The Final Thoughts

1. At face value, objectivity is defined as not having any bias or taking sides. Yet, if we looked at it closer we can see that objectivity is more than simply not having a bias. Today’s standards have more loosely defined it as being completely transparent about one’s work. Opinions are more readily accepted in today’s journalism and is considered objective as long as the opinion is clearly stated as being one. A non-objective piece is designed to deceive the audience, but an objective piece is more innocently designed to inform the reader, even if it means informing them about different opinions. Transparency is the key to objectivity. For myself, I plan to practice journalism that will be biased, but I plan to always tell both sides of the story as best as I can. Only after this is accomplished would I incorporate my opinion. I would also practice the art of transparency by making sure the reader knows what is opinion and what is hard fact. I feel that objectivity would then be achieved no matter what piece I write.
2. Excellence in journalism is best defined as breaking out of the confines set upon it by our free market society. A journalist’s job is different in that they must have qualities that are not necessarily honored by democratic societies. The book, The Big Picture, notes that a society such as this tends to provoke mediocrity among journalists. However, “the whole business of identifying excellence is based on the implicit hope of raising the overall level, and the possibility of coming marginally closer to ideals” (p. 37). So, coming closer to these ideals will help identify our journalism as “excellence.” What are these ideals, though? I believe they are all the moral characteristics that we intrinsically value as human beings. It means that journalism must watch out for the citizens, just because it is what is right and what needs to happen in order for that bar to be raised in a democracy. Being individual from the business side of journalism allows journalism to inform the public. It means covering stories that are what the people need to hear even though it goes against what corporate giants are pushing or what the stock holders decide on. It must uphold these values that are becoming more rare every day. An informed public can change the direction of their democracy, hopefully for the best. The local paper I chose to follow, The Fairfax Times, showed this at times. There were stories in the paper that talked about principals getting honored on the front page, for example, when I’m sure people were more readily interested in the Mumbai attacks. The paper still felt it necessary to put this piece in. Also, the paper had articles that were heavily pushing its audience to vote during the elections, trying to provide public service. This paper is also trying to allow its readers to have more of a say in the news by letting them put up their own news on a specific location of their website. Yes, there were stories placed in the paper that were clearly there because it was the popular thing to read and they knew it would sell with the audience. However, they still show evidence that they are trying to raise the bar for those that they are writing for, while surviving in a society that doesn’t support that kind of journalism very well.
3. Journalistic truth tends to be a mix of what the inherent facts are and what the journalist makes up in order to tell the entirety of the story. There is a certain amount of fluff or distortion of facts that go into writing a story for the purpose of making it interesting and relevant to the reader. Much of this has to do with what the journalist decides to put in the piece or keep out, but it is usually something that the reader understands is a fabrication of the journalist. This is obviously different from absolute truth. “The problem of reporting fully and accurately is that any particular event may have occurred in more than one way” (The Big Picture p. 77). Reality is impossible to report as many people can see one event differently, including the journalist. Thus, the entirety of the truth is unknown to any one person. This is where journalistic truth comes into play. When a journalist strives to portray the entire truth to a story, his/her side of the story is given and can be compared to other journalist’s perspectives, or even the readers’. The citizens are then more informed and given more “pieces to the puzzle” that allows them to make better decisions. Journalism doesn’t provide all the truth, but it gives enough to make a difference.
4. The News industry is failing mostly because of the recent economic crisis and because of how technology has shifted the means that society wants their news. Because the news is just another business in the mix, they are certainly seeing the effects of the economy. A lot of their advertisers are cutting back big time, which is a major source of revenue for them. This has caused some major downsizing in and of itself. The more important factor is that the public doesn’t want the news in a newspaper anymore. They want it short and fast, which is almost opposite of what a newspaper is now. It seems as though only the older people are picking up papers these days and keeping them alive. What will happen when the old people are gone though? The younger generation coming up is leaning much more heavily on the internet for their news, so this is obviously the direction we are headed. Newspapers will be thing of the past and news will come as it is happening in new forms of video and tweets. What does this mean for upcoming journalist? I think that future journalists are needed for the quick updates and fast feeds. In five years from now, I can see myself constantly updating a blog site for some news industry, just trying to stay a step ahead of all the other news companies. However, in ten years, I can definitely see my stories changing from blogs to a constant stream of video feeds and having my own video blog site that’s part of the same news organization. People would most likely be able to see any journalist’s face on their own personal digital news device or digital paper. Whatever may happen in the future, news is certainly going to turn away from the use of trees for print, for better or worse. At least we know the environmentalists will be happy, right?
5. The practice of journalism doesn’t have very many specific set rules, so one has to determine his own code of conduct to provide the best journalism possible. In order to do this, one has to incorporate all the reasons for becoming a journalist. For me, journalism has everything to do with what values or people I am loyal to. These two underlying principles greatly affect what my code of conduct would be.
First and foremost, a journalist has an obligation to the truth. Basically, this is stating that what I publish will be nothing but facts and there are many aspects of journalism that play into that. The biggest aspect of this is verification. Today’s world wants tons of news and they want it all fast, which doesn’t really allow for facts to be double-checked or verified. A lot of verification responsibilities fall onto the journalist to make sure that it comes from the source accurately. Accuracy, in my opinion, has to do with not only getting things right the first time, but also being able to display corrections openly. Also, a good journalist should make clear distinctions between what is fact and what is comment. I feel it is crucial for one’s stories to be as open and transparent as humanly possible. It is unnecessary and unfair for a journalist to push a secret agenda in stories by abusing their powers in order to persuade public opinion. I also think that these agendas can be pushed by accident, through unintentional bias. When telling a story, it’s important to tell both sides, even if my opinion leans towards one side of the story. To show only one side is the same as not telling the complete truth and can mislead others too easily. The addition of personal opinion is simply not necessary and defeats the purpose of good journalism. The importance of being transparent and truthful in all work helps accomplish other goals of conduct for a journalist.
A journalist should be loyal to the citizens to whom they write for. It is not uncommon these days to see journalists being more loyal towards themselves or those they work for. Unfortunately, this is brought on by the needs to meet stockholders demands or to gain personal benefits. It is ironic that the institutions that support journalism financially often do not necessarily support its principals upon which it was established. As a journalist, it is important to always have the citizens in mind, which can be done in a variety of ways. The most common way that this can be done is to serve as a watchdog for the people. Journalists have the ability to find out things that normal citizens don’t have access to or just don’t have time to find out. A journalist should be the eyes and ears for those who can’t do it themselves. It is a good opportunity to let citizens know of the truth about anything that affects them. I would separate the watchdog role of a journalist into three categories. The first is to expose those involved in a serious crime that directly harms the public. Second, journalists have a responsibility to look out for the health and safety of all by doing the research behind the every day health practices. Lastly, I feel that a journalist should help citizens by making sure that those with great authority do not mislead the masses. A journalist can provide service to citizens by allowing for a place of public criticism and compromise. I’ve always been interested in reading columns or news feeds that have citizens post comments and allow journalists to comment on them, which in turn, allows for others to comment on the posts as well. It gives others the chance to combine thoughts and gain even more information from a wider variety of sources. I think that a journalist should provide citizens with the most amount of information as possible and then let them decide what is important in hopes to let them make more informed decisions. When going about and obtaining information from others, it is important to take into account that that person is not just a data bank. It’s important to be courteous to those that are negatively impacted by a story. This could be someone that has lost a loved one or even the person that is being punished for causing the loss of that loved one. By thinking of the person first, before the story, the journalist can get just as much information, if not more, and keep good relations with those who are a valuable resource. It is imperative for a journalist to remember to whom the journalism is for and serve them to the best of their ability.
In order to be loyal to citizens, it is extremely valuable for a journalist to exercise their personal conscience. Having good judgment of what’s the most important to citizens, employees, and themselves can have long lasting effects. As a journalist, I would want to feel like I have a sense of control over deciding what stories are the most pertinent. In addition to this, knowing what level of detail to incorporate into the story is important. Making the story one that’s comprehensive and proportionate is just as important as deciding what the topic is. When the story is published, I feel it is the right and obligation of the journalist to determine what is deemed as a confidential source and what can be released. Along these lines, it implies that a journalist shouldn’t use information that he/she receives for personal benefit, but rather publish the information, making it public knowledge first. Obtaining benefits from the job can be related to other aspects as well. Using good judgment can also be beneficial when you are asked to do a piece on a company or business, which they are using as advertisement. Often times, the company will add in a little bonus to sweeten the deal and encourage you to write a piece that will overlook any flaws. One of my friends was asked to write a story about the Washington Nationals when they first were introduced into the MLB. He was excited about the opportunity to look into the new program. Yet, upon meeting with them, he realized that there were quite a number of things that they wanted him to leave out of his article and encouraged him to use the free season tickets that they gave him. I remember him telling me how easy it would’ve been to rationalize writing the article the way they wanted, since he wasn’t technically lying about anything. However, exercising good judgment would allowed him and can allow me to not accept such bribes and give me freedom to write how the facts really are.
Essentially, what it comes down to is that the journalist must be the epitome of freedom. He must uphold the values set aside in the constitution and must be worthy of them as well. If he doesn’t stand up for the freedom of press, then who will? Today, it seems as though the world constantly puts pressure on journalists to shy away from upholding their ethical standards. Yet, this is exactly what makes a journalist so unique from any other position that influences public opinion. They are not there to necessarily influence others, but to inform others enough to make their own opinions. This drastically contradicts the goals of most other companies. The journalist is one of the few occupations left that has its focus on everyone except himself or herself. Today, we are seeing a decline in journalist positions available and a sharp increase in competition for these spots. This scenario is not very conducive to upholding the original ethical standards that are correlated with journalism since it’s founding. It is, therefore, more crucial than ever for the every day journalist to maintain a code of conduct like the one I have set forth for myself.

Staff Cuts Cause Major Changes

Interestingly enough, Newsweek has decided to make some major changes to their magazine, which include some major cuts in the company. This new design is suppose to make the magazine be a "slimmer publication with fewer subscribers and more photos and opinion inside its pages." To me, that sounds like a brilliant way to take a large step for the magazine in a new direction. The problem is that it would be a huge step backwards. Suddenly, Newsweek isn't so much news anymore as much as opinionated columns. Of course readership and subscription will decline rapidly after such a change. I suppose they are assuming that the nice pictures they take will keep the magazine going.
Is this really a change we can't avoid because of the declining economy. If change is inevitable, is this really the best route to take? I don't think that it's necessarily good for the Washington Post Co to just rely on their newspaper to provide the news and use Newsweek to show off their cool pictures. The less news we have circulating around the less "good" news we get and it's good to see that, if nothing else, the company doesn't want this. However, this change is probably a trend we should be getting used to, given the economic crisis at hand.

How about some good news?

For the past couple weeks it seems as though the front pages of newspapers have been plastered with new disasters or attacks. It seems like if it's not happening in Mumbai, then it's going to happen on the other side of the world in Harare. What makes news is what gets people worried. And there's nothing better than putting a huge picture of it on the front page.
Under these conditions, I found it rather comforting and pleasing to see that the local newspapers haven't failed me. It was fun to see an article in the fairfax times that commended outstanding achievement among the academic crowd. This article simply highlighted six principals that gave outstanding service and contribution to their school and all educational organizations. Would many really consider this to be news though? I mean, it's not necessarily intriguing to the average citizen and it certainly doesn't effect most people that read it. So, should these stories be kept in the papers or should we stick to our average death and destruction pieces that keep people interested?
In my opinion, we should see more of these types of stories occur. If not in the national papers, then definitely in the local papers. It's important to have a good mix of "good" news and "bad" news. After all, news is suppose to inform us on what is going on in the world and it's nice to hear that good things happen.

Mumbai bloggers

     Overall, the coverage over the mumbai attacks last week were pretty good.  I was impressed with how many other people commented on how twitter was their first introduction to the event.  The best part about it was, obviously, that the news came quick and short, just the way the american people want it.  Not only was it short sentence updates, but it was quick pictures and video clips, when wanted.  The other plus that I've seen with the mumbai posts on twitter is that there are more types of stories covered, even after the event occurred.  

     The weakness and concern that most people have with all of this is questioning whether or not it's all accurate.  Is there really a way to tell if these blog posts are 100% accurate.  There simply isn't a filter for this news to go through.

     However, that being said, the nature of blogs and twitter used to post help notes, quickly gained attention from other bloggers, which in turn notified major news companies, and before you know it, more correct news flowed faster to the public as a result of these small posts.  It was interesting that this was started by those involved in the actually event and even by those who died in the event.  If it wasn't for blogging, their would be a much different kind of news to report about the Mumbai attacks.

Changing Times for Anchors

     The relentless economic downturn seems to continually hit the news industry hard.  Today, the New York Times had an article about long time anchors being let go, as a result of the economic crisis.  

     The interesting thing, I thought, was that the article mainly targeted the local newscast stations the ones most hit by all of this.  Most relevant to us, as upcoming news journalists/anchors is that the claim was made stating that there will not be anymore anchors that grow old with the audience, according to Ernie Bjorkman, who was just released from KWGN after 36 years.  So what does this mean for the upcoming anchors?  Can't we just see a new crew of anchors come in that will last the next 30 years?  Or do you really think that we'll constantly see a flux of anchors come and go constantly?  

     In my opinion, the constant coming and going will only help the news industry to stay on their toes and keep making the news different.  It's just one more way that the news will prevent itself from taking on the same reporting style day in and day out.  Who knows?  Maybe, the news will just get that much more interesting.  I'm sure the anchors whose salary depend on this process say otherwise though. 

An Unexpected Low for a Battleground State

     Fairfax Times reported the reasons for why Virginia went blue this election, something that hasn't been seen in forty years.  Fairfax county reported nearly eighty percent turnout for registered voters, which to many counties may seem pretty high.  There were an abnormal amount of younger voters that turned up, accounting for a major reason the state turned democrat this election.  Approximately seventeen percent of the votes came from absentee ballots and even more came from college students driving back to the county from school.  Yet, the Fairfax Times stated that many voters were, "pleasantly surprised at their wait times."  Simply put, more people were expected to vote than actually did.

     From the discussion in class, I thought it was rather interesting that the Fairfax Times noted that voting, in that county, didn't add up to what the media expected it to be.  What role did the media play in elections this week, for fairfax county?  Why is it that an overwhelming amount of young voters turned out instead of an overwhelming amount of elder voters?  I know Obama is deemed as a very good orator, but I don't think that his speeches are what drove these masses.  In my opinion, it was a result of the role that the press has always played in american politics.  There was a clear push from journalists for their own political persuasions.  The stories covered clearly catered more towards the left.  Does it seem right to give the media so much power, to the extent of persuading the public on who to vote for?  I feel that it is good to have this political aspect of the news, but we may have seen it step its boundaries this year.

Online and Print's Relationship is Complicated

     By this point, it's pretty obvious that the online news industry is going to beat out the print industry in popularity and use.  However, does that mean that the print is going to sink all together?  The Washington Post doesn't seem to be having the same problems as every other newspaper, with cutbacks and frequent buyouts.  In fact, they are having the opposite effect, with "staff members...expanding to fill every nook and cranny."  This newspaper has seemingly found a way to thrive in these uncertain times.  What is their secret?  Well, there are multiple reasons as to their success, but much if it has to do with the way they us the internet to their advantage.  They have built up enough revenue from their online operations as to support their print efforts.  Another reason has to do with their ability to cover both national and local stories, pulling in all types of readers from all over.  Their success is really something to talk about.   

     If the Post can do it, can't other papers do something similar?  Of course, every paper is unique with their troubles and covered material, but there is hope.  In my opinion, it shows that news companies shouldn't shy away from print yet, or turn too quickly to internet based operations.  I think we should still look towards the online features to supplement print, rather than turning all our attention to the internet so quickly.

Voter Turnouts As Expected

     With huge early voter turnouts this year, many people wondered if the polling places could even handle it.  Yet, as the early voting numbers are to account for about 30% of the total turnout for this election, I can't help but wonder how much of it is due to the news.  Certainly, voter turnout wouldn't be nearly as high as expected if the media had not been pushing it for the entire past year.  Obviously, it is a very controversial election year and that the news companies are giving the american people what they want.  However, a large portion of their coverage and broadcasting has to do with their own agendas.  How much can we attribute the increased participation in this years election to journalists?  And is that their role?

     I think that journalists have been doing a fairly good job of fulfilling their role as informing the public and would even venture to say that they are fulfilling their role in getting the people out to vote.  Isn't helping citizens perform their duty one way to serve the public interests?   With all the more intensive coverage that we're going to see over the next week I think it will only show how influential the media really is.

Local News Informing the Public

   As an absentee ballot voter, I took interest to some of the controversy that is going on right now in my home county.  Apparently, the recently appointed registrar for Fairfax County has been accused of suppressing certain group's absentee votes.  Specifically it is the armed forces that are directly affected by this, but some issues have rolled over to civilians.  Most of the contention is due to inadequately filled out ballots as well as improperly filled out envelopes.  It makes me wonder what is happening to my vote and if virginia's votes are being counted accurately.  If anyone has the right to vote, then how come their votes are being voided because of technicalities?  Since virginia is a key state this election, it certain will have an impact.

     This is certainly an issue that only the community papers could have picked up this early in the elections.  The media's address of this issue will help it to be resolved before Nov. 4th, in my opinion.  What would we do without the small time papers?  Yeah, a lot of stuff is not particularly interesting, but it all makes it worth while for those few stories that they pick up, when other papers simply don't care.  

Cuts in Jobs allow for more opportunities?

     Stanton, of the LA Times mentioned that, "the growing economic downturn is forcing us to undergo another round of job reductions and cost cuts."  Recently, the LA Times had to go through it's third cutback of the year, releasing employees that have been working there for years.  Where do these journalists turn?  Some turn to book publishing, public relations, marketing or even law school.  It may not be the "dream job" that they wanted, but the pay is often better.  What is the ex-journalist suppose to do?

     What does this mean for those of us who haven't yet had a chance to really pursue the job we aspire to in the field?  Should we even try? Is it worth becoming a journalist only to change our profession after a certain amount of years?  Perhaps we'd be better off just getting that second job right off the bat.  Essentially, it just comes down to personal preference of what your willing to deal with in trying to get what you want.  But wouldn't it be better to start off with a better pay and job stability?  What's your stance?

Daily Show sheds light on truth?

     Adam Chodikoff is a researcher hired by the Daily Show, not to write jokes, but to research.  His research covers everything displayed by news programs in hopes to find something eye catching, which can be used to play jokes on.  However, "Chodikoff's work goes beyond satire and into the realm of cold truth telling," says the Washington Post.  His work is able to uncover all those stories and connections that regular news simply don't find and aren't even looking for.  In his words he feels that TV news world, "doesn't have an interest in rocking the status quo because it's entrenched with the status quo."  So, is the Daily News actually presenting news?  The Washington Post seems to think that enough research, from Chodikoff, can be viewed as a type of news.

     Does this anti-establishment broadcast really help though?  It seems as though either way you get information from TV it is in some really biased form.  It's apparent that the public isn't satisfied with just news programs because of their biased nature.  However, do we really want to get the opposite influences from programs like the Daily Show.  Is it safe to say that a good chunk of the reason Americans feel America is not headed in the right direction, is because of programs like the Daily Show?  If so, is this really the happy medium of news broadcasting that we, the people, want?

Fairfax Times Has You Do the News

     The Fairfax Times is trying to allow the community to get involved by having them write an article on their website.  This blogging alternative called "News by You" seems to be a logical approach to working with the people to get good, quality news, but does it work?  Right now there are currently three posts on it.  Three.  And two of the three seem to be plugs that people are putting in for charity organizations or events that they are apart of.  So far, I would say that this type of approach just isn't working, but it may have potential.  Isn't it possible that bloggers could get involved in the community papers the same way that they are involved on their own dedicated sites, instead of using it for advertising.  If that were to happen, wouldn't it have more of an impact on the community that they're apart of.  I mean, lets face it, when someone in the community rights their views on a community topic, how many people in that community really see it?  This could potential be a positive way to keep the public involved in the news, being a part of it, but not necessarily taking the place of the "professionals."  So if this is a way to go, how does one really implement it?  If it's not the way to go, what's wrong with the system?  Why wouldn't people take advantage of something like this now?  I like the push the this community paper has taken to help mold with the way journalism is shaping and definitely see the potential of this being a very good thing that's developing.  

Exploiting Journalist Roles

     As the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, seeks to push his way into a third office, he enlists the media.  This past monday, the New York Times had an article stating that Bloomberg is trying to use the media to help push the law into allowing him to stay in for a third term.  The one primarily asked to back him up is The Daily News, who is more than willing to oblige.  However, owner of The Daily News, Mortimer Zuckerman, said "I only wish we had that kind of power.  I think he has been a remarkable mayor, we face tremendous challenges as a city right now, and it's clear that he is the person for the job."  So, has the journalist gotten big enough to persuade the legal system to change their fundamental laws?  Bloomberg feels so and certainly is trying hard to make it happen.

     There has always been the argument of whether journalism can really effect society on a large scale, or whether it plays a more prominent role as reporting on a smaller scale.  I think that journalists feel that they have the most effect on society when they serve the little man.  Is the trend changing?  More and more, journalists are viewed as those who push the big institutions to the wall and make them fully accountable for what they do.  So how big is the sphere of influence for a journalist really and should they be focusing more on that?  I think the case of the current mayor of New York tells us how the trend is going and it will only get closer to Michael Bloomberg's expectations as time passes.

Interview with a Journalist

     Interviewing with an actual journalist, regarding issues discussed in class, actually proved to be rather comforting.  The journalist I chose to ask questions of writes for the Fairfax Times, which is from my home town and has been there for six years.  Her answers regarding the nature of journalism and current issues in the field of journalism were congruent to my own views of the field now, but with a few variations.  Somewhat surprised at the similar and dissimilar perspectives, I found the experience as a whole to be quite rewarding.  

     The path of a journalist seemed to be set before her as she was interested in becoming a writer even as a young child.  This interest grew in her all throughout high school and college (majoring in Journalism) so much that she immediately accepted a job from the Fairfax Times upon graduating.  She has been there up until today where she currently still loves her job and is excited about it.  Being in her position, she had many insights regarding what journalism is and what it means to be a journalist.  

     To this journalist, "good" journalism is defined as anything from, "engaging to read and tells a good story," to "provides information that is important for citizens of a community or country to know," or "exposes some corruption on wrong-doing in a government or institution."  However, no matter what form it takes on, to her, journalism has to be objective and based on hard facts.  This is the bases upon which she feels her organization writes "good" journalism.  I found this interesting because she didn't take a particular bias as to what exactly journalism is.  To her, journalism encompasses it all, which is what a journalist has to accept these days.  

     Working for a smaller community paper has its perks and pitfalls.  With a smaller organization it is simply not possible for her to cover a deep and juicy investigative story.  However, she is able to get to write all those local stories that a big daily simply can not.  As a result of the community setting, she is very close to her sources and receives a lot more, what she said was, "personal, direct feedback about my work."  The community scene has benefits such as a "News By You" program that allows the citizens to post their own news on the Fairfax Times website.  There is also activity from bloggers, but to this journalist, they are not considered journalists because of their biases.  

     Being a practicing journalist for only six years, her experiences have not changed her views about the profession very much.  However, she did mention the "pressure to change the way we do things because of money, and I am committed to resisting anything that changes the ethics of journalism."  Her particular paper seems to be hit by the economic crises america is in and slowing ad sales.  Interestingly, because of the fact that they are a free paper, they are able to control their circulation a lot better and are thus a little better of than some of the big time papers.  I guess smaller community papers are the place to be if you're looking to go into the field.  

     Her suggestions for young budding journalists was to get tech savvy.  Say said, "the internet may be stealing all our classified ad dollars, but it also provides the opportunity to do some really cool things that add a whole new dimension to reporting."  In conversing with her, I found that the community paper can be very exciting and that there are so many options even within a small community, especially with the new changes coming in the industry.

     

News Wars- A Loosing Battle

     The video entitled "News War: What's Happening to the News?" attempted to define where, exactly, the newspaper industry is going.  One of the most prominent messages that was throughout the video was that the newspaper industry changed as soon as it was obvious that big money could be made in it.  Before, the job of a newspaper was to inform the people and tell them what they did not already know, but what was also necessary for them to know.  Not nearly as much money was made then, as is now.  However, the desire to make the big bucks lead to big businesses and media conglomeration.  This would seem all well and good except that newspapers changed to tell the people what they want to hear and not necessarily what they needed to hear.  As stated in the video, this lead to more outlets created for ways to view the news and more outlets means more unneeded stories, just to get the ratings.  As the public is realizing this, the pressing question becomes more of whether that's what they really want or not.

     Wouldn't the newspaper business be completely different if news was still made for the purpose of telling people what they really need to hear?  I think that the people are noticing this and are now trying to be apart of the news in hopes to improve it.  If the newspaper was really covering the news for the people's sake and not just to please the shareholders, they wouldn't be in quite the mess that they are in today.  However, this trend doesn't seem to be going away any time soon and so the newspaper companies will have to work around the people now being apart of the news.  As it stands, this is the only way the newspaper industry can stay alive and also how the people can get better news.  

Big Ratings on Youtube, Instead of CBS

     Yesterday, the New York Times had an article about Katie Couric, which some of us were crossing our fingers would not make a huge deal out of the whole female-in-the-news issue, again.  It actually didn't! Instead, it hit on the way news is being viewed today, pushing out some of the old fashioned, traditional ways.  

     Couric interviewing Palin was suspected to jump CBS's ratings through the roof, anticipating much higher views than usual.  However, as the New York Times put it, "the CBS newscast didn't even record its highest audience totals last wednesday and Thursday, when the interviews were broadcast."  What happened to the audience?  Instead, viewers got the gist of the interviews from Saturday Night Live's parody of the interview and also from YouTube.  This is direct evidence that the people are choosing the news they want to hear.  One would think that most americans would jump on the chance to see the real Sarah Palin and not just one that has been bombarded by the media.  Yet, "the first interview last Wednesday, for example, has been viewed more than 1.4 million times on YouTube, while the parody of the interview on 'SNL' was streamed more than 4 million times on NBC.com, viewed in full more than 600,000 times on YouTube and in shorter clips many more hundreds of thousands of times," as stated by the newspaper.  

     So, it's true that the audience to traditional news is fading and the new generations are choosing a new media to get their news.  Even with their vast experience in the business, this was not something that CBS expected, quite to this extent.  

     For more the actual article you can log in to the Times here: http//tinyurl.com/Couric-Palin-Results.

EC-The Reporter's Privilege

     Being an outsider to the state of Utah, it was interesting to note the praise received for being one of the last states to allow a shield law for journalists in the state of Utah.  The panel discussion last thursday on the topic of protecting confidential sources proved education for me, individually, as I consider myself somewhat of an outsider to the whole journalism legal scene, as well.  Those who participated as part of the panel shed some new light on the subject.

     Being a member of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Mr. Dayle Jeffs set the stage for the reasoning behind the shield law.  Before the law, journalists seemed to be under the gun whenever they were subject to court appearance.  Before the shield law, journalist were basically required to give up information, even though they had stated that the information or the sources were confidential, and they were just in thinking so.  What spurned the creation of this law is when the members of the committee noted what repercussions this was having.  Mr. Jeffs said himself that, "it was disturbing to me that when a journalist finds out some important information, he is told to destroy his notes."  It seemed as though more damaged was being done by not allowing the reporters this privilege.

     Jeff Hunt started out the panel by stating that the shield law made in Utah, or referred to as Rule 509, was made "...not for the journalist, but to protect the free flow of information to the public."  My immediate response to this was to question it.  If reporters were now shielded from giving any information they deemed "confidential" then reporters could get away with reporting anything they wanted to and hide any sources of information that were actually false.  However, later on, Mr. Hunt explained that the law was formed in such a way that these loop holes were accounted for and that under certain circumstances the reporters were subject to give up information.  

     How necessary is this law?  Obviously, it is necessary for the state of Utah, but is it necessary enough to be established as a federal law?  The clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor, RonNell Jones, provided the information that in the current state of the nation, it would appear that a federal shield law is becoming more necessary.  The most interesting statistic is that subpoenas issued to journalist, over the years, has increased substantially.  In years past, there was simply not enough evidence to justify such a law to be passed, but the drastic increase of subpoenas issued has brought it to federal attention and, in her opinion, has justified a genuine need for it.

     Listening to the panel has made me much more aware of the issue and what state it is in today.  I certainly was convinced that the shield laws serve a very important purpose for journalist, but more importantly, the free flow of information to people like me.  It will be interesting to see what changes lie ahead.

The Couric Complex

     Apparently we're not done with Couric in the newsroom yet.  First it's Senator Clinton, then it's Senator Palin, and now it's Katie Couric...again?  The controversial issues that aroused as Katie Couric stepped into the limelight on CBS for the first time have come back around to haunt us now that women are the subject of politics.  It seemed to me that the issue of a woman as a top CBS anchor had relatively died down up until now.  However, "An Achor Lets Down Her Hair" was posted front page for the NYTimes last monday and rekindles the story all over again.  

     "The road to gender equality really starts when the novelty wears off.  And I think my presence anchoring a nightly newscast is much less jarring than it might have been initially," said Couric herself in the article.  I find it somewhat ironic that that quote is printed in an article that contributes to pointing out and, to a certain extent, drawing the line between men and women as an anchor.  I thought we were getting to the point where novelty is "wearing off."  I guess the fact that this article was published shows how wrong I am.  

     I do agree with the article when it states that Couric "...is a superb journalist."  I think that the diversity of a woman interviewing the new republican vice presidential candidate is refreshing.  She can offer new insight because she is a woman and because she's good at what she does.  But please, let's not go overboard with the whole issue of sexism in the newsroom again.  We'll be lucky when these types of articles focus in on only the quality of her work, rather than her gender.  That is, after all, the self contradicting point that this article is trying to get across, isn't it?

Journalist Shmernalist

  A Journalist has always been defined as someone who digs up the dirt for the public, in my mind at least.  Isn't a Journalist just someone who provides the pertinent information or, in some cases, someone who digs up worthless information, as I have felt at certain times.  This is established as a right to all that are governed by the Constitution.  So, where's the discrepancy?  Pretty much anyone can be a Journalist, if you're doing what the name implies.

  I suppose that in the past, Journalism has been more of a "professional" career and so here is where the mix ups occur.  Do we embrace the traditional means of "professional Journalism" through implied unspeakable laws, or do we take the bare bones of what makes Journalism and allow anything that can possibly fit?  There are certainly pros and cons to both sides, but what are we if we're not dedicated to a stance, right?

  Although we're not going to get the most, shall we say, "intelligent" opinions and most accurate information on what's going on from these Journalist bloggers, all the information will be there none the less.  This just means that the responsibility switches over to us as individuals to decipher what opinions are relevant and what information is relevant.  Personally, I like the added freedom that the broader definition of a Journalist entails.  However, with great freedom comes great responsibility.  I think the American people are ready for it, don't you?