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.

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 Boston University's "Boink" or Harvard’s "H Bomb?" The first time I read the article, I actually considered the situation I'd be in if I started one. If I were the editor, I'd of course operate it differently and choose the spreads I wanted. You don't have to agree with me, but carefully read and reread the article. I'll admit that some of the spreads are too crude, but essentially these schools' objectives are not to create pornographic materials. Hmmm, maybe I should be attending Boston University? And what has happened to my conservative values?!

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?

(It wouldn't let me double space between paragraphs)