Gun Control: Whats to Come
Since
the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School that occurred in
December, the nation has been addressing the issue of gun control. The death of
twenty small children and six adults has opened the eyes of citizens to the
need for better gun control that will prevent this occurrence. Prior to this
incident, legislation would not have been able to pass any laws in regards to
gun violence. However the mass murder of young children has ignited a debate on
gun control. Vice President Biden is leading the rally for President Obama, who
wishes to prevent mass shooting by performing universal background checks for
gun owners, the prohibition of various military-style weapons, as well as a
limit on the size of magazines. I personally believe this are useful steps
towards limiting the chances of gun control, perhaps gun owners should have to
take a psychological test before we put a gun in their hands. But that’s
besides the point, I agree with these new steps towards a safer America.
However, I think in an interview Biden may have sent mixed signals about gun
control. When Biden was asked how can Americans protect themselves he responded,
“Kate, if you want to protect yourself get a double barrel shotgun….” And
repeats “Buy a shotgun.” I am not sure if that was the best response due to the
sensitivity of the subject, although I don’t necessarily disagree.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Monday, March 4, 2013
Dumbed Down Discourse
Once upon a time, eons before the digital age, readers said yay or nay to the content of newspapers through letters to the editor. On many publications, editorial assistants pored over the daily correspondence, choosing candidates for publication and forwarding them to editors for a closer look.
Today, many newspapers still publish letters to the editor, selected through a process not too different from yesteryear. But readers eager to voice their views are no longer limited to writing a letter and keeping their fingers crossed that they will receive a positive response.
Today, if something's on your mind, you can post a comment, text a reply, or fire off a tweet in next to no time. What's more, you're guaranteed plenty of readers, as many newspapers invite online comments and publish most of what they receive.
A step forward for free speech? Perhaps. Problem is, in relinquishing virtually all editorial judgment and control (at least in the online comments department), newspapers have allowed themselves to become soap boxes for the ignorant, the uninformed, the narrow-minded, the bigoted, the semi-literate, and sometimes even the unbalanced. In the rough and tumble world of online commentary, the wise and the witless have come to share equal billing.
Equally troublesome, some online comments never rise above junior high school insults. Want to rant about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, or Michael Bloomberg? Talk trash about liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, students, teachers, CEOs, women, unions, senior citizens, the homeless, celebrities, or athletes? You can foam at the mouth in cyberspace; there's seldom an editor in the background saying, "We can't publish this. It's vulgar nonsense!"
While loutish loud mouths have always played some role in American discourse, they've seldom commanded such a large audience as they do today. And it would seem that ignorance and mean-spiritedness have become contagious, causing online discussions of serious issues to degenerate into mindless taunts and name-calling.
Surely we can do better than this. Perhaps editors of online editions should take a page from their old school colleagues and remember that while everyone in America has a right to his or her opinion, newspapers have no obligation to publish intellectual claptrap. Nor should they feel obliged to publish rude and uncivil comments or any other remarks that smack of stupid.
Today, many newspapers still publish letters to the editor, selected through a process not too different from yesteryear. But readers eager to voice their views are no longer limited to writing a letter and keeping their fingers crossed that they will receive a positive response.
Today, if something's on your mind, you can post a comment, text a reply, or fire off a tweet in next to no time. What's more, you're guaranteed plenty of readers, as many newspapers invite online comments and publish most of what they receive.
A step forward for free speech? Perhaps. Problem is, in relinquishing virtually all editorial judgment and control (at least in the online comments department), newspapers have allowed themselves to become soap boxes for the ignorant, the uninformed, the narrow-minded, the bigoted, the semi-literate, and sometimes even the unbalanced. In the rough and tumble world of online commentary, the wise and the witless have come to share equal billing.
Equally troublesome, some online comments never rise above junior high school insults. Want to rant about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, or Michael Bloomberg? Talk trash about liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, students, teachers, CEOs, women, unions, senior citizens, the homeless, celebrities, or athletes? You can foam at the mouth in cyberspace; there's seldom an editor in the background saying, "We can't publish this. It's vulgar nonsense!"
While loutish loud mouths have always played some role in American discourse, they've seldom commanded such a large audience as they do today. And it would seem that ignorance and mean-spiritedness have become contagious, causing online discussions of serious issues to degenerate into mindless taunts and name-calling.
Surely we can do better than this. Perhaps editors of online editions should take a page from their old school colleagues and remember that while everyone in America has a right to his or her opinion, newspapers have no obligation to publish intellectual claptrap. Nor should they feel obliged to publish rude and uncivil comments or any other remarks that smack of stupid.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Journalism Mixed with Television
Journalism Mixed with Television
“House of Cards” is the scandalous new television show that
is only available on Netflix. The entire season is available at one time, the
pace you watch the episodes is up to you. While this could potentially by the
future of television, the plot is what those interested in the world of
journalism will be enticed by.
The show is based off of a British show of the same name and
stars Kevin Spacey and Kate Mara. Zoe Barnes, played by Mara, is a reporter who
is covering Spacey’s character Frank Underwood as he is passed over for
Secretary of State. She develops an ethically questionable relationship with
the source of her story.
In the show, Underwood is the current leader of the
Democratic Party and when he is passed over for a promotion he decides to exact
revenge on those who betrayed him. This is what leads the young political
reporter for the Washington Herald
newspaper to him.
The show takes viewers inside what a political journalist’s
path may be like as they undermine and discover what is going on in politics.
Do you think “House of Cards” could be an accurate representation of political
journalism? Or is it far too dramatic to really be like this in the real world?
Check out this trailer for Netflix’s latest show “House of
Cards”
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Top iPhone Apps For Journalists
Both technology and the field of journalism are ever
changing, so why not use one to improve the other? There are many applications
available to assist journalists in reporting on the go. Here are a few apps
that will be sure to make life easier.
1. iSaidWhat?!
This simple application makes saving interviews a breeze. It
allows you to record, import, cut, arrange, and share audio from your iPhone
device. You can import files via WiFi and iTunes as well as output them through
Email, WiFi, Facebook, Twitter, and more. The app can be purchased for a mere
$2.99!
2. Dropbox
This application is perfect for journalists. Dropbox is a
service that allows you to basically carry your photos, documents, and videos
anywhere! Are you tired of emailing files back and forth to get them on your
computer or phone? Well this application is going to help you more than you
know. With Dropbox you can access your files from any computer as long as you
log in to your account. The best
part is, it’s free!
3. Byword
Are you ever out when a great article idea strikes and there
is nowhere to write down your thoughts? This handy application solves that
problem! It has a clean-cut interface that simply allows you to write on your
phone. While you are writing it automatically syncs to your documents. It also
has the ability to sync to a Dropbox account! Download this helpful app for
$2.99.
These are only a few of the many applications that can help
make a journalism career fit easily with the constantly changing technology. As
time goes on there is sure to be more and more developments to help make mobile
journalism simple.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Marco's Big Gulp
So there was Senator Marco Rubio (R.- FL.) last week, responding to President Obama's State of the Union address and telling listeners what was wrong with the President's views, when suddenly the unthinkable happened: the Senator got thirsty!
Pausing in the middle of his presentation, Sen. Rubio reached for a bottle of water and took a quick drink before resuming his comments:
A nothing moment, right? Wrong. The Senator's gulp--some would say gaffe--went viral on the Internet, prompting jokes and parodies and largely overshadowing the substance of his comments. Witness the following:
This isn't the first time, of course, that an elected official's unscripted moment has become fodder for the press. When President George W. Bush briefly lost consciousness after choking on a pretzel in 2002, for example, the incident was widely reported and became the subject of comedians' jokes. Senator Howard Dean's "primal scream" along the 2006 campaign trail also became big news, his boisterous performance broadcast so widely that Dean's Presidential aspirations were virtually dashed. It would seem that just about everyone in the public spotlight has at least one of these episodes; perhaps it comes with the territory.
But I'm struck by the extent to which Rubio's H20 "break" appears to have obscured his response to the President's State of the Union speech. You can find plenty of people who know that the Senator abruptly interrupted his comments to take a swig of water. But how many can you find who remember what he actually said?
That's a less-than-desirable consequence, I think, of an environment where "cheap thrills" rule. It's hard to say who's more at fault here--the media that picks up on leaders' every slip-up or a public that's perpetually hungry for a laugh, no matter how inane or inconsequential the source of the guffaws.
I'm no fan of Marco Rubio or the larger Republican message, but in the interest of promoting a serious conversation about the direction of the country, the news media would be wise to focus more on our leaders' messages than their missteps. And the rest of us would be smart to stop giggling like schoolkids over every little thing and pay more attention to the big picture, scary as it may sometimes be.
Pausing in the middle of his presentation, Sen. Rubio reached for a bottle of water and took a quick drink before resuming his comments:
A nothing moment, right? Wrong. The Senator's gulp--some would say gaffe--went viral on the Internet, prompting jokes and parodies and largely overshadowing the substance of his comments. Witness the following:
This isn't the first time, of course, that an elected official's unscripted moment has become fodder for the press. When President George W. Bush briefly lost consciousness after choking on a pretzel in 2002, for example, the incident was widely reported and became the subject of comedians' jokes. Senator Howard Dean's "primal scream" along the 2006 campaign trail also became big news, his boisterous performance broadcast so widely that Dean's Presidential aspirations were virtually dashed. It would seem that just about everyone in the public spotlight has at least one of these episodes; perhaps it comes with the territory.
But I'm struck by the extent to which Rubio's H20 "break" appears to have obscured his response to the President's State of the Union speech. You can find plenty of people who know that the Senator abruptly interrupted his comments to take a swig of water. But how many can you find who remember what he actually said?
That's a less-than-desirable consequence, I think, of an environment where "cheap thrills" rule. It's hard to say who's more at fault here--the media that picks up on leaders' every slip-up or a public that's perpetually hungry for a laugh, no matter how inane or inconsequential the source of the guffaws.
I'm no fan of Marco Rubio or the larger Republican message, but in the interest of promoting a serious conversation about the direction of the country, the news media would be wise to focus more on our leaders' messages than their missteps. And the rest of us would be smart to stop giggling like schoolkids over every little thing and pay more attention to the big picture, scary as it may sometimes be.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Facebook: Connecting People & Spreading News
Facebook is the social media website that has swept the
world. However, it isn’t just about seeing what your high school buddies are up
to and clicking through endless pictures of your friends. Facebook has found
it’s way into becoming a news source and a way to report on current events.
When Hurricane Sandy ravaged New York and cut out the power,
people were left disconnected and in disarray. What was the storm doing in
other places? What is happening with other towns? What is happening in my town?
Facebook came to the rescue and allowed a solution to be developed.
In Oceanside,
most of the town was without power and could not find out what was going on
around them. A Facebook page was created titled Oceanside NY Hurricane Sandy Updates. The page permitted the community
to come together and provide information for one another. They posted about
what stores were open, what restaurants were running, what areas had power, and
where people could find help. The social media site has lead community members
to reporting on their own situation.
It is not uncommon for Facebook to break news to many users.
Whether it is finding out about a tragedy in Newtown or which celebrity won a
Golden Globe, Facebook is often the first place many people see this news.
Think about it, where was the last piece of news you learned
about from? Did you read it in a newspaper? Watch it on the news? You may just
surprise yourself and realize you may have seen it in your Facebook newsfeed.
Check out this video:
Facebook Newsfeed: The New Face of Journalism?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Difficult Interviews
It may be a journalist's greatest challenge: conducting an interview with someone who refuses to answer questions or who spins the issue to his or her own point of view. Government officials, athletes, celebrities, attorneys, CEOs, educators (yes, educators!)--all withhold information or slant their answers when it suits their interests. Even people who are ordinarily candid with the press can bob and weave with the best of them when faced with questions they'd rather not answer.
While journalists don't find themselves in these situations every day, most experience them from time to time. And on such occasions, most try to remain professional, asking questions, listening to their subject's responses, and posing good follow-up questions--all while trying to keep their frustration from showing. But when they sense that their subjects are determined to either sidestep their questions or put up a smokescreen, most are also not shy about confronting dodges and doubletalk.
Not all journalists respond to such situations in the same way. Some clearly display more patience, giving their subjects lots of room to roam before jumping in and bringing the conversation back to the issue or question at hand.
But other interviewers have less tolerance for spin: they're quick to interrupt their subjects and push them to face the contradictions inherent in their words and actions or own up to their less-than-admirable beliefs and behaviors.
Which style works best? Take a look at the following clips and decide for yourself. The first video features Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," questioning California Representative John Campbell about Barack Obama's citizenship (better known as the "Birther" controversy). The second features Piers Morgan interviewing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about his remarks questioning the existence of the Holocaust. And finally, Anderson Cooper interviews Republican Representative Michele Bachman on her plans to reduce America's deficit. Each interviewer's style is unique.
While journalists don't find themselves in these situations every day, most experience them from time to time. And on such occasions, most try to remain professional, asking questions, listening to their subject's responses, and posing good follow-up questions--all while trying to keep their frustration from showing. But when they sense that their subjects are determined to either sidestep their questions or put up a smokescreen, most are also not shy about confronting dodges and doubletalk.
Not all journalists respond to such situations in the same way. Some clearly display more patience, giving their subjects lots of room to roam before jumping in and bringing the conversation back to the issue or question at hand.
But other interviewers have less tolerance for spin: they're quick to interrupt their subjects and push them to face the contradictions inherent in their words and actions or own up to their less-than-admirable beliefs and behaviors.
Which style works best? Take a look at the following clips and decide for yourself. The first video features Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," questioning California Representative John Campbell about Barack Obama's citizenship (better known as the "Birther" controversy). The second features Piers Morgan interviewing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about his remarks questioning the existence of the Holocaust. And finally, Anderson Cooper interviews Republican Representative Michele Bachman on her plans to reduce America's deficit. Each interviewer's style is unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)