Uber official threatens journalists


Uber has caught the nation’s attention as a successful transportation company with its ride-sharing business. The company is an efficient and cheap alternative to more traditional transportation such as taxis and limos. However, it is a very controversial company that is in constant war with its own hired drivers, taxi drivers, city governments and even journalists.

Believe it or not, a professional, successful and fast growing ride company, considers that it should hire opposition researchers to “dig up the dirt on journalists who criticized their company” and give the news media “a taste of its own medicine.”

Uber has been heavily criticized for using “dirty tricks” to impair its rival companies, for offering rides to “hot girls” in order to promote the company and for being careless about addressing the problem of female passengers receiving undesired sexual attention.

Now, the company is being aggressive with the news media. Last Friday night, Emil Michael, the company’s vice president, told guests at an Uber dinner party in New York City, that the company should battle negative media critics by spending $1 million to get rid of the defamatory information that media created about the company and that it should also damage the reputation of journalists who slandered Uber’s public image.

According to BuzzFeed, Michael put Sarah Lacy, editor and journalist of PandoDaily who has been critical of “Uber’s sexism,” as an example of an obstructionist journalist. Michael said that he wanted to investigate a “particular and very specific detail” about her personal life in order to damage her reputation as well.

Lacy, who wrote an article suggesting that passengers are more to likely to face sexual assault from an Uber driver than from a regular taxi driver, called these comments “horrifying.”

Michael was not aware that journalists were present at the dinner, listening to every single word he used. He probably wouldn’t have said that if someone had told him journalists were there. Michael ended up damaging the name of his company even more than he thought the news media did.

Michael had no option but to apologize because he really damaged his company’s name.

“My remarks were borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for,” Michael said on Monday. “My comments don’t reflect my actual views and I regret making them,” he added.

Despite Michael’s apology, his remarks are still being discussed all over the media as shocking.

According to a BuzzFeed report, Uber gained access to a reporter’s personal travel information just because the reporter was working on an article about the company. So, does this mean that Uber can obtain access to all its passengers’ personal information as well? … Maybe the federal government needs to keep an eye on this company’s efforts to access people’s private information.

Michael’s remarks might be the toughest challenges that Uber has ever faced. People are now doubting the company’s behavior.

What happened last week tells the world Uber is an untrustworthy company. Needless to say, Uber is getting a lot of negative publicity. This could damage the company’s growth for the next years if they don’t instill the value of morality within their company.

Media bias and hot-button issues


Since the beginning of the year when it first was mentioned, executive action has been the great sleeping giant of U.S. policy. Not until the past couple of weeks has it gained a large presence in the media and stirred extreme responses. Until last night at 8, President Obama had been waffling with the idea.

On Feb. 14, 2013, Obama said: “I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States … my job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Later, on Sept. 17, 2013, Obama spoke on the topic of immigration reform: “There is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.”

Big-time news networks, however, like CBS and ABC, have avoided questioning the president’s blatant flip-flopping. They only covered his admissions briefly, NBC allowing 12 seconds on air and ABC, 91 seconds.

Assuming that the media play a role as a watchdog of sorts, why have they failed to ask about the why’s and when’s of this contradiction? When it comes to power, the truth should always be spoken. The basic responsibility of the reporter, then, is to hold the powerful accountable to the truth. Sure, the waffling has been noted but has it really been analyzed on the media?

Instead, networks like CBS did all they could to push the argument towards pro-executive amnesty. On “CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley,” a two-minute segment was spent telling the story of the children of an illegal immigrant. It told the “story of a divided family.”

On “NBC Nightly News,” Chris Jansing’s report on the pro-amnesty crowd leaned too far as she opened up the segment with: “they were gearing up to defend President Obama.”

What is clear is that only one side of the argument has had its fair share of photos and captions — portraying an overall image of innocence.

The executive decision made last night came as no surprise. What did, however, was the media’s bias on such a hot-button issue.

Bill Cosby and his legacy


Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past two weeks, you would know that there have been several allegations from multiple women claiming that Bill Cosby has committed sexual assault against them within the past three decades.

This came as a shocker for many, as the general public looked at Cosby as “America’s Favorite Dad” — the G-rated comedian who’s claim to fame was a hilarious father with no-nonsense parenting skills on “The Cosby Show,” one of the most successful television sitcoms of all time.

Whether or not the allegations are true, the sexual assault news has caused much bad press for Cosby. Associated Press announced yesterday that TV Land, a cable network known for airing throwback shows, has pulled “The Cosby Show” indefinitely from its network in light of the allegations. Netflix has also announced that a Cosby special that it was to release in late November has been postponed, and NBC announced that a show that it had in the works with Cosby will no longer be moving forward.

It is incredible to see how something like rape allegations will affect the overall legacy of someone who was known for his positive image throughout his career. Cosby’s incredible achievements will no longer be highlighted as sexual assault will cover everything that he has ever done. Networks have snatched his projects up with a quickness and stories involving Bill Cosby after the scandal has blown over will always include that he has committed sexual assault.

Cosby, 77, is aging and will reach his final days sooner than later. Will he be remembered more so for his achievements or the negatives? Will he grace the covers of People or Time or will he just be a blurb within the first pages of the magazine? It will be interesting to see how the media will portray his legacy.

Can news keep pace with social media?


One of the great things about social media is that you can post something and instantly everyone whose interested can see it. It has created a window of opportunity for information to be spread far and spread quickly.

The way I first heard about the tragic shooting at Florida State University was not via CNN or ABC, but on social media. I always check my phone first thing in the morning, not turn on the news right when I wake up (and I’m sure I’m not the only one who does this), so social media sources were how I first heard about what happened.

People who were actually in the library when the shooting took place were sending out texts and tweets, and the news of the incident spread like wild fire across mediums like Facebook, Twitter and even Yik Yak.

There is no way that a journalist could have learned about the event and written an article faster than someone could have written a tweet.

Social media are changing how we get our information in this day and age. Of course, you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet, so social media don’t have as much credibility as an actual news source, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t still getting their information from people posting on the Web.

Social media are changing how reporters do their jobs. Everyone wants information sent directly to their phones right as it is happening. We want everything right now without having to wait.

Reputable news sources are beginning to take advantage of social media and it is shaping the future of journalism.

Misleading headlines distort coverage


Many misleading headlines have arisen from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

CNN released a story with this headline following an attack on Tuesday titled “4 Israelis, 2 Palestinians killed in synagogue attack, Israeli police say.” Although this headline does not indicate it in any way, the “2 Palestinians” were the terrorists. An update to the headline was no better, referring to an attack on a Jerusalem “mosque” when in fact it was a synagogue.

This follows a report last month by the Associated Press given the headline “Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem.” From this headline only, one would infer that the Israeli police were the aggressors and the man the victim when in fact the roles were opposite. From the story you learn that Israeli police shot a man who slammed his car into a crowd of people waiting at a train stop in an act of suspected terrorism and tried to run.

Misleading headlines, such as these, are dangerous. Many people gather news simply by reading headlines, and while the habit is not ideal, it is a fact of which journalists need to be mindful.

For another thing, studies have shown that the initial perception formed in a reader’s mind by the headline will taint his/her interpretation of the entire story that follows.

I’m not suggesting every headline should be full of name-calling, but the perpetrator-victim relationship must not be distorted, whether misrepresented on purpose or not, as this has the potential to vilify innocent people.

Journalists and using social media


I want to preface this by saying this person is a college student and not a paid reporter and, according to a comment from ESPNU in a Washington Post article, has a “very loose affiliation” with the network.

A student reporter at the University of Alabama made a name for herself Thursday morning, but not for any good reason. Marisa Martin, a ESPNU Campus Connection reporter, took to social media to express her opinions regarding the Florida State University campus shooting that occurred just after midnight Thursday morning.

Martin tweeted, “reported gunman on the FSU campus. Maybe he is heading for Jameis” in reference to the FSU quarterback who has been in the spotlight for both on-field and off-field action. Immediately she received criticism from followers and responded with: “Since apparently I cant make a joke in all seriousness I hope everyone at FSU is safe & that the gunman is found. But I stand by my opinions.”

She has since deleted the tweets and is claiming her account was hacked.

Whether in college or not, Martin’s actions should concern all journalists. Are our future journalists too comfortable with social media? Is social media enabling hasty and opinionated reporting?

Given the context of the situation, it would have been inappropriate for anyone to tweet something even semi-offensive, let alone an aspiring reporter working for one of the most prominent news outlets. Joking or not, college students, especially those entering the journalism field need to think twice before posting on social media.

Make that three times, just for good measure.

Cartoons? News? Yes!


They say a picture’s worth a thousand words. And the saying does not exist not for nothing.

In journalism, many reporters tend to forget this premise however.

Sometimes we encounter long texts we don’t even want to read to, as at a glance they just look they will go on forever as the Bible.

Truth is words are not the only way to tell a story.

Although cartoons have been used for many years now in the journalistic field, to some, the only connection between comics and newspapers is in the funny pages, or a single panel editorial cartoon.

Nonetheless there exists another way for making good use of such attractive illustrations. A way that, although aesthetically pleasing, still ensures the essence of great journalism. “The complete and reliable reporting of the facts.”

With that being said, a new breed of journalism is emerging. One that is betting on visual narrative storytelling, using the framework of comics – the traditional combination of words and drawn images.

You can call it “Comic Journalism.”

While cartoons often aren’t automatically thought of as serious narratives; journalism pieces per say, several journalists are using this approach to explore complex topics around the world. Journalists have had to dig deep into their creative side to increase validity of the genre though.

Joe Sacco is widely considered to be one of the pioneers of the form, who actually got to produce the first known magazine specifically focused on comic journalism.

And as the use of the comic’s medium to cover real-life events continues to develop, is no surprise that other organizations will begin to adopt and embrace the format. Perhaps among the most popular today is Symbolia Magazine, a digital magazine that publishes stories illustrated in the form of a graphic novel.

Keeping connected through news


Through the course of this blogging assignment this semester, one particular aspect of news reporting has stood out for me. News keeps us connected.

Whether it be to what is happening in our local town, city, country and even on a global scale, the news provides a way of staying informed about what is going on around us and often is the main force that maintains our connection to place.

The Internet in particular has enabled the news to transcend physical boundaries thus facilitating individuals to stay connected to their homes when abroad. Most people have their main preference for their news source however, when they are in a different city or overseas, their choice of news outlet changes in order to remain up to date with the local happenings of their current location.

Despite this, continuing to check our news source from home is what creates a connection for individuals who are so far from their local environment. Even though this news is not relevant to their current location, often it is valued more highly by readers as it enables them to feel part of the community that they are from.

This notion has been evidenced in my experience being on exchange in Miami. While I realize the importance of following the news published by American sources and I have actively integrated these publications into my daily news routine, I am often more interested in reading the Australian news. This is not only to keep in touch with what is occurring back home. Rather my familiarity with the news structure and the layout of the publications and websites that I normally frequent means that I prefer to use these sources to obtain my daily dose of international news as well.

Perhaps what is most important to note is that no matter what reputable source of news is predominately used, frequenting multiple news sources enables individuals to gain a comprehensive picture of news events from around the world.

Interviewing and transparency


In the face of freshly renewed rape allegations against Bill Cosby, several news outlets chose to ignore the information while just as many jumped on the chance to hear the victims stories and unpack the possibility of a beloved comic icon being capable of such brutality.

Most recently Cosby appeared on the NPR show, Weekend Edition Saturday on Nov. 15, where he discussed loaning art to the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art, before host Scott Simon asked Cosby to discuss the allegations leveled against him by several women including Barbara Bowman and Andrea Constand.

Post interview recording and before the piece aired, Simon took to Twitter to discuss the interview. Questions and backlash poured in at equal measure and Simon took the time to discuss the nature of interviewing and what defines journalism.

Despite the difficult nature of the questions, both in having to ask and having to answer, the principles of journalism demand that reporters bear with and do the difficult thing. By asking tough questions journalists should be able to uncover the difficult truths and at the end of the day it is the tension and novelty present in the answers that make a story newsworthy.

Interviewing is a notoriously difficult skill to learn and practice simply because people are so different from one another, and the soft ball questions that may open one person up may end up forcing another person to retreat into themselves.

When working as a reporter, it’s important to keep both the integrity of the interview and the comfort of the subject in mind, but it seems that if one is more important that the other it is the integrity of the interview and the ensuing news piece that wins out.

No news is not always good news


There’s an old saying that “no news is good news.”

While this may be true to a degree, there are small, inherent dangers in having a slow news week. Namely, bringing up old and irrelevant issues. Sometimes it feels as if the news is an old married couple. When the program runs out of things to talk about, they simply bring up a problem from the past and attempt to beat a dead horse further into the ground.

During slow news weeks, it seems like a lot of “experts” are brought on to the famous cable news networks to talk about everything from the validity of gay marriage to whether we still have a terrorist threat in airports — a topic that has been discussed (and mocked) for 13 years.

The other problem that arises is “creating” news. The biggest story of this week was that Kim Kardashian posed nude in a magazine. That’s it. That’s the whole story. There’s no value in that other than bringing more attention to someone who makes no difference in society.

The only good to come of the photo-shoot was that the always sarcastic internet took hold of the images and mocked them through various memes that ridiculed the celebrity.

I guess I’m just looking for in-depth news that brings lesser known issues to light during times without an obvious crisis. Will it happen? Not as long as news simply operates under the mantra “give the people what they want” and not “give the people what they deserve to know”.

Racist undertones of Paper photos


Thanks to social media and the Internet, by now most people are familiar with Kim Kardashians “Break the Internet” movement and photos from her cover and spread in Paper magazine.

While some people are either laughing at the photos and creating mocking memes or accusing the magazine of using Photoshop, there is a deeper underlying issue regarding the overall concept of the shoot.

imageAs confirmed by the editorial director of the magazine, renowned French photographer Jean-Paul Goude’s shoot with Kardashian was aimed at recreating his own work.

Jean-Paul Goode wanted to recreate his famous 1976 ”Champagne Incident” photo from a book entitled: “Jungle Fever,” which originally featured nude black model, Carolina Beaumont.

His original 1976 “Champagne Incident” photo was said to evoke the image of Saartjie Baartman.

imageSaartjie “Sarah” Baartman was a black South African woman brought to London in the 19th century and displayed for her large buttocks.

Baartman was the most famous of at least two Khoikhoi women who were exhibited as freak show attractions in 19th-century Europe.

Jean-Paul Goude has a long history of using women of color in outrageous, over-sexualized and sometimes animalistic depictions for his pictures. Some people find that his shoot with Kim continues in that long tradition of blatantly flirting with racism.

The editorial director of Paper magazine has commented to confirm Photoshop rumors, but he still will not comment on the race issue allegations of the spread.

It is not only about 43 murdered students


#YaMeCanse, which basically means “I’m tired of this already,” began trending in Mexico since 43 students were brutally murdered.

Protests in Mexico are all over the news. Mexicans are tired of corruption, crime and violence. It’s not only about what the students lived, it’s about where the country is now headed.

As most of us might heard or read about, 43 student protesters disappeared outside Iguala, a city in the Mexican state of Guerrero, on Sept. 26. The students were kidnapped by the local police and given to the Guerreros Unidos gangs, a criminal organization in Guerrero, to kill them. Not to mention, these were the commands of corrupt Mexican politicians against these innocent students.

So, why the politicians wanted to have these students disappear?

Apparently, the students’ plan was to interrupt Iguala’s annual conference of Maria de los Ángeles Pineda, local president of the organization and the wife of Iguala mayor Jose Luis Abarca. Likewise, students wanted to protest since they were not happy with the government’s favoritism when hiring and funding jobs and practices; students claimed government gave privilege to those students from urban colleges over those from rural institutions.

It turned out that Abarca and his wife sent the “police” to open fire on the students’ vehicles and block them from interrupting Pineda’s talk. Students that remained alive after the shootout were forced into police vehicles and handed over by the same police to the Guerreros Unidos criminals. These gunmen killed them and burned them in a mercilessness way.

Yes, drug cartels are nothing new to Mexico. However, it is unacceptable that the same politicians, who are supposed to be an example to their citizens and fight against these illegitimate drug organizations, are the ones that have close ties with drug cartels and send these criminals to kill citizens that are “an obstruction” for their political speeches.

Even ordinary Mexicans students as these youngsters, who were from poor families and had no ties to the drug trade, were victims of this politicized savagery.

It is clear that public corruption and violence within the politics have gone out of control in this country. If Mexicans don’t confront this problem, the crime organizations will be gaining more and more power, killing Mexicans who oppose to them, installing drug cartel members in political positions and even taking control of the country.

“As Mexicans, we should change our attitudes, we are always complaining but we don’t work to find a solution to this problem that is putting our country in serious risk,” said Odalis Gomez, radio newscaster of the political debate forum for youngsters of QFM 104.3 in Cancun, Mexico.



Media sensationalism risks public health


According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been 20 measles outbreaks in the U.S. between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31 of this year, spread mainly among non-vaccinated individuals. These numbers are among the highest recorded since 1997.

The practice of vaccinating children has been on decline since a 1998 study from the lab of Andrew Wakefield was published claiming that vaccinations cause developmental disorders in children. The article was later retracted when it was discovered to be a dishonest study that violated research ethics.

Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, including the measles vaccine and a vaccine called thimersosal.

The only study showing any association between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine was the aforementioned 1998 study, which was not surprisingly funded by lawyers and parents wishing to sue vaccine manufacturers. That was not the only conflict of interest Wakefield did not disclose at the time of publication. The year before the study was published, Wakefield patented a measles vaccine with the potential to replace the combined vaccine that was customarily given.

Despite the small sample size and far-reaching conclusions in Wakefield’s publication, the media vastly publicized it. Vaccination rates dropped substantially as parents were frightened into believing that vaccinating their children put them at severe risk for Autism.

The media has a tendency toward sensationalism, in which it gives exaggerated coverage to insignificant content. “Media exploits vaccine scares firstly to promote fear and pity among their readers which moves media product,” said investigative journalist Brian Deer.

We are still paying the costs to public health of the media’s over-dramatic coverage of the single, fraudulent paper.

Reporting on UM special events


This week marks the all-important and long-awaited rivalry football game where UM will take on FSU. It is no surprise that all the major campus news publications are focusing on this story. However, it’s interesting to see how news principles are impacted by the focus on this story.

In particular, from reading the news publications such as The Miami Hurricane, one would be led to believe that the only thing occurring this week on campus is the football game. In maintaining this focus, the paper fails to recognize that there are students and faculty members who are not wholeheartedly interested in the game. Therefore the lack of reporting on a wide range of news topics this week, has compromised the ability for these people to gain news information about other events on campus.

Additionally, while in general an important news principle is the removal of bias from reporting, this event poses an instance where bias is actively integrated into stories. It is an intrinsic part of creating excitement for the event through stories and building suspense for the campus population.

However by favoring one side, due to the publication’s affiliation with UM as the major campus news publication, the newspaper is ignoring its responsibility to remain objective throughout their news reporting practice. Yet, this may not be such a terrible thing and perhaps it is even something that is called for in this circumstance.

One thing is for sure, it is interesting to see how the reporters develop fresh and unique perspectives on this topic. Despite the repetitive topic, the articles vary in their focus in order to provide students with a wide range of information on the game. From safety precautions to team preparations and even the history of the rivalry, these articles don’t fail to provide intriguing insights into an event that can most definitely be called the highlight of the semester.

Local news channels… Please keep up


What is it about local television news stations and their lackluster approach to reporting news?

Earlier in the semester, I wrote about the ridiculousness that was the Channel 10 newscast one night in Miami. Last night, I found myself watching another local news channel’s nightly newscast and once again was disappointed.

This one admittedly was not as horrible as the first, but it was still falling short of my expectations of what a newscast should be.

In particular, they had a segment about “new tips when buying flights during the holidays,” aided by an “expert” in the field. Now, how you can be an expert in such a field is beyond me, but we won’t go there.

The story was roughly three to five minutes long, with no concrete content. The reporter would prompt the “expert” with a leading question and the “expert’s” response would be completely unrelated or completely opinion based. The program really didn’t leave me (the viewer) with any concrete, new tips to buy cheap flights as it had promised to do.

Worst of all, it ended with a reporter informing us of the best dates to get the cheapest plane tickets for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Unfortunately, those dates were both at the beginning of October, proving to be absolutely useless for anyone watching that night.

So the two main issues I, and I’m sure many other viewers, had with last night’s newscast were that a) the information was not delivered in a timely fashion at all, a crime in the news industry; and b) the information wasn’t even informative or clear.

The fact that my boyfriend, who was also watching the program with me, said “well that made absolutely no sense,” is an indicator that local news stations need to up their game and the quality of their newscasts. In the meantime, I’ll stick to the national news channels.

Social media reconnecting strangers


Facebook is a great way to stay in touch with old friends and, now, one family used the website to re-connect with someone with whom they didn’t even know they had lost contact.

A pair of twins were separated at birth and found each other when one of the twins, Anais Bordier, had a friend show her a YouTube video of a girl that looked exactly like her. After much stalking on the Internet, Bordier found out the girl’s name was Samantha Futerman.

Bordier sent Futerman a Facebook message and friend request and they discovered they had both been adopted from the same South Korean town and had the same birthday. (http://cnn.it/1ukER3X)

It’s a touching, real life Parent Trap-esque story only, instead of meeting at summer camp, social media are what brought the two together.

Not only would the girls not have been able to find each other if it weren’t for the Internet, but the news maybe would not have heard about their story and picked it up.

Journalism is all about using your resources and social media and the Internet are very readily available sources.

Of course, it is always better to get your information directly from the source, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get ideas and leads off of the Internet. CNN, which reported the story, could have heard about the twins’ new organization (Kindred, which works to reunite adoptees with their families,) from somewhere online and then gotten the idea for the story.

As a journalist, it’s important to always keep your eyes open and to use all your resources to their fullest potential, because we live in a world with so much information right at our fingertips.

Oh, CNN, did you have to?


The other day, I was in line for coffee at Starbucks and I feel a buzz go off in my pocket. I glace at my phone to see a CNN push notification.

I get plenty of these alerts a day, but this one was slightly different than the others. The alert read “Two workers trapped on scaffolding dangling off new World Trade Center tower. Open your app to watch on CNN.” The Starbucks line was pretty lengthy that day, and it would have been a perfect opportunity for me to open up my CNN app to watch two men danging off the largest building in the United States. But at that moment, I felt too annoyed to even consider watching.

CNN’s popularity is based off of the news network’s ability to quickly access newsworthy stories and I applaud CNN for that. But, at times, it makes a spectacle out of news in order to get viewership. People love drama; that’s a fact. But the moment when CNN turns something scary and serious into a cash cow opportunity is when they lose me. I know that it is their job to give the viewers what they want, but that last sentence in the alert made CNN appear trashy to me instead of a company who delivers great news.

Maybe it’s just me, but I found that alert to be very harsh. I felt like CNN was saying “we have live footage and I know that you want to see if they survive or not!” Maybe I can’t fully blame CNN; viewers have probably asked for them to show more live footage of traumatizing events that they could easily open up on an application while waiting in line at a Starbucks, like I was. Is this the way news is progressing? I wouldn’t be surprised if I received more alerts similar to this one in the future.

Fairly reporting Eminem’s ‘F-bombs’


Everyone knows there are the seven deadly words you cannot say on air. These are typically the words you emphasize, the words you use at the end of an argument, the words for which your mother would wash your mouth out.

This past Veteran’s Day, I tuned into HBO to watch the Concert for Valor — a concert held in the National Mall with a big crowd and an even bigger lineup of familiar voices.

After a little bit of “Born in the USA” from Bruce Springsteen and “America the Beautiful” from Zac Brown Band, the concert (the first of its kind) closed with a “Happy Motherf—-ng Veteran’s Day!” from the one and only Eminen.

He dropped more f-bombs than Times Square has dropped the ball. According to a source from USA Today, the count added up to more than 55. Gutsy for an event held in commemoration of our country’s heroes and in celebration of all that they have done. Obscene for a crowd whose ages and interests all varied greatly. But then again, it’s HBO. HBO is notorious for its laissez-faire approach towards censorship.

However, unlike the usual, the channel allowed its cable operators to open the signal — broadening its audience potentially from 30 to 70 million viewers at home who do not subscribe to it.

In a poll on Entertain This!, 51 percent said that the show was fine and represented our emphasis on free speech while 49 percent just said it wasn’t the right venue for that kind of performance.

Social media have lit up in response to this cursing which naturally has made it all the social craze on the media.

Most tweets read disappointment:

“Turning off HBO after all the swearing coming out of EMINEM..they cld have put him on later..after kids like myself have gone to sleep,” from Najat Dawaji.

“Pretty strange to hear Eminem swearing up a storm as the grand finale to thank our vets. So much anger and hostility is those F-bombs,” from Ace Hoffman.

“With the gun shot effects, swearing, lyrics, I don’t think Eminem was the best choice for #ConcertForValor…” from @VTJawo.

Through all of this, the media have rightfully remained unbiased in their publications — something to admire. With each major news source pumping out the same story, I have half expected one of the reporters to slip and show his or her true colors.

Blog post after blog post, I have criticized or critiqued the reporting of our day — either calling into question issues such as media blackouts, bias or hype. Fair reporting is not entirely a lost art, however. And in this case, with a topic that could easily ignite high emotions, the media has responsibly remained impartial.

To read more on USA Today, follow the link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/11/12/eminem-f-bombs-concert-for-valor-hbo-controversy/18901983/.

Technology and journalism — ‘BFFs’


There’s no doubt about it.

Over the past few years, journalism has changed and partly it has been because of its continuous effort to stay on track with its “BFF.”


So let’s face it; we all have tried to be like somebody else in our lives so there’s nothing wrong or to be ashamed of. (You are forgiven Journalism!)

Essentially what journalism has attempted throughout the course of the years is to fit in into the current society’s needs and wants. Or at least try to juggle with them.

So in a world were we find ourselves continuously dissatisfied and looking for the next “big thing”; that which increases our efficiency and makes our life easier, you might ask yourself what could be journalism’s next card?

Well, believe it or not it might be wearable technology.

It might sound odd at first, be the thing is that wearable technology is here. And is here to stay.

Wearable technology goes beyond just smart watches; it could includes other smart jewelry, Google Glass, fitness trackers and beyond.

Therefore, with the increasing popularity these items are experiencing, journalists should start focusing their effort on how to best format content to all of these different types of technology.

Because, again, let’s face it as people start using this items and as long as the trend and interest keeps on, they will become an everyday staple.

Hence, wearable technology may open the door for new platforms and ways to deliver information, forcing reporters to adjust getting the most pertinent details of a story across in the quickest way possible. One thing is for sure though; it will push journalism even further into the world of “at a glance.”

#BreaktheInternet supported by media


If you’ve checked Twitter lately (or opened up the Internet for that matter) you will know that Kim Kardashian is trying to “break the Internet.”

Ground-breaking news, right?

Kardashian took very tasteless (read: nude) photos for an issue of Paper Magazine, which was released earlier this week. The “goal” was to get the magazine and Kardashian trending on social media so much that the Internet would crash, at least I think that was the point.

Regardless, it’s been a topic of discussion.

Using social media to promote the cover is one thing, but when journalists start reporting reporting on it? Simply absurd. This “story” does not deserve the attention it’s gotten but unfortunately, sex, entertainment and controversy sells. Readers and viewers hone in on stories like this that are pop-culture focused with recognizable names probably more than an international or finance story.

What’s funny is that in all of the #breaktheinternet coverage, the reporters discussing the topic bash Kardashian and the hashtag trend. I’ve heard things like “Horrific! She is famous for nothing,” “I can’t believe people are following this trend,” and “why are we talking about this?”

Yes, why are you talking about it? If you don’t find it valuable information to report to the public, use some judgement and shut your mouth.