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.