Should we download music for free?

Posted on by

By XUANCHEN FAN

U2’s new album has been posted on the iTunes store for free download. The new album “Sounds of Innocence” is free to the more than 500 million iTunes customers in 119 countries.

U2's new album (source: from pitchfork)

U2’s new album (Source: from Pitchfork)

Maybe it is surprising, but more people are willing to buy the new edition CD after downloading the new album online.

At the beginning, iTunes was free to download music. Then musicians begin to sue Apple, saying that people are freely downloading the music and no one is willing to buy their edition or even deluxe edition CD.

However, given the situation with U2’s new album, artists should reconsider the methods of selling albums. People realized that the free download music and the edition CD are different. The latter one possesses the possibility of increasing in value and has collection value.

Moreover, the deluxe edition CD’s acoustic quality is much better. Music we are able to  download for free possesses poorer acoustic quality. It is like a sales strategy to encourage consumers to listen to better quality music.

The free download music is also a sale strategy that can help more people get to know the band. Taking U2 as an example, U2 is a famous band around America and Europe. Nonetheless, this iTunes free download experience enable more Asian know this band.

Listen to the U2’s new album at http://www.apple.com/U2/.

Does Hope Solo have female privilege?

Posted on by

By AUTUMN ROBERTSON

The tables have turned and people are outraged. But do they have a right to be?

Hope Solo, 33-year-old goal keeper for the USA women’s soccer team, was charged with two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence against her sister and 17-year-old cousin.

Within the past month, an uncanny amount of domestic violence charges have been released among male athletes and have caused much controversial discussion. People asked why the athletes were suspended (with pay) because of a “private matter” that we, the public, has no right to know or get involved in.

Now this female soccer player has a domestic violence charge over her head, the media seems to have backed away from the story, and she is still playing for the team with no suspension.

People, especially men, are upset. But should they be?

Many are saying that it is unfair that Solo faces the same charges as NFL players Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson but is still being allowed to play for her team. People think that Solo is receiving special privileges simply because she is a woman, and since she is a huge role model for many girls around the world, the media and the National Women’s Soccer League do not want to taint her image.

But are the media not blowing up this story simply because it is not as “scandalous” as a man knocking out his wife or beating his son? Maybe the media does not want to cover a story of a woman who had a family brawl.

Family brawls, unless you are Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and Solange in an elevator, are not very newsworthy and are not as controversial as the domestic violence situations that Rice and Peterson found themselves in. And the National Women’s Soccer League seems to think the same thing.

Should the NWSL punish Solo for her actions just as the NFL has punished athletes for theirs?

Why do we report celebrity gossip?

Posted on by

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

All over Internet news sources and on TV broadcasts today, you’ll probably hear something about “Celebrity Phone Hackings! Nude Photos Leaked!” If you stay up to date with current events, there is really no way you did not hear about this. It’s posted everywhere.

Why should we care that Jennifer Lawrence’s phone was hacked, or that Kate Middleton is pregnant, or that Kris and Bruce Jenner are getting a divorce?

There are people who have built their whole career around reporting celebrity gossip (hello, Perez Hilton.) Yet bloggers, gossip columns, and E! News aren’t the only ones talking about celebrities. The story of Kate Middleton’s second pregnancy was featured on ABC’s World News.

It’s a journalist’s job to help inform people about what’s going on in the world and what the public should generally know. Still, journalists also report what they know people want to hear. Most TV news broadcasts will have some type of human interest piece thrown in, and giving people the low down on what’s happening in Hollywood is an easy way to fill that.

If it’s possible to have a whole station like E! News devoted just to stirring up the celebrity rumor mill, clearly enough people want to know what’s happening in celebrities’ lives. But why?

It’s nice to know that celebrities are people, too. They get divorced, they have their phones hacked, they’re caught with drugs and have to go to court. They’re not untouchable.

Not only that, but everyone knows who these celebrities are, and it’s easy to talk about someone you know. The general public probably isn’t going to care if your cousin is being shipped off to rehab (unless there was some weird twist to thicken the plot of the story,) because they don’t know your cousin. It’s sometimes easy to feel like you actually know someone just because you have seen all of their movies, or watched a few of their interviews on daytime television.

As long as people are still tuning in to hear about celebrity news, reporters are still going to talk about it.

Inside the CNN studio tour

Posted on by

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

One place certainly every aspiring journalist should visit is Atlanta. The capital of, and the most populous city, in Georgia is home to massive media operations and newsrooms power houses recognized worldwide.

It was in this city were the legendary Ted Turner would begin the Turner Broadcasting System and  establish the headquarters of the infamous “Cable News Network”; better recognized today by the simple acronym of CNN .

These days, the CNN Center is adjacent to the Centennial Olympic Park in downtown Atlanta and is open to anyone who is down for a taste of what real world journalists undergo on a day-to-day basis. It allows visitors to get a feel for what goes on behind the scenes during news gathering and broadcasting as well as an insight into the various CNN networks. Notably, the center is responsible for instructing the ordinary citizen on how dignifying the world of news coverage and reporting can be.

431929_10152751416178134_8760692127951284375_n

CNN center: home to the world’s largest freestanding escalator

Along the approximately 55-minute guided walking tour; one is able to peek into the newsroom, control room, studios and headquarters main hallways.

The tour begins on a long ride up the world’s largest freestanding escalator as recognized by Guinness World Records. The 196-feet long and eight stories high escalator used to take visitors up to “The World of Sid and Marty Krofft,” an indoor amusement park, but is now CNN’s main newsroom.

You’ll find a replica of a CNN newsroom studio set when landing on the base after that long flight up. While you are waiting for the tour to begin, you’ll be able to videotape or photograph yourself broadcasting breaking news stories as an anchor.

As the tour begins, you’ll access a control room replica of the headquarters’ cable-TV news service, which is actually located on the same spot three stories below. Guests are instructed on the main concepts and activities that take place under this technical hub, allowing them to experience the behind-the-scenes elements of a news broadcast.

10441958_10152751416883134_8403776665373654303_nNext, you’ll visit one of the many CNN spin-off cable news channel studios, HLN’s (“Headline News”) Studio 7E.

This special-effects studio demonstrates visitors the technology that goes into the production of news. For example, the use of a teleprompter, on-air graphics with the aid of a green screen and high-tech touch screen are explained.

Although the tour will involve traveling down many levels of stairs, the following station is totally worthy to get to. A glass-wall on the building’s main hallway will allow you to catch a panoramic view of the main CNN studio, Studio 7. Actually, this is the largest studio CNN has ever built anywhere in the world and, if you are lucky enough you might even catch someone working on air.

10665667_10152751416843134_638452646018851032_nAfter touring the on-camera presence sites you’ll be redirected to the equivalent of a “chem-lab” for a journalist; the newsroom.

Here you are able to take a bird’s-eye view of both the main CNN and HNL newsroom as people downstairs are on working-mode. This is actually were the magic happens, because it is here were writers compose the news scripts after long processes of gathering and verifying information. In other words they are the responsible for the accuracy and relevance of the facts that households will eventually receive.

Exiting through another of the building hallways you will soon find yourself in front of other of the CNN en Espanol and HNL’s studios were, again if lucky, you might be able to catch an anchor and support crew on duty.

Soon after, you are dismissed, but not after being thanked for your visit. Of course, then you are redirected to the souvenir store where you are able to find amazing merchandise all encrypted on one way or another with the iconic reddish acronym.

Although such tour might sound as fun, it is really just the simplest of the bunch the place has to offer.  If you prefer a more extensive (and therefore expensive) VIP tour, you would actually get the chance to step out onto the main CNN newsroom floor and explore production areas that are not normally accessible to the public.

There’s also the possibility for you to go behind the scenes of HLN’s popular morning show, “Morning Express with Robin Meade” on another of the packages.

10609530_10152751415863134_9059171804339138202_nNo matter your choice, visiting this news landmark will definitely add to your knowledge and experience.

If you are not news savvy, you’ll learn the basics and, if an aspiring journalist, it will complement your understandings and light a beacon of persistence and perseverance to get a job on the spot (because it sure did in me!).

Getting to go inside Atlanta’s CNN headquarters is certainly an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Not to mention a game changer.

Obama’s ‘latte salute’ and social media

Posted on by

By EMILY JOSEPH

On Tuesday President Obama departed his presidential helicopter, Marine One, in New York City with a coffee cup in hand. Following a tradition started by Ronald Reagan, Obama saluted the Marines standing guard on the ground … while holding his latte.

Immediately the “scandal,” which was caught on camera, went viral and Obama was attacked for what people called, “disrespectful actions.”

Without commenting on the ethics of the latte salute, it’s interesting to note social media’s role in the situation. First, the video was posted on social media via Instagram (by the White House nonetheless) with the caption “President Obama just landed in New York for #UNGA2014.”

The White House intended to promote his speech on climate change at the UN assembly and they even joined in on the social media lingo by using a hashtag (which stands for United National General Assembly). But that caption was most likely ignored by viewers who gravitated toward the cup in Obama’s hand … and then took to Twitter. The hashtag #lattesalute started trending on Twitter with journalists, politicians and the general public voicing their opinions in 140 characters or less.

No longer are we writing letters to the editor or calling news stations to comment. We are tweeting about it. We are including hashtags and text lingo like “u” and “nvr” in order to fit in more words. We are taking things for face value without doing any research. We are impulsively commenting on everything.

If a newspaper reporter needed to write a story on this scandal, he or she could easily just go to Twitter without doing any reporting.

But would that the best method? Should we take what people tweet and post literally? Even if journalists asked follow-up comments to people via Twitter, would their responses be skewed because they have the ability to hide behind a computer?

I wonder how many of those people truly have the passion behind their harsh statements or were just reacting spontaneously. Then again, maybe the spontaneous reactions are the most truthful.

If only Twitter was around when President Bush was criticized for saluting while holding his dog. It would have been interesting to see the difference, or lack of, in the public’s response.

The news media: Are we hypocrites?

Posted on by

By MEAGHAN McCLURE

An article published by The American Spectator on Sept. 23 raises an interesting point: Journalists are just as at fault in domestic violence cases as the NFL players they have been recently criticizing.

During the month of September, the news media have had a frenzy with all of the domestic violence and child abuse cases surrounding the NFL. With the release of the second Ray Rice surveillance tape, Adrian Peterson’s child abuse scandal, combined with notable cases against Greg Hardy, Jonathan Dwyer, and Ray McDonald, media during the month of September have put the NFL on blast for all of these domestic violence issues.

The article by The American Spectator, however, asks the question: Are the media skewing these problems out of proportion, just because the NFL is a high-profile, very exposed institution?

It is possible that the NFL does not have more domestic violence cases in ratio than the rest of the country. Actually, in studies, it is found that the NFL actually has lower crime rates than the rest of the general population of the same age group. The difference is the media puts more of a spotlight on professional athletes’ faults, rather than the average Joe. Not saying this makes the NFL violence cases okay, but it is fair to point out that it may be overemphasized by the media.

While the media have been constantly criticizing the league and painting it as “a veritable athletic Evil Empire of domestic abuse,” according to the article, The American Spectator points the finger back at those same journalists, who are not in positions to be putting the blame on others.

Five NFL cases, as mentioned before, have put the pressure on the NFL to better itself from the violence-ridden entity it appears to be now. As the article points out, however, ten cases can be found within the media recently. This is twice as many as the NFL.

These cases range from ESPN to ABC, CBS, NBC, and The New York Times. The difference between these cases and those of the NFL? Domestic violence cases by the media aren’t lumped together for the public to over-scrutinize and cast a shadow over all of the media.

I’m not saying at all that the NFL shouldn’t be concerned about its role with domestic violence. It should be. Domestic violence is never okay, and with so many fans looking to the NFL, it should make a good example of these cases, taking measures to punish the offenders.

However, maybe the media should do the same and take a second look to try to better itself, before pointing fingers at others.

You can read The American Spectator article mentioned here: http://spectator.org/articles/60468/when-journalists-commit-domestic-violence.

Focus on the news, not on yourself

Posted on by

By DYLAN WEEMS

As anyone who has been following the news recently knows, the Islamic terrorist group ISIS has been a major focus for the United States. Recently, the U.S. began bombing ISIS and has received help from many other countries including Iran. With all of the commotion surrounding this terrorist group, the common thought should be “what else do we need to do as a country?” Unfortunately, this is not the case.

News organizations from both the right and the left have shifted focus almost entirely on President Obama. It seems that the news has become 10 percent “here is what is happening” and 90 percent “here is how I personally feel about it.”

Of course, there is nothing wrong with seeking professional opinions and expert analysis, but it is ludicrous to have a panel of news anchors that seem to know everything about everything. Too many talking heads simply creates noise and confusion, especially when it is essentially professional complaining.

For situations like this, no abstract examples are needed. No one needs to ask: “Well, what if ISIS somehow found a way to infiltrate the United States and take over the Capitol?” That is thinking infinitely far ahead about an improbable situation.

However, this is not to say that some journalistic opinions can be beneficial. They simply have to have enough respect. In the most famous example, Walter Cronkite stated a negative opinion about the war in Vietnam and changed public opinion about the conflict almost overnight.

Unfortunately, the days of journalists with the respect Cronkite garnered are all but over. If the news is ever going to return to its former glory, the noise needs to be cancelled out. Sensationalism needs to disappear and facts need to once again reign supreme. Until that point, speculation and biased opinion will rule the news.

War without the difficult photos

Posted on by

By GABRIELLA CANAL

Come the mid-19th century in America, among all of the social changes, political shifts, and uproars, the first footage of war was recorded. It was the Civil War and the photographs taken began to break down the glorification of all war had been played out to be.

Nowadays, the photo on the front cover of a newspaper can make or break the story during wartime. The American public is a sensitive one and, in turn, the American media is very strict in what it publishes and what it does not.

So, in a war zone where there are almost no limitations to what one can capture, I ask: When is an image considered too gory, insensitive and, to an extent, a breach of privacy? Does holding back this kind of photography blind the American public from the tragedies of war? And is it hard to calculate the photographer’s absence during war?

On Feb. 28, 1991, American photojournalist Kenneth Jarecke stood in front of a horrid sight: a charred man who had been engulfed in flames, trying to escape his vehicle. He snapped the shot. The man was an Iraqi soldier and had fought for Saddam Hussein’s army during the Gulf War when Kuwait was annexed. Time Magazine and The Associated Press dismissed the hypnotizing image, saving Americans from confronting the excruciating brutality of war and ultimately, spitting up their morning coffee.

For Jarecke, who had taken the photo in the midst of endless ceasefire, who had put his life on the line, who had captured the ugly to captivate those sitting pretty, he was left confused. In an interview with The Atlantic, he said: “When you have an image that disproves the myth (of a clean, uncomplicated war), then you think it’s going to be widely published.”

These photos that Jarecke and countless others in countless other wars have taken not only serve the media to inform and to shock, but serve history as a sort of reminder and lesson. And what good is a lesson when you can’t learn from it?

At the same time, however, does the photojournalist go too far sometimes? In this world where tragedies occur in the blink of a second and photographs can be captured in the blink of a millisecond, Jarecke and his contemporaries must grapple with the moral dilemma of: “do I take the picture?” Because to the photojournalist, the moment of hesitation is not due so much to the fact that they’ll worry how the media or audience will react, but instead, due to the fact that they’ll worry how those they are capturing will react. The photojournalist has much at stake here: his reputation, his humanity, his decency, his values, his sanity.

Later, in American Photo magazine, Jarecke wrote: “I wasn’t thinking at all about what was there; if I had thought about how horrific the guy looked I wouldn’t have been able to make the picture.”

To take the photographer out of the battle would surely tell a different story about it. And I can only hope that, one day, the power of photos will stump the power of war.

If your curiosity was piqued, here is the photo that inspired this blog:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/

Twitter gives stars platform to fight back

Posted on by

By MEAGHAN McCLURE

For the past few years, Twitter has been a main source of news for young people. They find out about breaking stories and everything relevant in current events. In a way, Twitter could be viewed as a young person’s newspaper.

However, with the rise of Twitter, celebrities have been given an easy platform to get their thoughts and opinions across, no matter how offending, or if it makes a major brand look bad. Twitter cuts out the middleman, and lets celebrities interact with fans directly.

This new direct contact between celebrities and fans can be problematic, however. In the recent case of Cee Lo Green, one stupid comment can ruin a celebrity’s whole image and, in the recent cases of Shonda Rhimes and Rihanna, uncensored criticisms can ruin the image of a major company.

Earlier this month, Cee Lo Green tweeted controversial statements about rape, one of which claimed rape isn’t “real” unless the victim remembers it. This moment of ignorance on the famous singer’s part cost him a huge loss in fan base, even after deleting the tweets and making a public apology.

In the case of Green, we can see how easily it is for public figures to reach their fans and how quickly a public image can change.

This also happened in the case of Shonda Rhimes and Rihanna. Although they didn’t ruin their own images, they used Twitter as a platform to fight back against attacks from big corporations and voice their own opinions.

Shonda Rhimes is the creator of many shows, like “Scandal” and “Grey’s Anatomy.” Recently, she was described as an “angry black woman” in a New York Times feature, after which, she took to Twitter to give her own thoughts. After voicing her displeasure, other figures such as Kerry Washington criticized the Times writer too. The Twitter backlash proves that the growing popularity of Twitter certainly changes the way the media can criticize celebrities – because they will not get away with it anymore without a fight.

A similar case happened recently with singer Rihanna, after CBS pulled her song from “Thursday Night Football” following the Ray Rice domestic violence incident. Initially, CBS pulled the song the week immediately following the release of the second Rice video, because they felt Rihanna, a famous victim of domestic abuse from Chris Brown, would give the wrong message.

Rihanna reacted through Twitter, writing, “CBS you pulled my song last week, now you wanna slide it back in this Thursday? NO, Fuck you! Y’all are sad for penalizing me for this.” CBS then had to deal with the disapproval of many Rihanna fans, which ultimately led them to pull her song for good.

These recent events involving celebrities shows just how impacting social media can be, especially as Twitter gives stars a chance to bite back at the media.

Social media changes what makes news

Posted on by

By SHIVANI ALURU

The news cycle often decides what’s important based on the tenets of “newsworthiness” – a water is wet definition to describe topics and information that easily engage people and that are easily talked about.

Before the dawn of social media, news outlets often dictated what people should know, and, depending on the publication or network, explained how some events were more important than others, communicated by placement in a newspaper or story length in a broadcast.

Now that social media has become second nature to growing parts of the population, the news landscape is saturated with different stories, points of view and information. People have many more options from which to gather their knowledge and stay up to date with current events and this increase in supply has flipped the news narrative.

Now, instead of people picking up a paper to learn something completely new as they did before, news organizations are pulling from the mass of voices and cleaning up viral content.

The democratic nature of news has not completely dominated the pattern of dissemination but the symbiotic relationship between social media and journalism has allowed for a number of topics that previously would not have been newsworthy to blow up to viral status.

The many benefits of social media from simply keeping people informed to passing on a powerful message quickly are affected by what seem to be changing priorities. Thinking back as far as the late 1990s fewer stories of “importance” had to do with small town events and more to do with national issues.

The obvious conclusion is that social media didn’t exist in that decade and so no one could hear the story of a young boy saving his sister from a burning car and, because they never heard, they wouldn’t care.

The above mentioned example is indicative of the rise of more emotional stories; the kind of narratives that tug at heart strings. Since most people can connect easily with these stories they tend to spread like wildfire and news organizations have begun to spend more resources on combing the internet to find stories that have this viral value.

However, it’s rare that a news organization finds a story that web culture hasn’t already latched onto and pushed into the general consciousness. The increasing dependence of journalism on democratic dissemination is almost funny because the news is trying to find, rather than dictate, “the news.”

CNN strives for neutral in Scotland vote

Posted on by

By SHAWNA KHALAFI

One of the biggest stories in world news this week is the Scottish independence referendum results. In the months leading up to the vote, many news sources were covering the politicians speeches and polling public opinion.

imageI’ve been watching a lot of CNN’s coverage of the story, and I’ve noticed that there is an obvious effort to stay neutral.

For example, there was an open mic video that consisted of clips of Scottish voters expressing their views on the referendum and freedom from the UK. Although it was not blatantly alternating between yes and no voters, the video made sure to have an equal amount of people both opposed and supportive of the referendum.

The BBC focused more on how an independent Scotland might influence the economy. Much of the coverage focused on fluctuating share prices and volatility in the weeks leading up to the vote. The coverage also stressed the uncertainty of which currency an independent Scotland would adopt.

By attempting to foresee the possible economic changes that an independent Scotland would bring about, the BBC’s coverage of the story tended to focus on predictions and polling to see where the public stands. Finally, the referendum did not pass, with a slight majority of “no” votes.

BBC worked to avoid misrepresentation

Posted on by

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

With Scotland’s independence on the line, the historic referendum permeated newsrooms around the world this week.

News organizations reported as usual, interviewing voters who expressed their reasons for voting “Yes” or “No” for Scottish independence. Such reporting came to a halt at 6 a.m. on voting day for several news organizations.

On Sept. 18, BBC News was entirely devoid of opinion on the subject of Scottish independence. Following its code of practice, the BBC reported only uncontroversial factual accounts such as the number of polling stations, the percentage of the electorate registered to vote, and even the weather in a “commitment to impartiality and fairness.”

These sorts of practices are vital to avoid misrepresentation and to ensure that the outcome of an election truly reflects the population’s beliefs as a whole. If an election is predicted to be neck and neck, it is likely that more people will go to the polls. If, on the other hand, reported polling suggests a landslide victory, supporters of the minority party may feel that there is no hope so why bother voting? Or quite the opposite, if the popular candidate is “sure to win,” people may feel that it’s okay not to make it to the polls because so many other people will vote in favor of their cause. If enough people have that mentality, the minority opinion might win after all!

Having said that, as journalists, we must ensure that proper polling techniques were used, such as obtaining a representative sample, before reporting results. We certainly don’t want another case of the 1936 Literary Digest blunder. This applies even when sharing the results of a poll conducted by another organization. The information given to the public may bias their actions and we as journalists don’t want to be responsible for changing the course of history against true public opinion.

After arrest, Kevin Olsen departs UM

Posted on by

By MICHELLE BERTRAN

The University of Miami’s third string quarterback Kevin Olsen started off the season rocky by being suspended from the season opener game because of a failed drug test. He is now suspended from the team and is no longer a student at the university as a result to a DUI and a stolen or fake license arrest that occurred early Monday morning. To make matters worse, this is his second DUI charge. Olsen’s first came when he was in high school.

Monday morning he was caught with six licenses. One belonged to teammate Ronald Regula, another was a fake license from Maryland, and the others were from four different states. Olsen refused to take a urine test and failed a breathalyzer test by registering a .04. He was released on a $6,000 bond that same day.

Al Golden released a statement Monday night on Olsen’s departure.

“Right now, this is about Kevin and his family and we need to respect that,’’ Golden said. “He needs this time to look at himself and move forward, and I have no doubt that with the support of his family, his brothers, his mom and dad, and obviously those of us that know him really well, there’s no question that he’s going to have the right ending.… He’s going to win in the end.’’

Olsen had an opportunity at being Miami’s starting quarterback when Ryan Williams tore his ACL this past spring. Olsen’s scholarship can now be given to someone that will make the most out of the opportunity of not only playing for “The U,” but also being a student here.

Twitter strikes again

Posted on by

By KACIE NELSON

I last posted about how social media, more specifically Twitter, are becoming a very integral part of how news is not only spread, but also generated in today’s culture. Once again, the social media giant strikes again, this time bringing to light a very distasteful issue.

Earlier this week, it came to light that the popular brand, Urban Outfitters, was selling a “vintage” Kent State sweatshirt. What was interesting about this item wasn’t that it was supposedly “vintage”; not that it was the only one for sale; not even that it was being sold for an outlandish $129!

What made this particular item so buzz-worthy was its design. It contained what appeared to be blood stains surrounding holes in the shirt (presumed to be bullet holes), reminiscent of the 1970 “Kent State Massacre.”

The listing for the Kent State sweatshirt on urbanoutfitters.com

Forty-four years ago, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on a group of unarmed students, leaving four dead and nine injured.

The image of the sweatshirt on the Urban Outfitters website spread like wild fire on social media, after being posted on the popular website Buzzfeed. Outrage ensued and spurred Kent State officials to write Urban Outfitters a letter expressing their disgust.

Urban Outfitters released a full apology to Kent State and all those offended by the sweatshirt, claiming that the dye pattern was a result of poor coloring on the sweatshirt, and the holes were due to wear and tear.

Obviously, this did not pacify anyone.

Why would Urban Outfitters buy and sell such a distasteful and offensive item? Was it an honest mistake?

We may never know, but luckily for us we’ll always have Twitter to vent and get our opinions heard.

The role of today’s fashion reporters

Posted on by

By GABRIELLA SHOFFER

As the fashion world moves into its second week of frenzy, designers, bloggers, buyers and models are out on show with photographers and reporters scrambling to document their every move and be the first to report on the latest fashion news.

With London and New York fashion weeks having concluded, the fashion pack continued its jet setting by landing in Milan this week. For the majority of society who aren’t part of the fashion elite, the news media reports are our only source of insight into what goes on at these exclusive events.

The exclusivity of this industry results in fashion news presenting many points of discussion in terms of the role that reporters play in providing to-the-minute updates about the events and trends.

However, through the increased use of the Internet and social media, it can be argued that the role of the reporters is becoming less relevant. With bloggers and celebrities posting immediate updates throughout fashion shows, the general public is fed snippets of information through Instagram snaps and Twitter posts.

The issue this presents is that these people provide limited viewpoints. They do not follow general reporting principles and their reporting reflects their opinions and personal judgment.

Additionally, of late, fashion reporting has been infiltrated by a multitude of young amateur bloggers, many of whom have racked up thousands of followers based on their social media accounts. With many people trusting these bloggers as the source of fashion news, there is less reliance on the reporting by professional fashion reporters.

Ultimately, in order to gain an accurate report of the fashion events of the season, multiple sources may need to be consulted. With many fashion experts shunning the new flock of bloggers for their lack of professionalism and experience, is will be interesting to watch if their access to these intimate shows is revoked or increased in the future.

Additionally, the fashion industry faces constant ridicule by reporters in other industries and is often not taken seriously. As reporters compete in the race to discover the latest “it” items, less care is taken in regards to reporting accuracy.

This was highlighted by a prank experiment staged by a blogger to see if photographers and reporters believed that she was part of the fashion elite based on her alternative clothing. Her results highlighted that fashion is all about perception, often the truth isn’t relevant at all. I find this concept interesting yet contradictory as it undermines the fundamental principles of news reporting which should apply to all reporting industries.

Breaking down our misperceptions

Posted on by

By GABRIELLA CANAL

With an iPad in one hand and a microphone in the other, Joy-Ann Reid stood on stage in front of a hundred or few gawking faces. She had been invited to speak in one of my classes unbeknownst to us. Her show on MSNBC covers, analyzes and interprets the timeliest topics of our day, or as she phrased it: the “hot-button issues.”

One of these issues (and the topic she delved into) being immigration and how it is dealt with policy-wise. Reid extensively covered the stories on the thousands of unaccompanied children appearing at the border. And, to her surprise, she noted, the American audience grew angrier even in response to the videos the media showed of buses taking these children to safe houses. They actually became more anti-immigration.

This had me thinking: Does the way that the media portrays or covers immigration affect the way American citizens react towards the topic?

If there is one thing I have learned about journalism, it is that keywords in a story can produce a certain feel or desired outcome. And as I scroll down the current events revolving around immigration, I notice that the stories tend to leave out the immigrant himself — focusing heavily on policy or reform. I understand that the journalist intends to simply report the news without bias, but when there are so many misperceptions that shroud the debate, I feel the journalist is obligated to clear the air first.

Reid listed the six main misperceptions for us. The first is that all undocumented immigrants are Latinos. A poll taken in 2012 recorded thatone-third of Americans thought this to be true. Eighty percent come from all over Latin America, not just Mexico. A total of 63 percent of Latinos are U.S. born and, although 16.9 percent of the population is made up of Latinos, they only make up 10 percent of voters.

Many believe that most immigrants are in the country undocumented. Many also believe that most people who come in illegally are border-hopping when the truth of the matter is that 45 percent of the immigrants actually come in legally and simply do not return to their home countries.

One of the biggest misperceptions is that immigrants are taking American jobs. The majority of these immigrants have no other options for them besides low-paid, agricultural jobs. Now I ask: where and who are the Americans competing for these jobs? When Alabama cracked down on immigration law in 2011 with HB 56, the state actually had to relax the law because unharvested crops were dying — Americans weren’t leaping at these new job opportunities.

Another big misperception is that there is a big correlation between immigrants and crime when, in fact, since 1994 immigration has doubled in numbers and crime has dropped. The final misperception is that the immigrants are not paying taxes. ⅓ of them pay tax, including sales tax. They are actually pumping $7 billion into the Social Security system that they will never get back.

So before the media go off publishing an army of headlines about “What has become of immigration reform?” and “Illegal immigrants flood the border,” should the media consider the possibility that it may play a grand role in breaking down the misperceptions of the immigration debate?

These efforts would not be in an attempt to persuade or sway the American public, but instead to inform them — the essence of reporting.

Are phones killing photojournalism?

Posted on by

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

I dare you to find someone who does not have a camera on their phone. With how popular smart phones are, it’s next to impossible. Even my 90-year-old grandpa’s flip phone has a camera on it (not that he knows how to use it).

Since camera phones are so popular, there is usually always someone around who can take a photo of an even right as it happens.

There are a lot more everyday people with camera phones than there are photojournalists. The exact moment when an event occurs, it is much more likely that someone with a camera phone will be there versus a photojournalist waiting to get the shot.

I do not think an amateur with an iPhone will be able to completely replace a professional photojournalist. The quality and composition of a professionally shot photo will never go out of style; People will always want to see that, but it’s not always an option.

If we look back on 9/11 and the coverage of the event, you can find tons of beautifully shot, powerful images expression the horror everyone felt that day, or showcasing the bravery of some American heroes.

However, there are shaky, blurry videos and images shot by people just walking along the street that we are shown over and over again, because these images captured the exact moment that the first plane hit the North Tower.

No one knew this was going to happen, so no professional photojournalists were on assignment or expecting to cover the first tower, like they were for events later than day and week.

Back in 2001, camera phones were not even available. Most of the videos and images of the first tower were shot with digital cameras. If this event occurred 2014 instead of 2001, there would be a lot more coverage because everyone has a camera phone they can just whip out.

Not only are the availability of camera phones decreasing the need for photojournalists, but social media is making it extremely simple to share these images with the world. You no longer need to work for TIME Magazine for everyone to see your photos, you can just share it on Instagram or Twitter or Facebook.

Still, photojournalists will always be needed. There are some places your Average Joe with an iPhone will not be able or willing to go to. There are very few people brave enough to do what James Foley did, for example. However, camera phones are cutting down this need for photojournalists, since they are proving to be better at documenting breaking, unexpected news.

Journalism and social media’s influence

Posted on by

By AUTUMN ROBERTSON

This September has been a great news month for many journalists. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has captured more towns and oil fields in Syria and President Barack Obama has made an executive decision to soon deploy troops into the area to fight ISIS. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa continues to spread and the president made executive decision after the ISIS news to deploy troops to the area to “fight” the disease.

However, I heard more about certain news stories than others and I can’t help to think that the result was from social media. I saw more articles and think pieces on both NFL stars Ray Rice, who was accused of domestic violence, and Adrian Peterson, who is facing child abuse charges, than any of the executive decisions that President Barack Obama made and many other political policy news.

Is it because they monitor what people are talking about on social media and chase the more dramatic, sensationalist stories in order to sell papers and get page clicks?

The “trending meter” on Twitter and Facebook are important tools for a journalist. They can see what people are talking about from a regional, national and worldwide standpoint. I sat and monitored what people were talking about on twitter these past two weeks, and I saw more tweets about the athletes than tweets about politics.

Why is it that generally we are more concerned about scandals than issues that can directly affect our nation? Because we are more concerned about these shocking events, stories about national government issues are being flooded out by the journalists who write about those shocking events. I am not saying that the Rice and Peterson stories lack importance; personally, I am glad that the stories were reported because each lead to powerful discussions about domestic violence and abuse. However, more and more people know every detail about those stories, but lack proper knowledge on ISIS and the affect they have on our country. Is social media more of a clutch for journalists than a useful tool?

Social media play an important impact on journalism and what news the media feel is more important to cover. However, should journalists be so influenced by the people that use social media that they choose to write stories based on what’s trending?

News under the radar

Posted on by

By EMILY JOSEPH

After analyzing the news this week, I found that the overwhelming majority of stories focused on sports (particularly the NFL domestic abuse scandal) and ISIS.

While I personally have an interest in sports and have been keeping up with the ISIS crisis, I’ve also read many other stories that I consider very important. What concerns me is that these stories are very under-the-radar and I’ve seen them get pushed to the end of the news segment. That, or they don’t have the amount of coverage I think they deserve.

For example, this week President Obama announced that the U.S. will be sending troops to West Africa and investing $88 million to help fight the Ebola virus. Also, I’m sure you’ve heard about the wild weather on the West Coast, but did you know just how severe the flooding has been? How about the wildfires in California?

These are just a few examples of recent headlines. Now I don’t blame the journalists or reporters who cover these “smaller” stories because I actually think the American public is generally to blame for what makes the top headlines. The journalists are just giving the public what it wants: drama. 

Americans gravitate to stories involving drama. The NFL scandal and ISIS crisis are both very pressing and important issues, but they just so happen to have a rollercoaster of events. Not one domestic abuse case but several. Not one beheading but more. These topics would make headlines regardless of the public interest (because they are important!), but it’s the every minute coverage that detracts from the other news.

Maybe if Americans showed interest in and concern for other topics, the news headlines would follow. I don’t know if this is a problem or just over-analysis, but nevertheless, the top news stories all do an oddly good job at maintaining drama.

iReport now a major storytelling toolkit

Posted on by

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

The world of professional journalism, with specialists trained in universities and prepared to offer news to meet the five classic questions of who, what, when, where and why, is undergoing a complete transformation.

Advances in digital technology and the wide spread reach of the Internet have certainly led to a new era of journalism that which we may call “citizen journalism.”

Not a day goes by that we aren’t bombarded by an endless succession of tweets, social media, blogs and video clips, all generated by citizens, but that still follows the prevailing principle of news reporting: To inform.

Aside from social media, which have now become one of the greatest allies of newsrooms for discovering and delivering news, we found major news organizations creating their very unique “apps” and sections to its websites for citizens to submit information, videos or photos of any relevant incident they have witnessed.

For example, there is CNN with its iReport site, which has been extremely successful by doing so, so far. Still not many know about this wonderful news coverage application.

CNN’s iReport was born in 2006 as a citizen journalism project that was later bolstered with the help of professionals to standardize the content. Currently the site receives about 15,000 monthly contributions, of which about 10 percent are used as content for traditional programming news network.

Basically what it is, is a “social network” for news. The news organizations can later take advantage of any and all of the content, especially for breaking stories. It allows for people to share the stories happening around them; where the cameras are not able to reach in time or the media do not get to find out the occurrence of a particular down-to-the minute news break, and thus still be able to capture it for communicating it to the world.

Certainly the iReport toolkit is that which best meets all the characteristics at the time of transmitting information, whether for written media, television channels, radio stations or citizens. In other words we could describe it as a social media in steroids. Yet, reputable and reliable.

So, want to be part of CNN’s news coverage? Now you know you are just one step away of possibly being featured by this prestigious newsroom.