As I was reading about the shooting of a Japanese photojournalist in Burma this last week, several issues of journalism came to my mind. The article spoke about how journalists should be protected when covering dangerous situations like the Myanmar protests, but I don't understand how this could be ensured. The world can't stop just so a journalist can get a picture, but the journalist still has every right to be there. It's inevitable that someone trying to get as close as they can to major - and often dangerous - events will eventually be put in harm's way.
Another issue I thought of as I was looking at the picture accompanying the article was, what should be put out to the public? I know we are a free country and everything should be put out there for general knowledge, but what are the ethics of showing the last moments of someone's life? Is journalism above anything that may be sacred? It seems that one has to choose between showing the whole truth, or hanging on to some shred of dignity.
The last time I really thought about this issue was immediately after September 11th when Time Magazine ran the photos of people falling from the Twin Towers immediately after the attacks. I remember opening the magazine and turning it on its side to see the full-page spread of people falling to their death. While the image got to me and has stuck with me these last six years, I rememeber being immediately appalled. I was looking at the last moments of someone's life. What if this victim's family saw this article? What if they recognized a body? a face? Had this photo been taken to record history or to sell magazines? The unanswerable questions made me feel worse in a time when I thought I couldn't feel worse and made me wonder where our standards are or where they're going to go from here. The time may come when I'll be a real journalist, and I'm afraid to ask myself the question: when deciding between showing the world the truth and protecting the sacredness of human life and death, which will I choose?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Some (actually most) Like It Hot
In discussing ideology, I can't help but immediately think of it in the most simplistic of terms. This is especially true when it comes to gender stereotyping in the media. We are trained to believe that women are meant to be all at once sweet and sexy . . . and men love sex. This is why I wasn't surprised to find a link to vote for the Ultimate Female Hotties: '90s - 2007. On CNN.com no less . . .
I, of course, immediately began flipping through the pictures of the candidates (of which there were 25) and found that the pictures really weren't meant for my personal satisfaction. As much as I like Charlize Theron, I really wasn't turned on by the fact that she was looking at me poutily through a sheer curtain. Obviously, Entertainment Weekly doesn't give a crap what I think about these women, otherwise the article would have been titled, "Ultimate Independent Power Women" and the pictures accompanying each candidate would have shown them in stylish, yet subdued couture, rather than . . . almost nothing.
While the ideology of men loving women and sex ultimately drives the article, a number of other ideologies were at work. While flipping through the photos I couldn't help but notice that the more "ethnic" looking women were often more scantily-clad or dressed down in more provocative attire than their white contemporaries. This played into the ideology that women of a non-European background are often more sexually liberated and more willing to play into a man's naughty fantasies. This was backed up even more by the captions accompanying each picture which proclaimed each candidate's "Ultimate Hottie Moment" which often involved a scene from a movie in which the actress was (surprise surprise) fully or nearly nude. This reveals the ideology that, to be a sexy, a woman must have no clothes on. This ideology also says that saying or doing something that actually makes a statement may not be sexy since almost all of the scenes that were brought up for each candidate involved them being the sexy sidekick or arm candy of a male lead.
What annoyed me through the whole section though, was the downplaying of the "Ultimate Male Hotties" article. Though its premise is pretty much the same, it is definitely under-the-radar in comparison to the female focus. This plays into the ideology that women are less interested in superficial and sexual material. Well, I'm here to say that I'm just as superficial as the next guy (literally).
I, of course, immediately began flipping through the pictures of the candidates (of which there were 25) and found that the pictures really weren't meant for my personal satisfaction. As much as I like Charlize Theron, I really wasn't turned on by the fact that she was looking at me poutily through a sheer curtain. Obviously, Entertainment Weekly doesn't give a crap what I think about these women, otherwise the article would have been titled, "Ultimate Independent Power Women" and the pictures accompanying each candidate would have shown them in stylish, yet subdued couture, rather than . . . almost nothing.
While the ideology of men loving women and sex ultimately drives the article, a number of other ideologies were at work. While flipping through the photos I couldn't help but notice that the more "ethnic" looking women were often more scantily-clad or dressed down in more provocative attire than their white contemporaries. This played into the ideology that women of a non-European background are often more sexually liberated and more willing to play into a man's naughty fantasies. This was backed up even more by the captions accompanying each picture which proclaimed each candidate's "Ultimate Hottie Moment" which often involved a scene from a movie in which the actress was (surprise surprise) fully or nearly nude. This reveals the ideology that, to be a sexy, a woman must have no clothes on. This ideology also says that saying or doing something that actually makes a statement may not be sexy since almost all of the scenes that were brought up for each candidate involved them being the sexy sidekick or arm candy of a male lead.
What annoyed me through the whole section though, was the downplaying of the "Ultimate Male Hotties" article. Though its premise is pretty much the same, it is definitely under-the-radar in comparison to the female focus. This plays into the ideology that women are less interested in superficial and sexual material. Well, I'm here to say that I'm just as superficial as the next guy (literally).
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Let the foul-mouthed speak!
As a college student, I'm well aware that the common ideology of my peers tends to lean a little left. With many of our professors tending to be the same way and constantly learning about the mistakes of the presidential administration in class and in the news, it comes as little surprise. College students are also the least likely to keep these views hidden, and this has currently become an issue at Colorado State University.
According to an article in The Coloradoan, the Fort Collins university's student newspaper, The Collegian, is currently under fire for printing an editorial with the title, "Taser This . . . F--- Bush", which claimed to express the views of the Collegian Editorial Board, led by student editor-in-chief, David McSwane. The paper claims that they have such a right to print the material since it is their unanimous opinion and because they are editorially independent. The school though, claims some power of control, using the 10-member faculty-student Board of Student Communications to decide whether McSwane should be fired. The leader of this group, Jeff Browne, director of student media, says that they will "investigate the decision-making process" to understand why the editorial title came to print.
While Colorado State University has reason to be scornful of the title due to the high-standing reputation of the school and The Collegian, I believe that college students are mature enough to put out whatever material they believe best expresses their views. I especially believe that this goes for anything that goes on the editorial page. College, to me, is supposed to be a time when opinions and ideas are allowed to come forth, no-holds-barred.
The university may be concerned because of McSwane's past journalistic experiences, which included an incident that garnered national attention while he was still a high school student. Still, the envelope needs to be pushed and there is no better place than the academic world for this to occur. While the sophistication of The Collegian's staff may come into question, their views should still be respected and their readers should be given the opportunity to respond.
According to an article in The Coloradoan, the Fort Collins university's student newspaper, The Collegian, is currently under fire for printing an editorial with the title, "Taser This . . . F--- Bush", which claimed to express the views of the Collegian Editorial Board, led by student editor-in-chief, David McSwane. The paper claims that they have such a right to print the material since it is their unanimous opinion and because they are editorially independent. The school though, claims some power of control, using the 10-member faculty-student Board of Student Communications to decide whether McSwane should be fired. The leader of this group, Jeff Browne, director of student media, says that they will "investigate the decision-making process" to understand why the editorial title came to print.
While Colorado State University has reason to be scornful of the title due to the high-standing reputation of the school and The Collegian, I believe that college students are mature enough to put out whatever material they believe best expresses their views. I especially believe that this goes for anything that goes on the editorial page. College, to me, is supposed to be a time when opinions and ideas are allowed to come forth, no-holds-barred.
The university may be concerned because of McSwane's past journalistic experiences, which included an incident that garnered national attention while he was still a high school student. Still, the envelope needs to be pushed and there is no better place than the academic world for this to occur. While the sophistication of The Collegian's staff may come into question, their views should still be respected and their readers should be given the opportunity to respond.
Paranoia Will Destroy Ya
In a world where the average person has become wary of the power of the media that surrounds them, it's nice to know that our major news outlets still feel like they're being marginalized . . .
According to an article by Freepress.net, some of Chicago's major news outlets (most notably, the Chicago Tribune) have expressed their discontent that the Internet has taken away a larger portion of their audience, and therefore, they believe they should have even fewer rules and regulations controlling their output. The Tribune became so concerned with this, in fact, that they even complained to the FCC last October claiming that their competition was currently "fierce". This "competition", they claimed, was mostly on the Internet with Web sites like Chicago Ray and Gapers Block being named as top rivals.
Still, studies show that companies like the Tribune (which also owns WGN-TV, WGN-AM, cable news channel CLTV and Chicago Magazine along with its newspaper) are still dominating the market. One particular study done by Free Press writers Adam Lynn and S. Derek Turner shows that:
* The independent Chicago-specific websites do not publish appreciable amount of original local news content.
* Close to 60 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites were on nonhard
news topics such as sports and entertainment.
* Only 13.7 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites contained
original reporting. But the bulk of these stories were on soft-news topics, such as concert
and restaurant reviews.
* In total, only 5.5 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites
contained original reporting on hard news topics such as crime, local governance,
education and local politics.
* More than half of the stories on “hard” news topics linked to stories on Web sites owned
by traditional media.
When examining the number of hits that these independent sites received, the study came up with about 14,000 per month whereas any of the major news sources have numbers coming in that are "80 times as large". While it's true that many people do not use the major media as much as they once did, it's a fact that these sources are still the most trusted names out there, providing us all with the hard news that we deem the most important. If these major outlets are looking to maintain our trust, they will not get it by staying paranoid and looking for recourses to have fewer restrictions. Instead of focusing on the growing number of "professional" bloggers and independent sources, they should instead focus on their own content and work to retrieve the trust that has been lost between them and their consumers.
According to an article by Freepress.net, some of Chicago's major news outlets (most notably, the Chicago Tribune) have expressed their discontent that the Internet has taken away a larger portion of their audience, and therefore, they believe they should have even fewer rules and regulations controlling their output. The Tribune became so concerned with this, in fact, that they even complained to the FCC last October claiming that their competition was currently "fierce". This "competition", they claimed, was mostly on the Internet with Web sites like Chicago Ray and Gapers Block being named as top rivals.
Still, studies show that companies like the Tribune (which also owns WGN-TV, WGN-AM, cable news channel CLTV and Chicago Magazine along with its newspaper) are still dominating the market. One particular study done by Free Press writers Adam Lynn and S. Derek Turner shows that:
* The independent Chicago-specific websites do not publish appreciable amount of original local news content.
* Close to 60 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites were on nonhard
news topics such as sports and entertainment.
* Only 13.7 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites contained
original reporting. But the bulk of these stories were on soft-news topics, such as concert
and restaurant reviews.
* In total, only 5.5 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites
contained original reporting on hard news topics such as crime, local governance,
education and local politics.
* More than half of the stories on “hard” news topics linked to stories on Web sites owned
by traditional media.
When examining the number of hits that these independent sites received, the study came up with about 14,000 per month whereas any of the major news sources have numbers coming in that are "80 times as large". While it's true that many people do not use the major media as much as they once did, it's a fact that these sources are still the most trusted names out there, providing us all with the hard news that we deem the most important. If these major outlets are looking to maintain our trust, they will not get it by staying paranoid and looking for recourses to have fewer restrictions. Instead of focusing on the growing number of "professional" bloggers and independent sources, they should instead focus on their own content and work to retrieve the trust that has been lost between them and their consumers.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Bogus Bias
When it comes to ad campaigns in the presidential elections, nothing is more pleasing to any candidate than the ablity to place blame and shame on one's competition -- especially when the blame can also be cast on the competition's supporters.
According to the New York Daily News, Republican hopeful and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani took a golden opportunity this week to slam The New York Times, the left-favoring MoveOn.org, and political opponent, Hillary Clinton. The cause for the stir was an ad run in the Times that portrayed commander General Petraeus as "General Betray Us". The ad was apparently purchased by MoveOn.org which paid $64,575 for it to be run any day of the week the Times chose. Giuliani closed in on the two organizations claiming that MoveOn.org had gotten a discount on its ad due to its left-sided sympathies. He also pointed out the shame in putting such "unpatriotic" propaganda in a national newspaper. Not being one to settle for less, Giuliani also used the situation to call out Senator Clinton for not criticizing the ad. He also demanded that the Times give him the same price as MoveOn.org to run his own "pro-Petraeus" ad in Friday's edition.
It seemed as if Giuliani had everyone where he wanted them until the rest of the facts came to surface. The Times claimed that $64,575 is the cost of any ad that they are given to run on any day they choose, while $181,692 is the cost of an ad to be run on a certain day, therefore, MoveOn.org received the same treatment as any other customer. To give Giuliani his asking price for a certain day would have cost the Times well over $100,000.
While these facts show Giuliani's accusations of the Times to be unfounded, his attempted shaming of Senator Clinton also seemed to flop. For him to call her out specifically, especially when she did not even openly support the ad, made the effort seem forced and irrelevant. It's also interesting that these claims of "unpatriotic" behavior came at the end of the week in history that gave Giuliani his image as the super-patriot. With his part in Sept. 11 playing a huge role in his campaign, this comes as little surprise. His new quote which he touts on his campaign Web site reads, "These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom." Ironically, this line is run below a video his campaign has put up denouncing Senator Clinton for changing her position on the war in Iraq and claims that she should "apologize" to America's troops because she is "turning her back on them". In response, Clinton's campaign released a statement proclaiming, "Mayor Giuliani supports George Bush's Iraq policy and believes it is working, [while] Sen. Clinton knows it isn't and will keep up her efforts to end the war."
While Giuliani continues to dwell on this issue by keeping up a constant dialogue on his Web site, this voter wonders when he will step up and really address the issues instead of pointing out the supposed weaknesses of others.
According to the New York Daily News, Republican hopeful and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani took a golden opportunity this week to slam The New York Times, the left-favoring MoveOn.org, and political opponent, Hillary Clinton. The cause for the stir was an ad run in the Times that portrayed commander General Petraeus as "General Betray Us". The ad was apparently purchased by MoveOn.org which paid $64,575 for it to be run any day of the week the Times chose. Giuliani closed in on the two organizations claiming that MoveOn.org had gotten a discount on its ad due to its left-sided sympathies. He also pointed out the shame in putting such "unpatriotic" propaganda in a national newspaper. Not being one to settle for less, Giuliani also used the situation to call out Senator Clinton for not criticizing the ad. He also demanded that the Times give him the same price as MoveOn.org to run his own "pro-Petraeus" ad in Friday's edition.
It seemed as if Giuliani had everyone where he wanted them until the rest of the facts came to surface. The Times claimed that $64,575 is the cost of any ad that they are given to run on any day they choose, while $181,692 is the cost of an ad to be run on a certain day, therefore, MoveOn.org received the same treatment as any other customer. To give Giuliani his asking price for a certain day would have cost the Times well over $100,000.
While these facts show Giuliani's accusations of the Times to be unfounded, his attempted shaming of Senator Clinton also seemed to flop. For him to call her out specifically, especially when she did not even openly support the ad, made the effort seem forced and irrelevant. It's also interesting that these claims of "unpatriotic" behavior came at the end of the week in history that gave Giuliani his image as the super-patriot. With his part in Sept. 11 playing a huge role in his campaign, this comes as little surprise. His new quote which he touts on his campaign Web site reads, "These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom." Ironically, this line is run below a video his campaign has put up denouncing Senator Clinton for changing her position on the war in Iraq and claims that she should "apologize" to America's troops because she is "turning her back on them". In response, Clinton's campaign released a statement proclaiming, "Mayor Giuliani supports George Bush's Iraq policy and believes it is working, [while] Sen. Clinton knows it isn't and will keep up her efforts to end the war."
While Giuliani continues to dwell on this issue by keeping up a constant dialogue on his Web site, this voter wonders when he will step up and really address the issues instead of pointing out the supposed weaknesses of others.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
They Saw the Sign ($$$)
Employees of Dow Jones & Company haven't been shy about voicing their opinion against the selling of the Wall Street Journal to media mogul Rupert Murdoch, but since their opinion has been overlooked, they feel it couldn't hurt to ask a few extra dollars of the man . . .
While higher-ups at Dow Jones went into negotiations with the billionaire owner of News Corporation, many Wall Street Journal employees spoke up to express their opinion that the company should not sell. But even before this exchange took place, employee's in the Journal's newsroom had expressed discontent with the pay that they had been receiving from Dow Jones. The company had offerred the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees --the union that most of the Journal's staff is under-- a pay raise of 3% over the next few years. With a change in ownership though, former dissenters of Murdoch have set their sights on him as their new financial savior.
In the days leading up to Murdoch's arrival at Dow Jones, posters began appearing around the newsroom bearing the face of Murdoch and the phrase "Show Us The Money". Soon after the posters appearance though, they disappeared, only to reappear again right before Murdoch's visit. The Wall Street Journal claims that it's not about to censor their employees since their very business is in the power of free speech. However, newsroom employees came to work on the day of Murdoch's visit to find the posters gone again.
With this appeal to Murdoch coming and going and Murdoch's own legendary dominance coming into play, one wonders if Wall Street Journal employees will be able to make a change or even speak up for themselves. While the power changes hands, those underneath may be passed over. With writers becoming unsure of themselves over this and many other new developments and changes among the staff at the Journal, the news reader may be left to wonder about the future integrity of one of the most respected names in news.
While higher-ups at Dow Jones went into negotiations with the billionaire owner of News Corporation, many Wall Street Journal employees spoke up to express their opinion that the company should not sell. But even before this exchange took place, employee's in the Journal's newsroom had expressed discontent with the pay that they had been receiving from Dow Jones. The company had offerred the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees --the union that most of the Journal's staff is under-- a pay raise of 3% over the next few years. With a change in ownership though, former dissenters of Murdoch have set their sights on him as their new financial savior.
In the days leading up to Murdoch's arrival at Dow Jones, posters began appearing around the newsroom bearing the face of Murdoch and the phrase "Show Us The Money". Soon after the posters appearance though, they disappeared, only to reappear again right before Murdoch's visit. The Wall Street Journal claims that it's not about to censor their employees since their very business is in the power of free speech. However, newsroom employees came to work on the day of Murdoch's visit to find the posters gone again.
With this appeal to Murdoch coming and going and Murdoch's own legendary dominance coming into play, one wonders if Wall Street Journal employees will be able to make a change or even speak up for themselves. While the power changes hands, those underneath may be passed over. With writers becoming unsure of themselves over this and many other new developments and changes among the staff at the Journal, the news reader may be left to wonder about the future integrity of one of the most respected names in news.
Friday, September 7, 2007
United They Blog
In this era when so many are growing more and more doubtful of what kind of news and information are coming out of everyday blogs, a new side of the issue has come into play. In Nepal, where a huge shift in governing power has taken place in the last few years, blogging has become the way to get hardcore news and information out to the country and the rest of the world. This sudden reliance should make the rest of us reconsider the usefulness of blogs in our culture.
According to a story in the Online Journalism Review, blogging has become the main source of news for the Nepalese people who have undergone an enormous shift with the takeover of King
Gyandendra who took power from Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba two years ago. At the beginning of the king's reign, almost all media outlets began to be censored and several journalists lost their jobs along the way. Reportedly, the editorial pages in the newspaper were filled with meager comments on the weather or were sometimes left completely blank. The only outlet left untainted by this censorship were the posts of the blogging community. The leading group in this area was the group blog, United We Blog, which released a potentially controversial photo of a radio journalist strumming a guitar on the street after his layoff. According to the World Desk Reference, this complete political control is still happening, but the blogs still seem to be free.
In our own country, we increasingly doubt the "tried and true" news sources for reasons of ownership, bias, etc. What I'm asking you to consider is the possibility that the everyday person with no political agenda or corporate funding could put out the best news. Hopefully we will never be under the same circumstances as the Nepalese people, but with the blogging medium becoming increasingly popular, I think it would be unwise to ignore it. After all, we are a country based on the right to free speech and we should also make it our duty that that speech is being heard. By regularly reading blogs, perhaps we could learn how to distinguish the correct news for ourselves and we may even find that the general public really has something to say.
According to a story in the Online Journalism Review, blogging has become the main source of news for the Nepalese people who have undergone an enormous shift with the takeover of King
Gyandendra who took power from Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba two years ago. At the beginning of the king's reign, almost all media outlets began to be censored and several journalists lost their jobs along the way. Reportedly, the editorial pages in the newspaper were filled with meager comments on the weather or were sometimes left completely blank. The only outlet left untainted by this censorship were the posts of the blogging community. The leading group in this area was the group blog, United We Blog, which released a potentially controversial photo of a radio journalist strumming a guitar on the street after his layoff. According to the World Desk Reference, this complete political control is still happening, but the blogs still seem to be free.
In our own country, we increasingly doubt the "tried and true" news sources for reasons of ownership, bias, etc. What I'm asking you to consider is the possibility that the everyday person with no political agenda or corporate funding could put out the best news. Hopefully we will never be under the same circumstances as the Nepalese people, but with the blogging medium becoming increasingly popular, I think it would be unwise to ignore it. After all, we are a country based on the right to free speech and we should also make it our duty that that speech is being heard. By regularly reading blogs, perhaps we could learn how to distinguish the correct news for ourselves and we may even find that the general public really has something to say.
Catch Us If You Can
Like any other college student in these United States, the first thing I want to talk about is Facebook, that lovable little time-sucker we all so adore. It's no secret that what everyone is hoping for when they obsessively check their e-mail is a little message telling them that so-and-so has left them a post, or sent them a message, or an ex-significant other from middle school has added them. To put it plainly, Facebook has revolutionized the way we network with others.
Because of its many users, advertisers see Facebook as a potential goldmine. Any iPod wearing, cell phone wielding, Target shopping college student who's anybody has a Facebook page and we're not shy about jumping on the bandwagon for the latest products. It seems like the perfect set-up, but it seems that these advertisers have become more leery due to a recent revolution in the Facebook realm: adults!!
While the social networking site began in order to help connect college students, soon everyone wanted in on the fun. High schools were added next, and most recently a growing number of middle-aged working adults began using the site to conduct business with one another. This seems to be posing a problem to advertisers who are looking at a rapidly broadening market. While it's true that Facebook does have some advertising, it has not gone so far as to almost dominate the attention of the user. Also, the advertisements are noticeably tame compared to what you would expect on a youth-dominated site. No scantily-clad models for Victoria's Secret, no sexed-up teenagers hawking Abercrombie, in fact, the ads mostly run along the neutral fare of movie ads. In a site now purportedly worth $5 billion, this is a surprising development, but ultimately makes ones think about what advertiser's are left to do when they are unsure of their market.
Facebook is still very young and who knows where it will go in the coming years. With debates raging on about whether the site should be opened up to search engines and new users of all ages signing on, the future is unclear and this will most likely continue to baffle advertisers for some time to come. Until then, I invite everyone to revel in the guilty pleasure of Facebook stalking and enjoy the time we have before the advertisements become so plentiful that we won't be able to tell who left us a drunk post at 2 a.m.
Because of its many users, advertisers see Facebook as a potential goldmine. Any iPod wearing, cell phone wielding, Target shopping college student who's anybody has a Facebook page and we're not shy about jumping on the bandwagon for the latest products. It seems like the perfect set-up, but it seems that these advertisers have become more leery due to a recent revolution in the Facebook realm: adults!!
While the social networking site began in order to help connect college students, soon everyone wanted in on the fun. High schools were added next, and most recently a growing number of middle-aged working adults began using the site to conduct business with one another. This seems to be posing a problem to advertisers who are looking at a rapidly broadening market. While it's true that Facebook does have some advertising, it has not gone so far as to almost dominate the attention of the user. Also, the advertisements are noticeably tame compared to what you would expect on a youth-dominated site. No scantily-clad models for Victoria's Secret, no sexed-up teenagers hawking Abercrombie, in fact, the ads mostly run along the neutral fare of movie ads. In a site now purportedly worth $5 billion, this is a surprising development, but ultimately makes ones think about what advertiser's are left to do when they are unsure of their market.
Facebook is still very young and who knows where it will go in the coming years. With debates raging on about whether the site should be opened up to search engines and new users of all ages signing on, the future is unclear and this will most likely continue to baffle advertisers for some time to come. Until then, I invite everyone to revel in the guilty pleasure of Facebook stalking and enjoy the time we have before the advertisements become so plentiful that we won't be able to tell who left us a drunk post at 2 a.m.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)