Consolidation and covergence of media outlets is something that is constantly on the minds of people who have something to gain or lose from such an event. When Rupert Murdoch bought Myspace, with cash, people were dieing to know what he was thinking. I think we can all be pretty sure that he didn't buy it with nothing brewed in the back of his mind. Of course, Murdoch has aquired several media outlets, everything from TV to newspapers, all over the world and by doing so he made it possible to broadcast his influence all over the world in several different languages. Murdoch was instrumental in the Bush campaigne, using his media outlets to paint a picture for the public that Murdoch would approve of and would help the Bush campaigne.
Not all consolidations are leaned in one direction or an other. Sometimes, for example, two competing papers in the same town merge to save money or make money or in some cases they will merge because together they make a better, stronger paper.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Being Critical
This is a newsworthy article in my opinion.
The BBC posted an article updating the status of Guantanamo Bay. Two days ago was the deadline that the President had set to have the prison shut down but recent issues have postponed that goal.
It doesn’t talk about any famous people or an amazing water-skiing dog, the content is real and to some it’s has huge impact. Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who are deemed “to dangerous” to be released will be spending an indefinite amount of time at the prison because of the lack of solid evidence. The demographic that the article hits is people who have family members imprisoned or even the people of the prisoners native country, it will strike a chord in the groups of people that have been working towards the freeing of the wrongfully imprisoned, and it will undoubtedly make a large number ofrepublicans people very happy.
The article also focuses on the dismay that Obama supporters may feel by the failure of President Obama to shut down the prison as he had planned. People who don’t support the President will rejoice with the new reason to reticule him, but people are always curious to know what the President of the United States is doing because he is, of course, the President and he is the person that some of us voted for to make decisions and changes on our behalf. Many will be disappointed that Guantanamo is still open but some, as I mentioned before, will be delighted with the idea that “those people” will stay imprisoned.
The article also brings to light the controlling situation that is going on at Guantanamo Bay. Yemen prisoners were supposed to be freed immediately but only if the conditions of Yemen were conducive to the Americans. Subsequently, none of them were released because of an alleged Yemen based plot to blow-up an airline. This of course will catch the eye of some people who have been following the Guantanamo Bay news since it started making headlines. Conspiracy theorists will be all over it.
The article overall doesn't reach out to a whole lot of people, like say the water-skiing dog would, but it does carry with it a lot of good and important information for people who are closely linked to it or just keeping up with topics that are important to them. I believe that this piece was written with the intent to inform people of the situation, not necessarily because it was high rating news.
Read for yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8476358.stm
The BBC posted an article updating the status of Guantanamo Bay. Two days ago was the deadline that the President had set to have the prison shut down but recent issues have postponed that goal.
It doesn’t talk about any famous people or an amazing water-skiing dog, the content is real and to some it’s has huge impact. Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who are deemed “to dangerous” to be released will be spending an indefinite amount of time at the prison because of the lack of solid evidence. The demographic that the article hits is people who have family members imprisoned or even the people of the prisoners native country, it will strike a chord in the groups of people that have been working towards the freeing of the wrongfully imprisoned, and it will undoubtedly make a large number of
The article also focuses on the dismay that Obama supporters may feel by the failure of President Obama to shut down the prison as he had planned. People who don’t support the President will rejoice with the new reason to reticule him, but people are always curious to know what the President of the United States is doing because he is, of course, the President and he is the person that some of us voted for to make decisions and changes on our behalf. Many will be disappointed that Guantanamo is still open but some, as I mentioned before, will be delighted with the idea that “those people” will stay imprisoned.
The article also brings to light the controlling situation that is going on at Guantanamo Bay. Yemen prisoners were supposed to be freed immediately but only if the conditions of Yemen were conducive to the Americans. Subsequently, none of them were released because of an alleged Yemen based plot to blow-up an airline. This of course will catch the eye of some people who have been following the Guantanamo Bay news since it started making headlines. Conspiracy theorists will be all over it.
The article overall doesn't reach out to a whole lot of people, like say the water-skiing dog would, but it does carry with it a lot of good and important information for people who are closely linked to it or just keeping up with topics that are important to them. I believe that this piece was written with the intent to inform people of the situation, not necessarily because it was high rating news.
Read for yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8476358.stm
Friday, January 15, 2010
What's Up With That...
Today we are going to explore a moral issue in journalism.
I was searching for information on embedded journalists when I came across an interesting New York Times article. The article, written in 2008, was about how the government is choosing to censor the information that is coming out of war zones and the ways in which succeed in doing it.
An embedded journalist is a journalist from a dedicated news source, like The New York Times or the BBC, who has been allowed to the enter a war zone and integrate themselves in with a troop in order to collect news worthy information of the goings on around them and while the troops are “active”. Since the Vietnam war the government and many media outlets have taken the severity of their war reporting down a notch or two, but how much restriction is too much?
The government uses embed rules to restrict the type and amount of media leaving a war zone. They are able to choose the media outlets they want reporting and furthermore they also choose the journalist within the chosen media outlet that will be able to be embedded with a troop. The troop leaders also have power over where the embeds go and what they are exposed to while they are in the warzone, sometimes for the safety of the journalist but also sometimes because the military commander doesn't want certain things seen and reported on. More often than not, military commanders have found ways to either hinder the news gathering process or have the journalist removed entirely from there troop.
So the question is, should the government have so much control over the media that should be coming out of war zones? Should the government be able to restrict information from the American people, the people who have given themselves or a family member or friend to the war? Should the American people be kept from a war that has sent them into a financial crisis?
Read for yourself at:
4,000 U.S. Deaths, and a Handful of Images by Micheal Kamber and Time Arango
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?ex=1374811200&en=9903da4b22e064a4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Embed Rules
http://www.defense.gov/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf
I was searching for information on embedded journalists when I came across an interesting New York Times article. The article, written in 2008, was about how the government is choosing to censor the information that is coming out of war zones and the ways in which succeed in doing it.
An embedded journalist is a journalist from a dedicated news source, like The New York Times or the BBC, who has been allowed to the enter a war zone and integrate themselves in with a troop in order to collect news worthy information of the goings on around them and while the troops are “active”. Since the Vietnam war the government and many media outlets have taken the severity of their war reporting down a notch or two, but how much restriction is too much?
The government uses embed rules to restrict the type and amount of media leaving a war zone. They are able to choose the media outlets they want reporting and furthermore they also choose the journalist within the chosen media outlet that will be able to be embedded with a troop. The troop leaders also have power over where the embeds go and what they are exposed to while they are in the warzone, sometimes for the safety of the journalist but also sometimes because the military commander doesn't want certain things seen and reported on. More often than not, military commanders have found ways to either hinder the news gathering process or have the journalist removed entirely from there troop.
So the question is, should the government have so much control over the media that should be coming out of war zones? Should the government be able to restrict information from the American people, the people who have given themselves or a family member or friend to the war? Should the American people be kept from a war that has sent them into a financial crisis?
Read for yourself at:
4,000 U.S. Deaths, and a Handful of Images by Micheal Kamber and Time Arango
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?ex=1374811200&en=9903da4b22e064a4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Embed Rules
http://www.defense.gov/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Hello...
This is the first blog that I will have ever kept up properly and that is mostly due to its being directly tied into a course that I am currently taking. I have now started CMJ 236, which is an introductory course to Journalism. The course will cover the basics of good writing, grammar and punctuation, and will instruct on writing styles pertaining to journalism and communications.
So, your question should be, “why is she taking a journalism course?”
I like journalism. So many of us read the newspaper or Google current events and extract information that we enjoy and find valuable. But, who puts the information out there in the first place? Journalists.
Journalists are in the trenches trying to find out the information that no one else knows. They dig deep and they work extremely hard to find journalistic stories and the facts to back them up, and it’s not easy. You have to respect people who write and report for major news firms all over the world because they had to work really hard to get there.
So why am I taking a journalism course? Because, I like and respect journalism and because I am not one of those people who likes to look at the thinly veiled façades that people put on; I like to go deep and find out the real facts and stories.
So, your question should be, “why is she taking a journalism course?”
I like journalism. So many of us read the newspaper or Google current events and extract information that we enjoy and find valuable. But, who puts the information out there in the first place? Journalists.
Journalists are in the trenches trying to find out the information that no one else knows. They dig deep and they work extremely hard to find journalistic stories and the facts to back them up, and it’s not easy. You have to respect people who write and report for major news firms all over the world because they had to work really hard to get there.
So why am I taking a journalism course? Because, I like and respect journalism and because I am not one of those people who likes to look at the thinly veiled façades that people put on; I like to go deep and find out the real facts and stories.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)