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.

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.

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.

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!)

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 America know her well to have given her popularity. These are also the types that don't make it a habit to watch nightly news. It was a good try on CBS's part, but according to the rankings, it seems to have backfired and not pushed CBS further up in the ratings. With CBS in third place with evening news, I'm assuming CBs would feel the need to move on in order to be more competitive.

(Still not spacing for paragraphs)

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.

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.