, Rocky Mountain News editor, publisher and president, wrote, "We must learn to use the new tools at our disposal. Yes, there are going to be times we make mistakes, just as we do in our newspaper. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try something. It means we need to learn to do it well. That is our mission."
Or maybe this is true?
When I first read Temple's article, "New tech raises taste questions," I couldn't help but be appalled that the paper literally had live coverage as the funeral proceeded. But the more I read into the article, I can't help but be drawn to Temple's point of view. The reporter was given permission from the parents. It's not as if he went to the funeral, and the family was shocked at his or her presence.
With the advancement of technology, the opportunities to cover events are becoming endless for journalists. As the chances for live coverage increases, reporters are given the ability for the public to react and empathize as the event is unfolding, thus creating a deeper connection to what is happening at the exact moment.
I see this as a positive advancement as long as it is tastefully accomplished. I can only hope the reporter texted from an area isolated from grieving family and friends.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Playing Fair
Us Weekly's newest issue features Republican Vice Presidential nominate Sarah Palin on its front cover of the current edition. To go along with the picture of the Alaskan Govnor, Palin holds her youngest child. The headline reads "Babies, Lies, and Scandals."
It appears certain subscribers are unhappy with how the magazine represent Palin as compared to Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, who is tenderly holding his wife, Michelle. The caption relates to how they love each other. According to MSNBC.com, subscribers are already canceling their subscriptions due to the difference in representation.
---
---
Is this a "fair" representation of both political sides given by journalism? To some, especially readers unhappy with the magazine, this may be seen as a sort of persuasion, biased and unfair propaganda in favor of the Democratic party.
---
---
---
With such a politically heated stage only to get hotter, the media's representation of political candidates will be scrutinized even more so. From a personal constituent standpoint, I believe voters from both parties will criticize the methods in which the media cover their political candidate. To each his own, but the way in which US Weekly features Palin seems to prey off her "celebrity, scandalous" status at the current moment.
Monday, April 21, 2008
New Sources for Online Revenue
With our recent class discussion involving the future revenue of online news outlets, an article on MSNBC.com discusses paid click advertisements on news aggregator Google.com.
According to the article, "Citing data that comScore Inc. released after the market closed on Wednesday, analysts said growth in Google's click-through rate has nearly ground to a halt."
Critics both agree and disagree on the affects this will have on the company's stocks, but what I find interesting is the fact that it might not generate as much revenue as some companies expect. Consequently, these advertisements are proving to be not as popular, hence a lack of revenue.
With the current cuts in the newspaper industry, and its shift to going online, how does the news industry plan on effectively creating consistent revenue? Is the online move really going to benefit the industry? Honestly, I'm not sure it is. Unless other sources of revenue are used, as we discussed in class, online journalism may take a downfall just as print has.
According to the article, "Citing data that comScore Inc. released after the market closed on Wednesday, analysts said growth in Google's click-through rate has nearly ground to a halt."
Critics both agree and disagree on the affects this will have on the company's stocks, but what I find interesting is the fact that it might not generate as much revenue as some companies expect. Consequently, these advertisements are proving to be not as popular, hence a lack of revenue.
With the current cuts in the newspaper industry, and its shift to going online, how does the news industry plan on effectively creating consistent revenue? Is the online move really going to benefit the industry? Honestly, I'm not sure it is. Unless other sources of revenue are used, as we discussed in class, online journalism may take a downfall just as print has.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Abortion: Speech and Prose
The internet has become flooded this week with comments regarding a story involving senior Aliza Shvarts and her senior project. According to the article, first published in Yale's school newspaper, the project involved Shvarts impregnating herself and using abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages throughout a nine month period.
---------------------------------------------------
There’s controversy regarding the truth of the student’s actuality of being pregnant, but that’s not the issue I’m focusing on. If indeed this is true, what are the complications that come as baggage?
---------------------------------------------------
With large amounts of argument and opinion surrounding the issue, the idea of freedom of speech has raised concern. Some argue it's Shvarts's right do with her body as she chooses, while others believe she is taking advantage of the freedom.
------------------------------------------------
Subsequent articles posted on news outlets, such as those on MSNBC.com, Poynter.org, and The Washington Post, sometimes contain over 100 posted comments per article.
According to Shvarts, she supposedly wanted to create a forum of discussion on the issue itself by using art.
-------------------------------------------------
Shvarts states in the article, “I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity,” Shvarts said. “I think that I’m creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.”
------------------------------------------------
Has she really done this? It appears there's more controversy regarding what she's done rather than the abortion issue.
----------------------------------------------
According to the same Yale Daily News article, "Sara Rahman ’09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.
---------------------------------------------
'[Shvarts’ exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism,' Rahman said. 'It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion.'"
-----------------------------------------------
The U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--------------------------------------
Is Shvarts's senior project essentially abusing freedom of speech? I'm not so quite sure she is. As disturbing as her actions allegedly are, a woman has the right to do to her body as she pleases. Whether she secretly “miscarried” or publicly announces it does not violate any law. True, some can claim Shvarts’s abuse of it, but there is nothing they can do to change it or punish Shvarts.
------------------------------------------
I have one more comment. What I don't understand is how the media can call what she did a miscarriage. By admitting to the fact that she took drugs to induce miscarrying, she is admitting to having an abortion. I love how the media consistently refers to it as a miscarriage; the play on prose appears to be making light of what she supposedly did.
(STILL not paragraphing!)
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Couric rumors
According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, it has been said by anonymous Central Broadcasting System executives that Katie Couric will be leaving the network before her contract ends in 2011. CBS has still not officially issued statements saying whether it's true or not. According to an article posted on MNSBC.com, "CBS and Couric both issued statements downplaying the Journal story while stopping short of an outright denial."
What I'm suprised at is the fact that Couric is an extremely well known face in American lives, yet didn't prosper. She hosted the "Today Show" for so many years that it's hard to not know who she is. Her celebrity status, worth $75 million according to her contract, appears to have not captured nightly viewer attention. Is it really worth taking a well-known face and crossing into a different "sector?"
For some television episodes, a celebrity appearance sometimes improves ratings, but that has not happened with Couric. Maybe partially because people my age and the house moms of
(Still not spacing for paragraphs)
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Is it really????
The discussion of racism is appearing frequently in today's media. One of the most recent issues involves the front cover of Vogue's "shape issue," in which basketball player LeBron James and supermodel Gisele Bundchen are feature. Some people have reacted with outrage, claiming it to be an extremely sexist image. Others are outraged at those who have had such a negative reaction to the cover. The people who claim to be upset find the picture to represent an image similar to King Kong holding onto a maiden in distress. Are people overreacting?Critics find extreme similarities between the two images, but sometimes I believe people grab at straws to make a big deal out of nothing. With so much news in our world, everything will be interpreted slightly different from one person to the next. How do I view it? Although I believe to each their own, I do not find it racist. As a venerable magazine, Vogue would not intentionally mean for a cover to be racist. Rather, I find it an intriguing picture, and maybe somewhat ironic of racism in American society. For James to pose in that particular way shows he was comfortable enough to do it. And if James is ok with it, why shouldn't I be too? And if Vogue is intentionally portraying racism, there is not a method to find out for sure whether it is. Unless the editor wants to share, I'm almost sure the public won't find out. But what's it matter? It's a cover. Bicker about something that truly illustrates racism.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Be technology savvy
Multimedia is no longer in the infancy stages in the journalism world. According to an online article on Poynter.org, it's now an "adolescent." With technological improvements, it is now more important then ever to engage an online audience. The article explains the input of five "online judges" regarding what does and does not work with online journalistic media. According to them, with the internet the opportunities are endless for improvement and suggestions, and it doesn't take an expert to do it either.
The article contains sound advice, but what I find most interesting is the fact of how important multimedia is becoming in the online world. Journalists need to know how to be competitive in today's job market, and this is one way of doing so. In meeting with several news publishers, I've been advised to become as technology savvy as possible if this is the type of career I wish to pursue. I can't say that it is, but the fact of just knowing how to create a multimedia package will make me even more marketable.
My advice? Learn anything you about multimedia. Take the initiative to enroll in a graphic design or multimedia class. I'll get off my podium now.
The article contains sound advice, but what I find most interesting is the fact of how important multimedia is becoming in the online world. Journalists need to know how to be competitive in today's job market, and this is one way of doing so. In meeting with several news publishers, I've been advised to become as technology savvy as possible if this is the type of career I wish to pursue. I can't say that it is, but the fact of just knowing how to create a multimedia package will make me even more marketable.
My advice? Learn anything you about multimedia. Take the initiative to enroll in a graphic design or multimedia class. I'll get off my podium now.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
College nude magazines coming to a town near you? (Ethics)
While I was randomly searching through online blogs, I came across one discussing the publishing of nude magazines on college campuses. I went to the original article, which was published more than a year ago by the New York Times. This will shock you.
------------------------------------------------------------
College students are creating and publishing nude magazines of students and models, but it's not necessarily a form of pornography. According to a Harvard staff member, his or her reply to one criticism was that "if you aren’t mature enough to tell the difference between playful nudity and pornography you probably shouldn’t be reading H Bomb [Harvard's nude magazine publication].”
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about sex and nudity. It's the glorification of the human body in all possible forms, whether that is through erotic and sensual poses. One former model asks the question of why she should not pose nude: "'A body is a body is a body, and I’m proud of my body, and why not show my body?'" So, why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure some readers are outraged by the article and questioned today's generation of ethics and morality; this is not something you want your parents hearing about. Is it OK for a school, such as Harvard, to approve funding for these sorts of publications? Or does it depend on the demographics and students attending a particular university? I'm not sure, but what I do know is that if one were to start here,, all hell would break loose, or at least for the time being.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So, why should Simpson not publish a magazine similar to
L.A. Times botches story
The L.A. Times recently announced its misuse of false documents in its implication that rapper Sean Combs had acquaintances carry out an assault on rapper Tupac Shakur in 1994.
------------------------------------------------------
The investigation was sparked by an article posted on The Smoking Gun, claiming the L.A. Times use sketchy documents as a basis for the March 17 story. Pulitzer Prize writer Chuck Philips, writer of the Tupac story, and his Deputy Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin both apologized. Philips claims a former FBI agent analyzed the documents and said they were authentic. Articles on MSNBC.com and The Smoking Gun point out the source's not-s0-creditible characteristics. According to Philips, he now believes he was "duped."
-------------------------------------------------
What is the lesson here? JOURNALISTS NEED TO TAKE DOCUMENTS SERIOUS. This story raises ethical concerns of how much journalists question the legitimacy of any type of received document. If a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter doesn't further investigate his or her documents, their creditability takes a hit. Not only that, but the fact that Philips is a "winner" and was "duped" only makes me question the serious of other journalists when they review information they've received.
-----------------------------------------------
But what I'm confused about is, how could a former FBI agent believe the documents are real, and The Smoking Gun gather information that they were fabricated? Is this really an error on Philips part, or the FBI's? According to the original L.A. Times story states that they were "relying on information from an unidentified FBI informant and other interviews." Oh really? It was an "unidentified" informant. So much for animosity when the story proves false. No wonder people are becoming frustrated when newspapers don't reveal their sources. The usage of sources reminds me of the ones "unidentified" in the New York Times John McCain story claiming the friendly relationship between McCain and the lobbyist to exist. Were those real sources?
Friday, March 21, 2008
One-Stop for ALL your news
News organizations have been a bit slow to catch on, but have finally begun advertising themselves on Facebook. An article on Poynter.com explains how media, such as The New York Times, America Broadcast Company, Chicago Tribune, and News Public Radio, are disseminating information to the younger generations.
Hooray! I tip my hat to whatever media is becoming involved with Facebook. With less and less young people reading the news, it has become harder to engage their attention and support. One of the quickest ways to receive news is to become a Facebook fan of some organization, and alerts are directly sent to you. So many people are "addicted" to Facebook, so what better way to receive news when people aren't directly going to news sites. The internet is constantly changing, thus allowing for different outlets to receive news. Facebook is becoming a one-way stop for personal and national news. Not only would you receive presidential information, but also who's in a new relationship!
Hooray! I tip my hat to whatever media is becoming involved with Facebook. With less and less young people reading the news, it has become harder to engage their attention and support. One of the quickest ways to receive news is to become a Facebook fan of some organization, and alerts are directly sent to you. So many people are "addicted" to Facebook, so what better way to receive news when people aren't directly going to news sites. The internet is constantly changing, thus allowing for different outlets to receive news. Facebook is becoming a one-way stop for personal and national news. Not only would you receive presidential information, but also who's in a new relationship!
Are you sure that's right? (Newswriting)
Eight newspapers in southern Brazil are working towards creating a more effective fact checking and copy editing process. The effort is name the Error Prevention Packet. The packet, composed of work by American and Brazilian professionals, contains helpful information for journalists to use when writing stories.
Basic highlights of the projects includes a database collection of errors between the eight newspapers, a checklist of the five most common copy and editing errors, and a manual focusing on individual division sections. If you read the article, it contains more specific and detailed information.
Why haven't American newspaper implemented a program such as this? Not only are corrections entered into a database, but it helps to trace patterns of mistakes. With the American public criticizing the reporting of journalists, maybe they'd feel more comfortable if newspapers had a systematic procedure to check facts, names, etc. I admire the Brazilian effort to deliver accurate information. Most journalists take the intiative to make sure everything's accurate but not all of them do, and Americans know this. If the public knew journalists followed an outline to check accuracy, there wouldn't be such a distrust of news.
Basic highlights of the projects includes a database collection of errors between the eight newspapers, a checklist of the five most common copy and editing errors, and a manual focusing on individual division sections. If you read the article, it contains more specific and detailed information.
Why haven't American newspaper implemented a program such as this? Not only are corrections entered into a database, but it helps to trace patterns of mistakes. With the American public criticizing the reporting of journalists, maybe they'd feel more comfortable if newspapers had a systematic procedure to check facts, names, etc. I admire the Brazilian effort to deliver accurate information. Most journalists take the intiative to make sure everything's accurate but not all of them do, and Americans know this. If the public knew journalists followed an outline to check accuracy, there wouldn't be such a distrust of news.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
That came from where? (Newswriting)
In regards to national news involving New York Governor Spritzer, where did the source originate to give the New York Times credibility for the story? Poynter Institute writer, Kelly McBride, raises this question in one of her recent articles posted online. As I was following the story, I was wondering the exact same thing. The Times broke the story, only to give credit to sources close to the Spritzer administration. This article reminds me of the McCain story. Remember? It's the one with the "close relationship" with a female lobbyist. As with that story, two people "close" to McCain's administration revealed or confirmed the information to the times.
What happened to giving CREDIBLE sources? And I'm not talking about abstract credibility, but ones with who said or told or confirmed information. How is the public supposed to believe journalism sources when one paper runs with the story and everyone else repeats the same information? Ultimately, the "one" paper may one day be wrong. With two recent Times stories crediting abstract stories, hopefully the paper is doing everything they can to absolutely make sure no mistakes occur, or else it'll come back to bite them in the ass.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Check and Balance!
Foxnews.com, MSNBC.com, and CNN.com (three common online news sites), each have articles regarding the FBI's improper acquirement of citizens' personal information while seeking data in terrorism investigations. I tip my hat to journalism! The fact that a liberal, conservative, and rather moderate website reported on the same issue, in fairly the same way, is how journalism is supposed to work.
This example represents journalism's purpose of checks and balances not only against the government, but also against each other. Not only have they published the information, but in my opinion they did it in an unbiased perspective as well. This is the first time I've read an article on all three sites and haven't felt the sway of either political side.
This example represents journalism's purpose of checks and balances not only against the government, but also against each other. Not only have they published the information, but in my opinion they did it in an unbiased perspective as well. This is the first time I've read an article on all three sites and haven't felt the sway of either political side.
The necessity of restricting third parties
According to FOXNews.com, a British mother of two small children was gang raped and the video, recorded on a cell phone, and was posted on YouTube. After officials were notified, the video was taken off the website. Approximately 600 people viewed the episode online. The article does not state whether the three boys who committed the rape were punished for posting it.
According to U.K. law, "sites that host videos posted by third parties must act 'expeditiously' to disable access to them in the event of a complaint in order to avoid any liability that may result from the content appearing."
What's the problem? A graphic, disturbing, and illegal video was placed online. Although the video was taken off, people still viewed this atrocity that should have never been posted online. With the opportunity for third parties to post videos on sites such as YouTube, pornographic or violent content has been posted.
I fully believe Andrew Keen would be disgusted with what happened and would find it to support his view on the downfall of Web 2.0. I have to agree with him. YouTube allows anyone to post on the site, and this is exactly Keen's point. Where are the "experts" to validate posts, such as the one mentioned? Yes, inappropriate videos are taken off, but that's only after someone has flagged it and the proper site officials have reviewed it to take it off. YouTube still allows any video to be posted without first being reviewed; the gang rape is not the first video regarding sex or violence. Where's the education in it being posted? There isn't any. It's sick, and I wonder where YouTube's ethics is when there still is no pre-reviewing of videos.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334818,00.html
According to U.K. law, "sites that host videos posted by third parties must act 'expeditiously' to disable access to them in the event of a complaint in order to avoid any liability that may result from the content appearing."
What's the problem? A graphic, disturbing, and illegal video was placed online. Although the video was taken off, people still viewed this atrocity that should have never been posted online. With the opportunity for third parties to post videos on sites such as YouTube, pornographic or violent content has been posted.
I fully believe Andrew Keen would be disgusted with what happened and would find it to support his view on the downfall of Web 2.0. I have to agree with him. YouTube allows anyone to post on the site, and this is exactly Keen's point. Where are the "experts" to validate posts, such as the one mentioned? Yes, inappropriate videos are taken off, but that's only after someone has flagged it and the proper site officials have reviewed it to take it off. YouTube still allows any video to be posted without first being reviewed; the gang rape is not the first video regarding sex or violence. Where's the education in it being posted? There isn't any. It's sick, and I wonder where YouTube's ethics is when there still is no pre-reviewing of videos.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334818,00.html
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The public is as equally accountable as journalists (Newswriting)
Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar and writer for Poynter Online, holds the public partially responsible for bias against journalists. Clark provides several main points in which he gives the public benefit of the doubt, but he also explains how and why the public is accountable.
"But I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance," Clark said. "In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media."
I agree with Clark, and I'm not doing it strictly because I consider myself a journalist, but because I never thought to hold the public just as accountable as journalists.
It's the journalist's duty to remain unbiased and to give the most objective story as possible. I truly believe a journalist wouldn't be in the field if he or she didn't think so as well. True, there are the "bad apples" that smear journalism's credibility, but that is seen in every profession as well.
The public remains solely dependent on media for news, and journalists will go to the most extreme measures in bringing the news to them. There have been record number of journalists killed from being in war-torn areas, and yet all journalists ever hear are the criticisms from the public. Where is the good that comes from journalism? Where the people who appreciate the lives and professions being risked to inform the public?
Clark argues that without "public support and a growing audience," journalists will become unable to accomplish the responsibility to report. Journalists are lacking credibility, and it continues to decline. There has to be trust between both the public and journalists to achieve the most informational news as possible. Where is the support and credibilty going to be in 30 years if this doesn't happen? I see journalists who don't care about the truth, and the public in having finally killed news.
"But I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance," Clark said. "In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media."
I agree with Clark, and I'm not doing it strictly because I consider myself a journalist, but because I never thought to hold the public just as accountable as journalists.
It's the journalist's duty to remain unbiased and to give the most objective story as possible. I truly believe a journalist wouldn't be in the field if he or she didn't think so as well. True, there are the "bad apples" that smear journalism's credibility, but that is seen in every profession as well.
The public remains solely dependent on media for news, and journalists will go to the most extreme measures in bringing the news to them. There have been record number of journalists killed from being in war-torn areas, and yet all journalists ever hear are the criticisms from the public. Where is the good that comes from journalism? Where the people who appreciate the lives and professions being risked to inform the public?
Clark argues that without "public support and a growing audience," journalists will become unable to accomplish the responsibility to report. Journalists are lacking credibility, and it continues to decline. There has to be trust between both the public and journalists to achieve the most informational news as possible. Where is the support and credibilty going to be in 30 years if this doesn't happen? I see journalists who don't care about the truth, and the public in having finally killed news.
Here's to furthering the distrust in journalism (Ethics)
The New York Times has received over 4,000 questions concerning the article published last week regarding Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Editors and reporters who worked with the story have attempted to answer a substantial amount of questions.
One question, asked by Debbie Collazo from Tucson, AZ, caught my attention: "Why did The New York Times strongly endorse Senator McCain to be the Republican Party nominee in January, if at the same time the paper was well aware of and continuing to investigate what it considered to be front-page, damaging, 'un-presidential' charges?"
Among the several concerns I have, the answer provided by Richard W. Stevenson, The New York Times political editor, caught me off guard.
According to Stevenson, "The short answer is that the news department of The Times and the editorial page are totally separate operations that do not consult or coordinate when it comes to news coverage and endorsements or other expressions of editorial opinion. We in the newsroom did not speak to anyone at the editorial page about the story we were working on about Senator McCain. They did not consult us about their deliberations over endorsements of the presidential candidates."
Stevenson continues on to explain that newspapers should not endorse presidential candidates, and he had not heard The New York Times was supporting candidates until he read about it in the paper.
Excuse me? First, I'm floored at how both sections do not communicated with one another, but this brings up an extremely ethical concern in journalism. According to Professor Steffen, newspapers have always endorsed candidates, but should newspapers be allowed to endorse political candidates?
Stevenson's response left me grappling with the issue of endorsing candidates, which had previously been discussed in class. At one end, I believe newspapers should not endorse presidential candidates. There continues to be distrust in journalism, and this provides another opportunity for citizens to feel as if newspapers are biased. At the other side of the argument, The New York Times published an article publicly and blatantly against a candidate they endorsed.
In all actuality, publishing the article should counteract people's beliefs of newspapers being biased, but The New York Times is viewed as a liberal paper and Senator McCain is Republican. The question raised by Collazo is legitimate in essentially asking, "How can you slam a candidate whom you publicly endorse?" I view endorsing as another word for "supporting," and The New York Times did nothing to "endorse" with this article. Sadly, this will only support the Republican view as The New York Times being public enemy number one. With almost every paper endorsing candidates, how ethical is it to endorse someone while attempting to present information on a factual basis.
With over 4,000 people asking questions, The New York Times is staying busy dressing the wound they shot in their foot.
One question, asked by Debbie Collazo from Tucson, AZ, caught my attention: "Why did The New York Times strongly endorse Senator McCain to be the Republican Party nominee in January, if at the same time the paper was well aware of and continuing to investigate what it considered to be front-page, damaging, 'un-presidential' charges?"
Among the several concerns I have, the answer provided by Richard W. Stevenson, The New York Times political editor, caught me off guard.
According to Stevenson, "The short answer is that the news department of The Times and the editorial page are totally separate operations that do not consult or coordinate when it comes to news coverage and endorsements or other expressions of editorial opinion. We in the newsroom did not speak to anyone at the editorial page about the story we were working on about Senator McCain. They did not consult us about their deliberations over endorsements of the presidential candidates."
Stevenson continues on to explain that newspapers should not endorse presidential candidates, and he had not heard The New York Times was supporting candidates until he read about it in the paper.
Excuse me? First, I'm floored at how both sections do not communicated with one another, but this brings up an extremely ethical concern in journalism. According to Professor Steffen, newspapers have always endorsed candidates, but should newspapers be allowed to endorse political candidates?
Stevenson's response left me grappling with the issue of endorsing candidates, which had previously been discussed in class. At one end, I believe newspapers should not endorse presidential candidates. There continues to be distrust in journalism, and this provides another opportunity for citizens to feel as if newspapers are biased. At the other side of the argument, The New York Times published an article publicly and blatantly against a candidate they endorsed.
In all actuality, publishing the article should counteract people's beliefs of newspapers being biased, but The New York Times is viewed as a liberal paper and Senator McCain is Republican. The question raised by Collazo is legitimate in essentially asking, "How can you slam a candidate whom you publicly endorse?" I view endorsing as another word for "supporting," and The New York Times did nothing to "endorse" with this article. Sadly, this will only support the Republican view as The New York Times being public enemy number one. With almost every paper endorsing candidates, how ethical is it to endorse someone while attempting to present information on a factual basis.
With over 4,000 people asking questions, The New York Times is staying busy dressing the wound they shot in their foot.
Friday, February 22, 2008
What did The New York Times really mean?
According to Next Steps on McCain Story: Repeating What You Don't Report on Poynter.org, writer Kelly McBride reports on the issue of how The New York Times wrote For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk. It appears she almost criticizes the information involved with the story and how that paper practically accuses McCain of adultery and less-than-adherence to his personal ethics.
McBride ends her story stating, "The rest of the journalism world bears responsibility for minimizing or magnifying that distortion."
The distortion she refers to is the fact that the story begins and ends with idea that McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman were "close" eight years ago. Other examples of his ethics were given, but adultery is what the reader will be left with.
The New York Times should have gone a different route in examining his moral code. Beginning and ending the story with the relationship between him and Iseman would obviously leave the reader with the impression that adultery occurred although both denied a romantic relationship. How many times have you heard that one before? But that's not the point.
The point is the "distortion" McBride writes about. I read the story, and all I could think about was, "Wow! How many times have I heard a politician denying any sexual relations (Bill Clinton anyone?) and it's proved true."
Was the story truly about McCain's ethical judgment or more about a supposedly close relationship? With the campaign increasing becoming intense, it was not necessary for The Times to release information about him and Iseman. They needed to focus on one issue or the other, or subtly write about the contact between the two. Sadly enough, I found the article extremely well written, but felt it sent a different message than it intended to. Maybe the writer wanted to evaluate McCain's past ethical actions, but the reader is left with a different image and forgets the rest of the story. Or maybe that image is really what The New York Times aimed for.
McBride ends her story stating, "The rest of the journalism world bears responsibility for minimizing or magnifying that distortion."
The distortion she refers to is the fact that the story begins and ends with idea that McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman were "close" eight years ago. Other examples of his ethics were given, but adultery is what the reader will be left with.
The New York Times should have gone a different route in examining his moral code. Beginning and ending the story with the relationship between him and Iseman would obviously leave the reader with the impression that adultery occurred although both denied a romantic relationship. How many times have you heard that one before? But that's not the point.
The point is the "distortion" McBride writes about. I read the story, and all I could think about was, "Wow! How many times have I heard a politician denying any sexual relations (Bill Clinton anyone?) and it's proved true."
Was the story truly about McCain's ethical judgment or more about a supposedly close relationship? With the campaign increasing becoming intense, it was not necessary for The Times to release information about him and Iseman. They needed to focus on one issue or the other, or subtly write about the contact between the two. Sadly enough, I found the article extremely well written, but felt it sent a different message than it intended to. Maybe the writer wanted to evaluate McCain's past ethical actions, but the reader is left with a different image and forgets the rest of the story. Or maybe that image is really what The New York Times aimed for.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Rationality Behind the Kidder Model (Ethics)
Earlier this week, democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama repeated the exact words of a fellow friend and politician during a speech. Now, fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing him of political plagiarism and calling him out on it. According to an article posted on MSNBC.com, Clinton "'said he represented 'change you can Xerox.'"
Is Obama in the wrong for using his friend's speech even though there had been consent? Was it ethical for him to use the words of another during a high profile time in the presidential race? I'm going to use Kidder's Ethical Decision-Making Model as a rational process to decide whether he was or was not ethical by not giving credit to Deval Patrick.
According the checkpoint one, I have recognized the moral dilemma of Obama's choice of words in what can be known as political plagiarism. It's hard to disagree that there was no credit given to his friend because there wasn't. Several aspects of the Kidder Model include deception to the public, deception and misrepresentation by not giving credit to the actual source, and careerism because he had his personal self-interest when repeating his friend's speech and not giving credit.
Checkpoint number two involves recognizing the "actor." Who's moral responsibility is it? Obama is obviously the chosen one in this situation to have said something along the lines of, "These are not my words." The public did not know he was citing someone else until after the speech had been given, and they didn't find out from Obama himself. Consequently, it's left up to journalists, the public, or Hillary Clinton (bad news for Obama).
Gathering relevant facts is checkpoint number three. Obama did not lie, but also did not cite his friend. He also did not tell the public what he did; we told him. Did he have consent? Yes, but that's still as if he knew the author of a book and used passages without citing them for a collegiate level paper.
Checkpoints number four and five involve evaluating other alternatives and the test for right-versus-wrong issues. In my opinion, the best alterative would have been to leave the friend's speech out completely. This is Obama's campaign and no one else's. As for the tests, I'm unsure of the fers test, so I'll consider that one exempt. But as it relates to the front-page test, I'm sure Obama would not have wanted his accusation on the front page. Whether what he did goes against the "grain of his moral principles," I'm also sure he would not the public to think him as an immoral person and candidate. Regarding the molar exemplar test, this should not have been a moral temptation. No credit given equals plagiarism. Now, continue onto checkpoint number six.
The truth versus loyalty is obvious. Truth always wins, but Obama never lied. He didn't deny the accusation of using his friend's speech, so is this one irrelevant? My opinion is yes. With individual verses community, Obama chose himself, the individual. This incident will affect Obama in the long run. Look at what Clinton's doing now. She's attempting to tear him apart, and some people will listen. What is his professional role and purpose? It should be to represent that he can be the next President. He needs to posses the qualities that the majority of voters want and can trust. With Clinton jumping down his throat, he does taint his image at least a little.
Checkpoint number seven is next! With the different philosopher's we've learned in class, I'll focus on Aristotle's Golden Mean is applicable to this situation. When is it all right for a presidential candidate to run for office, use someone else's words, but not technically lie that he did it? Can he be punished for it when he had the consent of the other gentleman? The biggest question is, how much can the public truly blame him?
Finally, the last checkpoints of number eight and nine in the longest blog in history. Here I'm supposed to make a decision, defend it, and then return to my decision and reflect. What's my decision? It was unethical to give the speech. I'm not debating as to whether it should have been given at all (because really I don't), but the fact is that there was no credit given at the beginning, middle, or end of what he said. Even with consent there has to be credit given or else everyone believes you actually thought of it. Should Obama be reprimanded? I think Clinton's doing enough all ready, but the issue remains the same. At the time, the public believed it was his speech.
By using the Kidder Model, it is difficult to argue the unethical persepective by the time you get the end of it. I began this blog thinking, "Who cares? It doesn't matter because Patrick is his friend." But it does matter. Political plagarism is what it is; without giving someone else the credit they desere, it's stealing something that is not yours . Maybe I am a rational person after all.
Is Obama in the wrong for using his friend's speech even though there had been consent? Was it ethical for him to use the words of another during a high profile time in the presidential race? I'm going to use Kidder's Ethical Decision-Making Model as a rational process to decide whether he was or was not ethical by not giving credit to Deval Patrick.
According the checkpoint one, I have recognized the moral dilemma of Obama's choice of words in what can be known as political plagiarism. It's hard to disagree that there was no credit given to his friend because there wasn't. Several aspects of the Kidder Model include deception to the public, deception and misrepresentation by not giving credit to the actual source, and careerism because he had his personal self-interest when repeating his friend's speech and not giving credit.
Checkpoint number two involves recognizing the "actor." Who's moral responsibility is it? Obama is obviously the chosen one in this situation to have said something along the lines of, "These are not my words." The public did not know he was citing someone else until after the speech had been given, and they didn't find out from Obama himself. Consequently, it's left up to journalists, the public, or Hillary Clinton (bad news for Obama).
Gathering relevant facts is checkpoint number three. Obama did not lie, but also did not cite his friend. He also did not tell the public what he did; we told him. Did he have consent? Yes, but that's still as if he knew the author of a book and used passages without citing them for a collegiate level paper.
Checkpoints number four and five involve evaluating other alternatives and the test for right-versus-wrong issues. In my opinion, the best alterative would have been to leave the friend's speech out completely. This is Obama's campaign and no one else's. As for the tests, I'm unsure of the fers test, so I'll consider that one exempt. But as it relates to the front-page test, I'm sure Obama would not have wanted his accusation on the front page. Whether what he did goes against the "grain of his moral principles," I'm also sure he would not the public to think him as an immoral person and candidate. Regarding the molar exemplar test, this should not have been a moral temptation. No credit given equals plagiarism. Now, continue onto checkpoint number six.
The truth versus loyalty is obvious. Truth always wins, but Obama never lied. He didn't deny the accusation of using his friend's speech, so is this one irrelevant? My opinion is yes. With individual verses community, Obama chose himself, the individual. This incident will affect Obama in the long run. Look at what Clinton's doing now. She's attempting to tear him apart, and some people will listen. What is his professional role and purpose? It should be to represent that he can be the next President. He needs to posses the qualities that the majority of voters want and can trust. With Clinton jumping down his throat, he does taint his image at least a little.
Checkpoint number seven is next! With the different philosopher's we've learned in class, I'll focus on Aristotle's Golden Mean is applicable to this situation. When is it all right for a presidential candidate to run for office, use someone else's words, but not technically lie that he did it? Can he be punished for it when he had the consent of the other gentleman? The biggest question is, how much can the public truly blame him?
Finally, the last checkpoints of number eight and nine in the longest blog in history. Here I'm supposed to make a decision, defend it, and then return to my decision and reflect. What's my decision? It was unethical to give the speech. I'm not debating as to whether it should have been given at all (because really I don't), but the fact is that there was no credit given at the beginning, middle, or end of what he said. Even with consent there has to be credit given or else everyone believes you actually thought of it. Should Obama be reprimanded? I think Clinton's doing enough all ready, but the issue remains the same. At the time, the public believed it was his speech.
By using the Kidder Model, it is difficult to argue the unethical persepective by the time you get the end of it. I began this blog thinking, "Who cares? It doesn't matter because Patrick is his friend." But it does matter. Political plagarism is what it is; without giving someone else the credit they desere, it's stealing something that is not yours . Maybe I am a rational person after all.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Since when does the media withhold information? (both)
According Timothy Noah’s article in Slate, The New York Times is not releasing a study evaluating the war in Iraq. In comparison to the Pentagon Papers, which pertained to the Vietnam War, both studies have been conducted by RAND Corporation, yet the 1971 report was released and the current one is not.
Noah states, “The main difference is that while the Pentagon Papers reprinted many secret government documents about the Vietnam war, and therefore were classified top secret, the Iraq war study, which was based on interviews with ‘more than 50 civilian and military officials,’ is unclassified."
He also writes that while The New York Times published this story, they did not published important sections of the report even though they have obtained a copy of the document.
According to the article in the New York Times, “A review of the lengthy report -- a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times -- shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war.”
So, why hasn’t the New York Times published direct evidence of the “identified problems” even though the report is considered unclassified? Something, or someone, may be holding the venerable paper from republishing the report. With the issue of prior restraint, that problem has all ready been dealt with when the Pentagon Papers arose and The New York Times won legal rights to publish their stories. The New York Times had to go through the Supreme Court to publish the Pentagon Papers, and now they're willing to withhold vital information from the public. And, as with the Pentagon Papers, doesn’t the public deserve the right to be better informed?
It seems to me this is exactly how Walter Lippmann would prefer the media to behave — give some information to the general public and only allow the top-dogs to fully understand the situation. With media providing as the “gatekeepers” of information, it appears the press is withholding information that Americans would deem necessary and important to make a better informed decision on the war in Iraq. This information still involves the sons and daughters of our nation.
Noah states, “The main difference is that while the Pentagon Papers reprinted many secret government documents about the Vietnam war, and therefore were classified top secret, the Iraq war study, which was based on interviews with ‘more than 50 civilian and military officials,’ is unclassified."
He also writes that while The New York Times published this story, they did not published important sections of the report even though they have obtained a copy of the document.
According to the article in the New York Times, “A review of the lengthy report -- a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times -- shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war.”
So, why hasn’t the New York Times published direct evidence of the “identified problems” even though the report is considered unclassified? Something, or someone, may be holding the venerable paper from republishing the report. With the issue of prior restraint, that problem has all ready been dealt with when the Pentagon Papers arose and The New York Times won legal rights to publish their stories. The New York Times had to go through the Supreme Court to publish the Pentagon Papers, and now they're willing to withhold vital information from the public. And, as with the Pentagon Papers, doesn’t the public deserve the right to be better informed?
It seems to me this is exactly how Walter Lippmann would prefer the media to behave — give some information to the general public and only allow the top-dogs to fully understand the situation. With media providing as the “gatekeepers” of information, it appears the press is withholding information that Americans would deem necessary and important to make a better informed decision on the war in Iraq. This information still involves the sons and daughters of our nation.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Press Snooping for the Public? (both)
Since 2002, speculation about a more-than-professional relationship between Detroit Mayer Kwame Kilpatrick and his chief of staff, Christine Beatty, came one step closer to the truth when the Detroit Free Press published a story stating there had been official document containing a secret settlement agreement between Kilpatrick, Beatty, and two officers. Not only was the document recovered, but 14,000 text messages were retrieved from Beatty's "city-issued paging device" that have been shared with the public as well.
For those of you who don't know, two Detroit police officers sued the city for retaliatory firing when they were investigating the mayor's security team, which could have led to discovery of the couple. Under oath, Kilpatrick and Beatty both denied any allegations of sexual relations between each other., and the court settled in the cops favor.
According to Slate writer Bonnie Goldstein, "Kilpatrick filed an appeal, but after Nelthrope and Brown subpoenaed text messages sent between Kilpatrick and Beatty, Kilpatrick changed his mind and quietly settled, even agreeing to give the cops $2 million over the jury award. Inquiring minds wondered: What was in those text messages, anyway?"
Well, those text messages have been recovered and published; Kilpatrick and Beatty's relationship is a secret no more. It is extremely evident there were sexual relations between the two, but what right does the press have to go as far to release the text messages? It seems more like an invasion of privacy.
What I question is whether the press retrieved the text messages for public purposes or curiosity. This is the first time I've ever heard of salvaging text messages, and it adds to the fact that our lives may be becoming more and more like an open book. Former President Bill Clinton faced a similar situation with Monica Lewinsky in the fact that he lied under oath, and later the truth came out. Even though the press had a right to retrieve those text messages, was it an intrusion into their personal lives once published?
For those of you who don't know, two Detroit police officers sued the city for retaliatory firing when they were investigating the mayor's security team, which could have led to discovery of the couple. Under oath, Kilpatrick and Beatty both denied any allegations of sexual relations between each other., and the court settled in the cops favor.
According to Slate writer Bonnie Goldstein, "Kilpatrick filed an appeal, but after Nelthrope and Brown subpoenaed text messages sent between Kilpatrick and Beatty, Kilpatrick changed his mind and quietly settled, even agreeing to give the cops $2 million over the jury award. Inquiring minds wondered: What was in those text messages, anyway?"
Well, those text messages have been recovered and published; Kilpatrick and Beatty's relationship is a secret no more. It is extremely evident there were sexual relations between the two, but what right does the press have to go as far to release the text messages? It seems more like an invasion of privacy.
What I question is whether the press retrieved the text messages for public purposes or curiosity. This is the first time I've ever heard of salvaging text messages, and it adds to the fact that our lives may be becoming more and more like an open book. Former President Bill Clinton faced a similar situation with Monica Lewinsky in the fact that he lied under oath, and later the truth came out. Even though the press had a right to retrieve those text messages, was it an intrusion into their personal lives once published?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Agreeing with Keen on This One (Ethics)
In Jack Shafer's recent Slate article, "Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death," it appears he chastises several common news site usage of articles. Sites, such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com seem to make use of the most extravagant stories they can find to lure readers. Shafer states, "What the sites really love are sordid stories that can be presented as serials, if not cliffhangers."
I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common; they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire.
I don't care how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. The idea of "useless information" brings me to idea of "democratiziation" argued by Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amatuer. Granted, Keen specifically discusses topics such as blogging and using Wikipedia, but what happens when credible news sources report more on entertainment than political issues itself? I'm not a full believer of Keens arguement, but isn't what he's saying related to Shafer's point made in the article? It seems a majority of these outlandish stories appear not in newspapers or journals, but on the internet. News websites are reporting factual stories, but the type Shafer's criticise make for great table talk, not broadening the intellectual scope of the human mind.
I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common; they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire.
I don't care how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. The idea of "useless information" brings me to idea of "democratiziation" argued by Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amatuer. Granted, Keen specifically discusses topics such as blogging and using Wikipedia, but what happens when credible news sources report more on entertainment than political issues itself? I'm not a full believer of Keens arguement, but isn't what he's saying related to Shafer's point made in the article? It seems a majority of these outlandish stories appear not in newspapers or journals, but on the internet. News websites are reporting factual stories, but the type Shafer's criticise make for great table talk, not broadening the intellectual scope of the human mind.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
A New Hollywood of Sex, Drugs, and Crime (For beginning newswriting class)
In Jack Shafer's recent Slate article, "Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death," it appears he chastises several common news site usage of article headlines. Sites, such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com seem to make use of the most extravagant headlines they can create to lure readers. Shafer states, "What the sites really love are sordid stories that can be presented as serials, if not cliffhangers."
Media is a business. A website, just as any other newspaper, needs to create revenue to keep their site running. In what way do sites generate money? They do it through the number of hits they receive; more hits a website has, the greater the desire to advertise on that site, thus creating revenue. But the question here isn't how they make money.
I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common - they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire. A majority of their top stories are about issues relating to sex, drugs, and murder. My question is, when did information, deriving from credible websites, become so Hollywood? I don't care about how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. True, it makes for great table talk, but I think my IQ may have just decreased by one point.
Media is a business. A website, just as any other newspaper, needs to create revenue to keep their site running. In what way do sites generate money? They do it through the number of hits they receive; more hits a website has, the greater the desire to advertise on that site, thus creating revenue. But the question here isn't how they make money.
I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common - they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire. A majority of their top stories are about issues relating to sex, drugs, and murder. My question is, when did information, deriving from credible websites, become so Hollywood? I don't care about how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. True, it makes for great table talk, but I think my IQ may have just decreased by one point.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
War of the Words
A bickering battle between Andrew Morton, author of Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, and the Church of Scientology began earlier this week.
"His book is a bigoted, defamatory assault replete with lies, ” the church said in a fifteen page rebuttal to Morton's claims of the organization.
In Morton's defense, he claims to have requested an interview with David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center, which was denied. Meanwhile, the church stated in the release that Morton at no pointed requested an interview. Who is to be believe? This whole issue is a "he said she said" childish argument.
The biography is not strictly about Cruise and his relationship to the Church of Scientology. Morton incorporates the church in his book because the organization plays a significant role in Tom Cruise's life. Also, I wonder where's Cruise's comment? It appears he is out of the picture. Perhaps he's letting his church deal with the issue? I don't know, but if he were truly outraged at Morton's claims, we would know wouldn't we? Stars have always received more coverage than they could have imagined, so why isn't Cruise's opinion of the book being stated? It is about Cruise and not the church, yet it's the latter who has been issuing statements about Morton's book.
The book's title, Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, should alone be a hint to its credibility…..it's UNAUTHORIZED. Cruise's no-comment stance thus far, combined with the title, seems to lack validity….at least for me.
"His book is a bigoted, defamatory assault replete with lies, ” the church said in a fifteen page rebuttal to Morton's claims of the organization.
In Morton's defense, he claims to have requested an interview with David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center, which was denied. Meanwhile, the church stated in the release that Morton at no pointed requested an interview. Who is to be believe? This whole issue is a "he said she said" childish argument.
The biography is not strictly about Cruise and his relationship to the Church of Scientology. Morton incorporates the church in his book because the organization plays a significant role in Tom Cruise's life. Also, I wonder where's Cruise's comment? It appears he is out of the picture. Perhaps he's letting his church deal with the issue? I don't know, but if he were truly outraged at Morton's claims, we would know wouldn't we? Stars have always received more coverage than they could have imagined, so why isn't Cruise's opinion of the book being stated? It is about Cruise and not the church, yet it's the latter who has been issuing statements about Morton's book.
The book's title, Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, should alone be a hint to its credibility…..it's UNAUTHORIZED. Cruise's no-comment stance thus far, combined with the title, seems to lack validity….at least for me.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Unique Compliment?
Once again, Americans are in an uproar over an inappropriate remark. According to the Associated Press, Golf Channel's first female correspondant, Kelly Tilghman, is suspended for her remark regarding Tiger Woods. During Friday's Mercedes-Benz Championship golf tournament, Tilghman and analyst Nick Faldo were discussing participants and their challenge to beat Woods, in which Tilghman is quoted to have said, "lynch him in a back alley."
Acting accordingly, the Golf Channel has suspended Tilghman for two weeks, but to Reverand Al Sharpton, justice has not been served. Becoming the front supporter in voicing for Tilghman's professional dismissal, Sharpton appearanced on The Today Show. He not only wished her fired, but also compared the situation to the Don Imus incident in which he called Rutger's University Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos."
If no one knew the context in which Tilghman stated her remark, regarding Woods, one could assume it was as derogative as Imus' Rutger comment. But, after viewing the clip, it is up to the viewer to decide whether she truly meant the comment. The context in which she speaks is noticeable different than Imus' situation; she praised his golfing ability, which implies no intention of purposely stating a racial slur.
Woods accepted Tilghman's apology, acknowledging each other's existance of twelve years, after his agent, Mark Steinburg, quoted, "Tiger and Kelly are friends, and Tiger has a great deal of respect for Kelly. Regardless of the choice of words used, we know unequivocally that there was no ill-intent in her comments."
Should Tilghman consequently be fired and her career potentionally tainted for what appears to be silimiar to the "nappy headed hos" remark? Review the two situations and decide for yourself whether it truly is as harmful as it seemed.
Acting accordingly, the Golf Channel has suspended Tilghman for two weeks, but to Reverand Al Sharpton, justice has not been served. Becoming the front supporter in voicing for Tilghman's professional dismissal, Sharpton appearanced on The Today Show. He not only wished her fired, but also compared the situation to the Don Imus incident in which he called Rutger's University Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos."
If no one knew the context in which Tilghman stated her remark, regarding Woods, one could assume it was as derogative as Imus' Rutger comment. But, after viewing the clip, it is up to the viewer to decide whether she truly meant the comment. The context in which she speaks is noticeable different than Imus' situation; she praised his golfing ability, which implies no intention of purposely stating a racial slur.
Woods accepted Tilghman's apology, acknowledging each other's existance of twelve years, after his agent, Mark Steinburg, quoted, "Tiger and Kelly are friends, and Tiger has a great deal of respect for Kelly. Regardless of the choice of words used, we know unequivocally that there was no ill-intent in her comments."
Should Tilghman consequently be fired and her career potentionally tainted for what appears to be silimiar to the "nappy headed hos" remark? Review the two situations and decide for yourself whether it truly is as harmful as it seemed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)