Kesha’s legal battle causing controversy

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Victoria De Cardenas

By VICTORIA DE CARDENAS

The hashtag #FreeKesha has captured headlines, but the battle of Kesha and her producer Dr. Luke is more complicated than a hashtag.

In 2014, Kesha filed a civil lawsuit alleging Dr. Luke emotionally abused, drugged and sexually assaulted her during her time with Kemosabe Records. Kesha’s legal team was seeking to break her contract with Kemosabe Records and its parent company, Sony Entertainment, so she could continue her career without the producer’s influence.

After a long legal battle, the New York Supreme Court decided a preliminary injunction, sending the pop star into tears and her supporters into a flurry of anger and activism.

Some of her supporters include celebrities, such as Adele, Lady Gaga and Demi Lovato. Many of these celebrities have taken to Twitter to express their outrage.

But it’s Demi Lovato’s tweet which really started the controversy. BuzzFeed broke the story and monitored all of Lovato’s tweets.

Her first tweet showed support for the “Tick Tock” singer.

She then tweeted what seemed to be a jab at Taylor Swift, according to BuzzFeed.

Lovato allegedly liked a tweet that referenced Swift’s silence further fueling speculation.

According to BuzzFeed, Lovato’s rant was 90-minutes long, and concluding with Lovato sending one last tweet that had the hashtag #equalityforALL.

One day after Lovato’s rant, Taylor Swift made a highly publicized move: donating $250,000 to Kesha.

Lovato had one last thing to say.

Many celebrities have praised the bold donation and the media is praising the America’s sweetheart but it’s upsetting to see that they are not showing the entire story.

Credit should be given to BuzzFeed for bringing this to attention, even if there are more important issues to talk about.

News outlets are supposed to tell the full story and to investigate and they seem to have forgotten to do that. Whether or not Lovato was actually calling out Swift, other news outlets should have caught on to the hour and a half rant on Twitter.

It is completely possible that Swift made the donation after feeling pressured from on-again-off-again friend Lovato. It’s also possible she didn’t do because of Lovato but it’s something the media should have at least mentioned when this story first broke out.

It is possible the media was worried about Kesha’s case and made the executive decision to not talk about Lovato’s side of the story but they cannot deny the events leading up to the donation, especially from two self-proclaimed feminists.

Maybe celebrity rants are nothing to talk about. If that is the case, Kanye West shouldn’t receive any more attention then he does but that’s another story.

Has Trump sealed the deal?

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Roxanne Yu

By ROXANNE YU

When Donald Trump filed his statement of candidacy a few months ago, no one would have expected him to go very far, much less sustain a significant lead among Republican candidates.

Now that it’s dawning upon the country that Trump actually has a shot at becoming the next president, CNN is already commenting what’s next if Trump takes over the White House.

Trump, who won the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday night, is unsurprisingly under the spotlight for his recent success. When the results showed how his percentages compare to that of the other candidates, the businessman turned presidential candidate has distinctly marked New Hampshire, South Carolina and now Nevada, to be “Trump states.”

From one state to the next, Trump is consistently pulling further away from his fellow Republican candidates and it’s looking more likely that there is a big possibility for Trump to heighten his momentum come Super Tuesday.

Alongside Trump’s efforts to power through the Republican polls, it’s also interesting to read about what the news has to say about this Trump frenzy phenomenon going on.

CNN has just released a number of news stories entitled What would Trump’s be first day in office look like and Trump’s Day 1-to-do-list. With the release of these web stories, it appears as though what’s being presented to the audience is an indirect opinionated piece that can influence public opinion.

Although CNN has not shown any support for Trump in any regard, it’s almost doing the same as straightforwardly subjecting the public to count Rubio and Cruz out.

Her Campus offers variety of styles

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Maria Luiza Lago

By MARIA LUIZA LAGO

Her Campus is a website that provides news about style, beauty, health entertainment and much more written by college women all over the United States. According to each university, the website has different kind of news and focuses, and any college women can apply to write for Her Campus or send ideas to the editors.

The idea started by three undergraduate students from Harvard University, Stephanie Kaplan Lewis, Windsor Hanger Western and Annie Wang. Their creation of the website won the Harvard College’s business plan competition and many other prizes and awards. Her Campus also helps brands to reach the college market offline and online, according to the official website.

The Her Campus team has more than 7,000 members, including the national and editorial team, contributing writers and bloggers, high school ambassadors, campus correspondents, chapter advisors, interns and InfluenceHer collective members. The website also focus on campus life, career and love sections for the college women audience.

What I found most interesting about Her Campus and its way of reporting is that it brings the writer and the reader really close to one another, like someone were writing to a friend or like someone was telling a story.

Since some of the writers are women that are still in college, the proximity between these writers and other female students is really close. Through the website, you can meet the lifestyle of other colleges and engage with their environment and recent news.

I found that Her Campus was a mixture of campus newspapers like The Miami Hurricane, BuzzFeed and blogs in general. There’s a feeling that there’s a lot of opening to talk about many topics, but at the same time it feels like it is a space to reinforce the importance of the college women community and what it represents to other female students as well.

It’s not a website to talk about “girly stuff” but, yes, a mass communication and news vehicle that talks with students and women in general to try to pass them an important message about things happening in the world, awareness and of course, entertainment.

Snowboarding video gets attention

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Sarah Brandt

By SARAH BRANDT

Casey Neistat is a 34-year-old American film and YouTube content creator. He currently has two million subscribers and 459 million views on his YouTube channel. On an everyday basis he films everyday vlogs, in which he shows his viewers his daily activities and his family.

About two weeks ago, New York City was struck with a gigantic blizzard and snowstorm. News reporters and police were warning citizens not to drive around because it was too dangerous. This, however, did not stop Casey and he got out his truck, attached chains and a rope to the back and decided to snowboard throughout the city.

He had cameras all over, which allowed him to get footage from many different angels. He collected the clips and uploaded the video to his channel. A few days later his video was broadcast all over the world. It was shown on newscasts in Germany, Switzerland, England, Australia and many other countries.

Even news network Web sites such as CNN and ABC did stories on his video. A lot of news media decided to cover Casey and his video, and it was all in a positive light.

The reason for so many news sites covering this specific video was because as you can see in the video that Casey is the only one driving through New York. This is a very rare occurrence, as the city is always full with lots of cars and people.

New York City is also a city known to many other countries around the world, and they were also aware of the big blizzard going on. Therefore, it is no coincidence that various countries decided on reporting on Casey Neistat’s video, which brought much attention and enjoyment to most readers.

With this Neistat has without knowing produced a viral video. The fact that his video was covered by so many news sources boosts his YouTube channel and the video now has 1.5 million views. And, of course, it gave a tremendous boost to his career as a filmmaker .

Outrage for the rest of the world?

Posted on November 20, 2015 by Briana Scott

By BRIANA SCOTT

Last week, late Friday night, reports of terrorist attacks in France killing more than 100 people. Every local, national and international news network covered the story from the moment the attacks happened and every update that has taken place since then.

It seemed as though all of my Facebook friends changed their profile pictures with the semi-transparent overlay of the French flag. Almost four million people, gathered to march in support of France. Several world leaders flew to France to show their support and speak on the issue and express their nation’s solidarity with France.

Support for France and the outcry against the attacks was expressed worldwide via social media, news coverage, and public marches. Many people raised the question: Where is the outcry for the attacks in Nigeria? Where is the support for the people of Syria? Where is the outcry for Lebanon?

In Nigeria, it is believed that Boko Haram orchestrated a terrorist attack killing 32 people and injuring more. Thousands of Syrians are fleeing from their own country in fear of ISIS. In Lebanon, 40 people were killed and left more than 200 wounded victims of bombs at the hands of ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYomFMhoq0

Where are the flags for these countries on people’s Facebook profile photos? Where is the international outcry for the victims of these attacks?

People on social media have called out several Western news networks for the biased coverage of terrorist attacks happening all around the world. In response to the claims presented on social media, CNN responded during a segment of their morning show “New Day.”

Michaela Pereira, a “New Day” co-host, raised the question if the West should be doing more to fight Boko Haram. One of the show’s guest speaker, James Marks (a military analyst and executive dean of the University of Phoenix), stated that the reason the West isn’t doing more or showing support to countries such as Nigeria or Lebanon is simply because, “they are not a priority.”

Marks also stated that, “The United States, unilaterally, could do anything it needed to do to root out Boko Haram. It would be a long-term effort, but it could be done. The U.S. has the capability…but it is not a priority—that’s the problem.

Marks went on to say, “‘Black’ West Africa is not a priority. If we were to see Boko Haram appear in ‘White Africa’, which is North Africa, we would be alarmed.”

But is the mass coverage of Paris in comparison to other countries simply a race issue? The Washington Post thinks so, but they also think several other factors are a part of the issue as indicated in their recent article, “This is why the Paris attacks have gotten more news coverage than other terrorist attacks.”

The Washington Post lists the following reasons contributing to why the attacks in Paris received mass coverage as opposed to other terrorist attacks.

France is an unusual target.
Paris is a top global tourist destination
Random civilians were targeted using shocking tactics
Are we seeing a new battleground for the Islamic State?
This was a complex, coordinated attack. And that’s worrisome.

The Washington Post wrote, “The Paris attack shocked the world for many reasons. It’s true that terrorism in less-developed countries is worth our attention as well. Crises, such as the Syrian civil war, deserve much more media coverage and policy focus.”

To conclude, I agree with The Washington Post. There are several other reasons that contributed to the mass media coverage that the Paris attacks received, other than race and urbanization. However, I do believe that because France is not a Third World country, they received more coverage. The prioritization of what is considered to be news to the West is problematic, because one could conclude that the amount of coverage a nation receives indicates their level of importance and whether or not they, and their lives, matter.

Carson: Fact-checking or dirt digging?

Posted on November 5, 2015 by Briana Scott

By BRIANA SCOTT

Despite Ben Carson’s quiet and often soft-spoken demeanor, according to his book “Gifted Hands,” he had a troubled and violent childhood growing up in the city of Detroit.

Recently several news organizations, including CNN, have begun “digging up dirt” on the Republican candidate, with Carson’s claim of a rough childhood at the center of the coverage.

As candidates are running for the highest and most powerful position in the United States and perhaps the world, it is expected that old skeletons will be hunted down and taken out of the candidates’ closets. But is there a point of going too far?

Despite Carson’s public claims of his troubled childhood, as well as those mentioned in his book, CNN has assigned a journalist to investigate Carson’s claims and has reached out to past neighbors and childhood friends of Carson in the hopes of either validating or invalidating Carson’s story.

Carson has often spoken about a particular incident during his childhood in which he tried to stab a friend with a knife over a disagreement about a radio. The journalist assigned to investigate Carson’s story has been researching the candidate in regards to his claims for the past month and CNN has asked Carson to aid the network in finding witnesses who saw the stabbing attempt as well as the victim of the attack.

Carson has declined to provide CNN with these names and for some news reporters Carson’s unwillingness to help raises further suspicion of whether or not his claims of his childhood are true. Perhaps Carson is not willing to provide the names of witnesses or the victim of his attack, not to hide the truth, but to protect the lives and privacy of those involved.

Every candidate running for president has had their lives turned upside down and scrutinized from what they wear to what they wrote in their high school newspaper 30 years ago. I think Carson is making the right decision not to provide CNN with the names of witnesses or the victim to protect them from the harsh and often unforgiving spotlight of public opinion and news media.

Carson is not alone when it comes to news networks “digging up dirt” and publicly scrutinizing his past. Recently, several news organizations, in addition to Donald Trump, have called out Marco Rubio for his personal use of a credit card that was only to be used for political purposes relating to the Republican Party. CNN has went as far as to list out the date, location, and exact dollar amounts used for personal use.

I do think that this information is pertinent for the American public to be aware of as it pertains to Rubio’s misuse of a professionally provided credit card. However, as illustrated with Ben Carson, I do think that sometimes the media can cross the line between fact-checking and digging for dirt.

Chaotic GOP debate causes concern

Posted on October 30, 2015 by Briana Scott

By BRIANA SCOTT

This past Wednesday night, I gathered with a group of students inside the faculty master apartment at Mahoney Residential College to watch the Republican presidential candidates debate.

Personally, I had several expectations for the debate based off of the previous Republican debate hosted by Fox. However, what myself and millions of people watched Wednesday night, was truly unexpected.

First off, there were 10 candidates on the stage. With so many candidates, it is hard to keep track of everyone’s stance on serious matters, such as reforming the tax code, to less relevant issues, such as the regulation of fantasy sports gambling.

But, what further complicated the already difficult matter of keeping track of all of the candidates’ viewpoints were the moderators. It became apparent very quickly that the moderators were not in control of the debate as candidates not only cut each other off, but also interrupted, talked over and even challenged the moderators.

The debate was two hours of utter chaos and the Republican candidates are not happy about it. Their discontent has been broadcast and shared on various networks and social media sites, with new reports of the candidates coming together to protest the RNC and demand control over who moderates the upcoming debates as well as what questions are asked.

While I understand, that the candidates are upset, I think it would not be a true or fair debate if candidates had the ability to control virtually all aspects of the debate. While Ben Carson believes that debates should not be a game of “gotcha” questions, I disagree. Yes, a debate’s main purpose is to allow candidates to share and explain their platform on several issues and policies affecting the country, but it is also an opportunity for their ideals to be tested and challenged in front of the public.

A debate should not be a time where candidates walk on stage and present their ideals unchallenged and unquestioned–that is the whole point of a debate. While I agree with the candidates that Wednesday’s debate was chaotic, it should not serve as the catalyst to grant candidates full reign over all aspects of a debate.

CNN plays a Trump card

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Briana Scott

By BRIANA SCOTT

CNN was put on the defense this past Wednesday, after commenting on the lack of attendance at an event held by Donald Trump (current Republican candidate for president) at the South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce annual conference.

The following day, Trump went on the defense claiming that the reason there were photos or videos of the room being half-empty was because everyone “rushed” to the front of the room when he began speaking. He then went on to personally attack the CNN reporter who covered the story, calling her “terrible” and a “horrible reporter.”

But the CNN reporter was, in fact, reporting what had truly taken place at this event. The room was half-empty before Trump began speaking and after he began speaking. And of the half-full room of attendees, the majority of the people were white, disputing Trump’s claim that there were “many African Americans there.”

I watch the news on a daily basis and, based on what I have seen in regards to the coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign for presidency, it seems as though most news organizations have been tip-toeing around Trump afraid of his reaction.

This past week, Trump recently announced via Twitter that he was done with FOX and would not be doing any more shows with the network. But Trump has done this before. He threw a similar temper tantrum with FOX in August. Shortly after, he spoke with Fox’s network Chief Roger Ailes who “smoothed” things over and Trump was back on Fox.

As Trump has been garnering a large amount of attention from viewers, news networks are inclined to satiate the candidate and not ruffle his feathers in order to have him on their broadcasts for higher ratings. But it seems as though, more and more networks are reaching their limit with the brash candidate.

Shortly after CNN covered the story, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press reported on the story as well — mirroring CNN’s report. They all came to same conclusion: Donald Trump did speak to a half-empty room which consisted mainly of white people.

They didn’t beat around the bush or come up with excuses for the candidate. They simply reported on what actually happened, supporting CNN as a news organization. The Associated Press wrote in their article that, “CNN’s assessment appears to have been the correct one.”

I applaud CNN and the other news networks that stood behind CNN, for finally calling a spade, a spade Trump.

Drudge Report still ranks No. 1

Posted on April 10, 2015 by S. Molly Dominick

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

A recent article from Politico identified the Drudge Report as the “leading source of referral traffic” for many notable news organizations. This means that—other than browser searches and social media, which usually will lead users to news stories through links and shares—the Drudge Report is the No. 1 place where readers go to get routed to news.

First of all, the obvious thing to note is that the Drudge Report is openly conservative. It often crafts its headlines and arranges its content from a conservative perspective. The fact that this conservative news routing site ranks is most used brings up questions about the political demographics of news readers nationwide.

Does this reflect the views of the nation? More likely, it just sheds light on what we guessed already. Those who seek out news the old-fashioned way tend to lean more to the right; those who like their news brought to them (e.g. through apps) tend to lean more to the left.

The Politico article also notes that the Drudge Report has experienced very little change to its Web page over the years, which I found interesting.

When it comes to keeping users engaged, the mentality used by companies usually revolves around updating, upgrading and introducing change to keep things interesting. However, the Drudge Report has been mighty successful in keeping things exactly the way they are.

This might be more of a testament to the audience who most religiously uses the Drudge Report, as previously discussed. But it might also be something for other marketers and newsmakers to keep in mind before making major changes to what they offer. In some situations, consistency may be equated with reliability and could be a more effective strategy in keeping a loyal audience.

Hillary Clinton, star of ‘The Matrix’

Posted on March 31, 2015 by S. Molly Dominick

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

When reading online news, I hope to achieve a balance between biases by ingesting left-leaning, right-leaning and politically neutral media (to the best of my ability, of course). One of my primary sources of neutral news is Politico and it usually remains up to snuff.

However, today I ran across this image while reading an article on that site:

Source: politico.com

Swimming through a sea of high-tech coding wizardry far above the heads of the measly public, Hillary Clinton scowls toward an unknown opponent, contemplating her sinister past…

That’s what I get from the drama-inducing, Photoshop-doctored photo above. In fact, based on this image, the accompanying story may actually be about Hillary Clinton starring in a new sequel to “The Matrix” rather than about a political scandal concerning her responsibleness as a public official.

I understand that Politico was adding character to its content and being a bit creative here. That’s not a bad thing, although it does invite questions about the appropriateness of this when the following article approaches an issue sensitive enough to potentially harm a public official’s reputation.

I also understand that this photo does not necessarily show a political leaning one way or the other. In fact, my thoughts about the photo shifted from two extremes.

My first impression was that her scowl made her seem mean, or just gave an overall negative vibe, paired with her stark black-and-white contrasted coloring. Plus, she seemed overwhelming by the coding (the scandal) surrounding her. But upon further reflection, this image might convey the exact opposite. Her expression could be a face of tough determination in the face of those opponents attempting to tarnish her name. She is distinctly separate from the coding, after all, appearing boldly in front of it.

The English class-style dissection of this image could continue until we’re as gray as Hillary’s ashy-hued, color-manipulated face.

But all fun aside, including an image like this could possibly cross a line into editorializing (or diminishing) an otherwise serious hard news story, depending on how you look at it—which could be problematic for a famously neutral news source like Politico.

Covering the color of that mystery dress

Posted on March 2, 2015 by Hanya ALKhamis

By HANYA ALKHAMIS

It was on a Thursday night when everyone was on their phone and staring at a dress, which was either black and blue or white and gold, depending on the viewer.

Pathetic, it was just pathetic to view how people made a big deal over a worthless dress that had no significance what so ever. It was on all Web news sites. And it got considerable mainstream news media attention. Even the national TV networks gave it attention.

Everyone was all over the place about it and yet, if it were to be about the wars and political disputes happening in Arab world, no one would have cared.

The social media’s main topic on Thursday night and all of Friday was the dress and the color perceived by each and every person.

It is insane and foolish how everyone was on his or her phone Thursday night talking about this mysterious dress that was both black and blue or white and gold. Everyone spent an hour or two or even the whole day just to figure out the mystery and Googling the reason why they saw what they had seen.

The image contained a striped dress, a dress that was seen to be white and gold in my perspective. The controversy was all over how one perceives the dress color differently than another. Many argued it was white with gold stripes or blue with black stripes.

The mystery dress was a sight test to test how people view colors differently. The dress is actually known to be white and gold, but there is an explanation why some viewers, viewed the dress to being black and blue.

As some people go through hard negative events in their life they start to see colors a different way. This proves why many people believed that the dress was black and blue rather than white and gold.

Whatever color you saw depended on the emotion you were feeling and the type of mood you were in, and that is the primary reason why people argued about the actual color of this mystery dress.

Net neutrality and journalism

Posted on February 27, 2015 by Nadia Bacchus

By NADIA BACCHUS

On Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to implement new rules regarding Internet neutrality. These rules make sure that Internet service providers allow open access to all legal content and applications.

What does this have to do with journalism you ask?

In the digital age that we live in, half of all Americans use the Internet as their main source for news. For the younger generations, up to 70 percent say it’s their main source for information.

Imagine if Fox News used Comcast as a service provider while CNN used AT&T. Depending on the amount of money either service provider could pay would determine the kinds of stories you are allowed read and block the ones they didn’t want you to see.

Big companies would be able to spend larger amounts of money for faster services while smaller, independent companies would be stuck with slower access because that’s all they could afford. People would prefer going to the larger company’s site because they would rather not have to wait longer for their videos, pictures or stories to load. In some ways that is a form of censorship. That is a clear violation of our First Amendment.

Thankfully, due to this recent ruling all information will still be available to everyone will any kind of Internet service.

Yahoo! News has a problem

Posted on February 20, 2015 by S. Molly Dominick

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

If I’m feeling crotchety and in the mood to get myself all disgruntled about journalism, I know the first place I need to visit: the Yahoo! News homepage.

On the screenshot below, I invite you to marvel at the juxtaposition of headlines:

A story about what could possibly be the largest-ever human exodus — I repeat, the largest-ever human exodus, a staggering story with widespread societal and environmental implications for more than 13 million people—is sandwiched between stories about a celebrity and an infamous dictator marketed like a celebrity. Without discussing the merits of entertainment journalism as a whole, I think it’s safe to say that those headlines should not be grouped together in the same category, at the bare minimum.

What’s more, we need to keep in mind the way that a company like Yahoo! structures its homepage. Headlines are placed in a purposeful order of importance, based on which articles the company thinks its readers should see most. According to the above order, Iggy Azalea’s absence from social media deserves more exposure than human-inhabited islands’ absence from the face of the planet.

Call me remarkably crotchety for my 19 years of age … but by golly, what the devil is going on here?

DIGITAL NEWS REPORTING

Journalism and Media Management Department, School of Communication, University of Miami

Tag Archives: Digital journalism

Has Trump sealed the deal?

Her Campus offers variety of styles

Carson: Fact-checking or dirt digging?

Chaotic GOP debate causes concern

CNN plays a Trump card

Drudge Report still ranks No. 1

Hillary Clinton, star of ‘The Matrix’

Net neutrality and journalism

Yahoo! News has a problem