Shaun White and backlash culture


One of the most well-known American Winter Olympic athletes, 31-year-old snowboarder Shaun White, accomplished an amazing feat on Wednesday in Pyeongchang, South Korea, producing an electrifying final run in the men’s halfpipe to leapfrog Japan’s 19-year-old phenom Ayumu Hirano to capture his third gold medal in four Olympics.

The feat itself was a story, but the media storm in the aftermath of White’s gold medal victory was just as intriguing, and indicative of the current level of backlash in our society. Nowadays, it’s only a matter of time before the backlash comes, regardless of how beloved a figure may seem at the time.

In this case, it came almost immediately via social media. Many athletes and celebrities took to Twitter to congratulate White on his accomplishment, but some questioned whether we should be celebrating a man who was accused of sexual assault in 2016 in a case that was eventually settled out of court.

In the ongoing #MeToo culture, many prominent faces have come into question, leading to trepidations among people who call themselves fans of the accused. It’s an interesting moral quandary. If your favorite celebrity has been accused of sexual misconduct of some kind, should your feelings toward them change?

Some might say that they won’t give their support to anybody who may have sexually harassed another person. Others might say that accusations aren’t proof, or if a person was convicted,  it’s totally separate from their exploits in their field, and those exploits can still be enjoyed. It’s certainly a point of contention, and one that will be brought up repeatedly as more prominent figures have dirt dug up about their pasts.

Curiously, NBC chose to cut to figure skating in lieu of interviewing possibly the greatest snowboarder ever after one of the greatest feats in his career, so the first comments we heard from White came in the press conference which followed the medal ceremony. The media members there began to question him about the 2016 lawsuit, and if it might tarnish his legacy. He said he preferred not to speak about what he called “gossip,” understandably wanting to focus on his tremendous win. That comment brought a whole new wave of backlash, and he issued an apology for his wording on an appearance on NBC’s Today later Wednesday.

That just illustrates how strong the backlash cycle can be: within a few hours, White won a gold medal, faced an initial onslaught of backlash (and a fair amount of praise, to be fair), responded to it, then faced another onslaught of backlash for his response to the backlash. On one hand, who can blame White for wanting to talk only about the Olympics in the afterglow of his win? On the other, it’s fair for people to call him into question in light of the scandal. It’s a huge gray area, and one that won’t be made black or white anytime soon.

Lauer story dominates news cycle


“Today” show co-host Matt Lauer was fired Wednesday due to inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace, an incident that “Today” executives said they learned about two days ago.

Lauer’s co-anchor, Savannah Guthrie, announced the news this morning on “Today.”

“This is a sad morning here at ‘Today’ and at NBC News,” Guthrie said before reading a statement from NBC News Chairman Andy Lack.

“Dear colleagues, on Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer,” Lack’s statement read. “It represented, after serious review, a clear violation of our company’s standards. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment.”

The statement also said that this is the first complaint regarding Lauer’s behavior the company has received “in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News.”

“All we can say is that we are heartbroken. I’m heartbroken for Matt. He is my dear, dear friend and my partner and he is beloved by many, many people here. And I’m heartbroken for the brave colleague who came forward to tell her story and any other women who have their own stories to tell,” said Guthrie.

All that is really known about Lauer’s misconduct is that an NBC staffer had complained about his behavior from throughout 2014, according to The Hollywood Reporter.  Also, The New York Post reported an incident that occurred during the coverage of the 2016 Olympics in Rio.  However, no details from these incidents can be confirmed.

Lauer’s firing comes just days after “CBS This Morning” host Charlie Rose was canned for his behavior towards women, which included showering naked in front of them at his home.  This leaves “Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos as the only remaining male anchor of the top three network morning shows.

The news media have covered these stories extensively during the past few days. This story is currently on the front page of CNN, FOX, MSNBC and The New York Times.

Since NBC News fired Lauer without much of an investigation at all, what he was accused of doing must be severe. The network will likely lose ratings due to his absence since he was very popular.

Although I believe it is important for the news media to cover stories such as these, this is taking away a lot of attention from the fact that North Korea has successfully tested a ballistic missile that officially put the U.S. mainland within range of its nuclear weapons.

This is a very dangerous fact that should be the main topic of news for today. With its recent threats and other tests, North Korea is clearly not playing around.

The news media need to help convince citizens and governments that North Korea is a real threat.

A great tragedy can occur if America looks the other way on this issue.  If we are not careful, we will be on the verge World War III if North Korea decides to launch one of these missiles at the United States.

A confusing look at Facebook Live


I thought it was difficult to understand the point of the article in New Yorker about Facebook Live. There were so many points the author was trying to make that I got lost in it and didn’t realize the true objective of that story.

At first, it is stated that Facebook is trying to be the Internet instead of being just one of the tools you can use on the Internet. With Facebook Live, you can post videos live like Snapchat so all the three main apps used all over the world; Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are all wrapped in one app.

Secondly, the article goes to another direction which is trying to tell the reader that Facebook is controlling all the content we post and leading us inside the app to different directions and the last point I could identify was that the author was trying to suggest the future of Facebook and how their users would see the app in the future.

Besides all of these points, the way it was stated might have confused other readers too. I’m aware of what Facebook Live is; the problem is the way the author is trying to report his points in the story.

It is interesting how so many points can be made around this topic — the control of one app on so many people around the world, the information that it controls, the alienation of the population towards this information selected by the app. But, at the same time, it is a wonderful tool to inform people across the globe about what is going on.

This is just one of the points the article is trying to suggest and I think it’s too much for an online article that has to be simple and direct so everyone in every situation, whether is rushing home from work or concentrated in a quiet place such as a library or a café, could understand.

Buzzfeed: the news of social media


The young adults of today’s generation are the ones who have grown up with the Internet and have learned how to harness its unique powers – most notably in the forms of social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Inevitably, the prominence of social media in every day life has impacted the way news is communicated and shared. While it seems to be a common trend for teenagers and other young people to ignore major online news hubs such as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times or The Washington Post among others, this young generation of Internet users are still getting exposure to the major stories of the moment.

The accessibility of such content stems from the new-age journalistic style that has established a major presence on social media – and no news company has made a bigger name for itself with the younger generation than BuzzFeed.

BuzzFeed was founded in 2006 by Jonah Peretti and Kenneth Lerer, and the site’s content has since reached a global audience of more than 200 million. According to the website, it is “re-defining online advertising with its social, content-driven publishing technology” – and judging by its popularity and ubiquity across the world wide web, it is generally considered to be the face of future journalism.

When BuzzFeed first came onto my radar a year or two back, the site was best known for its “listicles” (list + articles), quizzes, clever GIFs (brief animated clips), and coverage of light-hearted material like celebrities and pop culture. I first discovered BuzzFeed through Facebook – I would constantly see my friends sharing links to funny or relatable articles with their friends, and due to the very public nature of Facebook’s stream, the same links would often be shared over and over again.

Users would acknowledge the articles on their news feed, and if feeling the same connection to it, be prompted to re-post it elsewhere. That’s how Buzzfeed has attracted so many viewers – it thrives off of traffic generated by third-party sites like Facebook and other social media outlets (Twitter), opening the floodgates to global exposure and allowing for its content to “go viral”.

What makes Buzzfeed such a successful new form of journalism is that the structure of the stories really work with social media. The pieces are often quirky, visually creative, and often take an angle that is relatable to younger generations. This obviously poses a major contrast to traditional style of news stories that you can find on the more serious news publications of today, like the ones I listed above. The types of stories that trend on Facebook aren’t wordy and academic; they’re short, fun pieces with headlines and pictures that immediately grab a user’s attention as they scroll down their newsfeed.

You might object, saying that a lot of the Buzzfeed content that goes viral isn’t really news – and yes, it’s true that a lot of it really is just silly speculation on trivial issues that are published for entertainment above anything. That may be how the site first took off, but it certainly isn’t how it’s operating today. Buzzfeed now covers all kinds of global news, whether it be on the economy, tech or politics. Scrolling down the site, one can find anything from “16 Magical Gifts All Unicorn Lovers Will Appreciate” to dispatches about the war in eastern Ukraine or terrorist attacks in Kenya.

Journalism is constantly evolving as new technologies reshape the way we communicate. I don’t know how the technological developments of the future will change the landscape of how news is shared in the coming decades, but the form of journalism that characterizes Buzzfeed is certainly redefining the kind of news we relied on in the past. In the world of print journalism, it is important to note how social media have become a platform for not just social contact between peers, but for the distribution of news as well. It will be interesting to see how this new style of journalism flourishes in the coming years and the ways in which it impacts the younger generations.

Google renovates its campus for future


Google has new ideas for renovations for its California campus. It has a sci-fi feel to it and plans to implement a lot of new technology. The plan is to display how far the company has come. There are plans for light-weight block structures that can be moved around as the company continues to grow. New inventions such as self driving cars, solar powered drones and robots.

The company is taking a huge step into the future, literally. It’s almost like a playground for the company research projects. Google is well known for the inspiration it provides for its employees. It is always moving forward and it keeps the employees in tune with their work. Sort of like a way to encourage workers to stay on top of their game.

“Different segments within the buildings’ canopies will ‘form small villages’ where employees can work or relax,” a Google representative stated. There will be a new parking lot and under used areas will be turned in to “native ecosystems” such as wetlands or re-integrated oak trees.

If the plans are approved Google will increase its square footage by millions.

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.

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.”

What will you earn as a journalist?


Since the decline of newspapers, less people watching TV and the rapid growth of digital media, journalism salaries have been falling. Today, new graduate journalists are notorious for low salaries.

If you really want to be a journalist, you must be passionate about the career and must be willing to start from scratch with “not the best expected salary.”

Federal data show that news reporters are falling further behind workers in other occupations. The mean annual salary for reporters in the U.S is below the national average for all jobs.

As it turns out, a decade ago journalist earned more money than they do now. Reporters, on average, earn $2,080 less than the national average.

Certainly, journalism is a field where the competition is immense. The competition is increasing now even more because positions in this field are less. We probably have heard about the economic issues hitting the news business nowadays. Many newspapers with financial trouble have been forced to stop hiring new journalists and even lay off journalists that already have a job in the newspaper.

Not to mention, beginning broadcast journalists earn almost the same money as a beginning reporter in a newspaper. Although the competition for jobs in broadcasting is high, if you become an important anchor in a big media market, you’re going to have a high salary.

There are undoubtedly other careers such as medicine, business, architecture and law that pay much higher than journalism. However, journalism is a wonderful profession where you are always learning new things, meeting new people, traveling, exploring new things and doing interesting things. Despite the old journalism jobs being destroyed and many people fighting for these job positions, journalism is a great career to pursue when you really love what you do.

Yes, there are scarce career opportunities in this job field, yet if you want to be in journalism, you have to be willing to work harder and harder to be better than the other journalists fighting for the job you want.

Documentary, journalism share much


Basically, journalism and documentary film own many common characters. According to Wikipedia, journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience. The function of journalism is similar to documentary film. Only difference is that the journalism is real-time reporting and the documentary film is a historical record.

Nowadays, many documentaries are finding news publishers to build the ideal platforms for their work. At the same time, schools of journalism increasingly offer courses related to multimedia production and film editing.

Journalists and filmmakers are increasingly using the same methods to tell stories. For instances, “A Short History of the High Rise” is a documentary film which tells ts istory in a reporter’s tone (

One of the reasons that journalists began to tell stories in a different way is that images and videos contain a power to move and persuade audience to believe the fact. Conversely, the words and data are not convincing enough for the modern society.

People are able to see many news videos on CNN, New York Times or other news websites. Journalists are more and more adapt to use these technologies to tell a story.

Like Andrew DeVigal, the chair in Journalism Innovation and Civic Engagement at the University of Oregon, posted on Twitter “I came for the technology and stayed for the story.”

An interesting fact is that “storytelling” is the word of the day. Journalists and reporters are preferred to be named “storytellers” and “story-makers” rather than the original names “journalist” or “filmmaker.” No one wants to be maligned as a “content creator.”

Journalism and documentary films are gradually combined and build a clearer picture for their audience. As DeVigal posted on Twitter “Let’s move from ‘public service media’ to ‘public participation media.'”

Investigative reporting … going extinct?


Investigative journalism and reporting is a broad realm within the industry, which through the years has certainly awarded various media enterprises acknowledged social prestige. It was for example, thanks to the whole Watergate scandal, that The Washington Post made a name out of it, but also Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein; the reporters, for uncovering the espionage plot organized by the White House and reelection committee of Richard Nixon, received a Pulitzer Price.

However, such detailed and well fabricated throughout subject analysis are hard to find today. The newspaper industry, which is undergoing various crises and evolution, such as budget constraints, evolving technologies and an overall decline in the readers, pose threats and difficulties to continue exercising what is undoubtedly an exhaustive research work.

Since the advent of the Internet, news media have clearly undergone drastic changes in their financial structures and, of course, we all know what happens when there’s a budget problem. The first thing you get rid off is that which is the most expensive. Unfortunately, this decision is terminating valuable investigative work as well as professionals in the business.

Certainly, journalism is also being changed by the influences of the times in which we live: social media and global communication among them. It seems to me that journalists now just report the most “relevant” issues based on convenience or comfort. And I say this because it is evident how news media enterprises now rely on a much more “citizen” approach when it comes to producing content such as photographs or on-the-scene video for generating revenues. (Spoiler alert: Yes! They make use of social media for finding out what to report about as well as what is it that you want to hear about.)

Voiced by the audience’s perspectives and targeted to the populous interests, the model might come across not only attractive but efficient as it evidently makes the research process less costly and time consuming. The big question is, though, does this represent a disadvantage for consumers of everyday informative sources?

Are we losing our creative thinkers? Problem solvers? Our hungry curious professionals that will likely take an event and further develop it into a story? Or we might as well just hear only facts happening worldwide for the rest of our lives.

Site exposes false facts online


The Internet is possibly the easiest place to spread rumors and false facts.

News stories that have incorrect information are easily transmitted online, social media sites like Twitter allow rumors to go viral extraordinarily fast, and above all, few Internet users actually check to confirm what they’re reading is, in fact, true.

A new website, however, may change all of this. tracks the most popular stories swirling around the Internet, and deems them true or false.

The website is associated with Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism. According to the website, it “aims to develop the best practices for debunking misinformation.”

On the site’s homepage there is the list of rumors, along with their status – true, false, or unverified. The site also displays how many times that story was shared, essentially its popularity, and a further breakdown of how the story was spread if you click on it.

In general, the concept seems like a great idea. It exposes sources for misinformation and falsehoods, therefore further inspiring the Internet to be more credible. The website is a good start for digital journalism, to put more responsibility on journalists to make sure their information is correct and to double-check their sources. Although the website mainly focuses on absurd rumors now, hopefully it will extend to all news sources and in more depth in the future. But for now, it’s a great addition in the credibility of digital journalism.

Visit the website here:

The weight of the Sunday paper


It is no secret that print journalism is dying. It is no secret that the culture of our generation is the culprit. Our “click-frenzy” has appeased to our increasing and dire need for instant gratification. This same frenzy is the reason for my current frustration as an aspiring journalist: does it actually matter if I write five or 500 words anymore?

What happened to the weight of the Sunday newspaper? I am sure that, at one point, all of us have fallen victim to one of our parents’ grumbling “back in my day” speeches. However, the stories my dad has shared with me about what the newspaper used to be have stuck –looming over me with every passing year as a journalism student.

“Every time I pick up the newspaper, it’s thinner and thinner,” my dad always used to say.

Are we writing for the sake of content or instant views? There are so many advantages today to having instant news. There is no need to wait for the Sunday paper to know what problems face our communities and countries.

After all, it wouldn’t be news if it wasn’t instant and there is no crime in using the technology we have today to inform the public as quickly as possible. But in exchange for instant updates, I feel the American audience is losing the ability to really know about a subject because no one ever finishes reading – no one flips to page two or B1 anymore. I am guilty of this as well.

Today, our communication is enhanced in almost every way possible but what we lack is face-to-face communication. And this sort of communication is crucial in the industry itself.

Newspapers used to be powerhouse employers but now, as many put it, they are “dying out.” Core offices, where once ideas were pitched and gathered are now replaced by e-mails to the editor from home. The human factor is gone because of the ability to submit articles online. Does the industry face the extinction of the newsroom?

The overall theme of modernity presents these unforeseen challenges to the field of communications.

theSkimm: News in the 21st century


Have you heard of theSkimm? Are you a Skimmer? If not, get with the 21st century … if reading the news is not your thing.

A daily e-mail subscription started by two friends and former journalists, theSkimm brings the top stories of the day to you via email. But the news is “unique” per se because as their website says, theSkimm is a “filter.” It analyzes the top stories of the day and “breaks it down” in an easy to understand manner. They give pop culture comparisons, include sarcastic comments and write for their target audience: the 20-something woman.

I see the benefits and drawbacks of theSkimm. As a subscriber who wakes up to the e-mails first thing in the morning (you can pick what time of the day to receive emails), I really enjoy the service. But I’m also the type of person who reads/watches the news on my own time. Even after reading theSkimm in the morning I’ll turn on the Today Show or local news because that’s just something I like doing. I don’t rely on it as my only source of information, but more as additional support.

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 4.24.07 PM

An article from theSkimm on Wednesday, Oct. 1.

For those who don’t read or understand the news, especially international news, theSkimm can make you sound like a Harvard graduate instead of a high schooler. (Exaggeration, but you get the point).

Instead of raising your eyebrows in confusion when a colleague asks if you’ve heard about riots in Hong Kong, you would be able to respond. However, if you wanted to really contribute to that conversation and form a strong opinion, you should probably do further research and reading.

I can see how traditional news-followers and devoted newspaper subscribers would have a fit over theSkimm, but I think it’s really a great service for modern young adults. Particularly college students who are just transitioning out of the “all-about-me-world” to the “real world.” It’s a good stepping stone from relying on just Twitter for the news.

Who knows what the future holds for theSkimm, or print journalism for that matter. But as of right now, it looks like both are here to stay.

Social media changes what makes news


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.”

How Aereo could change television


Since its debut in February 2012, Aereo has been a bone of legal contention among big broadcast networks. Aereo is a subscription-based service which allows users to stream live and time-shifted over-the-air signals to virtually any device — television, cell phone, or tablet.

The big names in broadcast television, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox, expressed animosity toward Aereo, claiming that the service violates copyright laws and undermines the long-standing tradition of cable companies paying retransmission fees to the networks.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the case beginning April 22, 2014.

However, some small and independent broadcasters (SIBs) and low power TV stations recently claimed that they back Aereo. They enjoy the exposure that Aereo gives their businesses.

Some of these stations told the court that they “depend heavily on such user-friendly viewing technologies to reach audiences, especially audiences who may not have viewing equipment, cable, or satellite television.”

The fate of SIBs is in the hands of the Supreme Court. If Aereo is found to not violate copyright laws (meaning their streams are not found to constitute as public performances), it could be a game changer.

No broadcast networks have ever really been able to compete with the “Big Three” with the exception of Fox, which came onto the scene in 1996. Since then, even with the availability of news from other platforms, the four biggest networks have reigned supreme.

But, if Aereo allows for streaming at a rate cheaper than cable, the large networks may lose some of their power. This is not to say that SIBs will trump the media giants, but they will definitely have the opportunity to offer a little competition.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that cable and broadcast networks were at odds when cable was first introduced. Aereo may create an alliance against a common foe. Both networks and cable companies will lose money and audiences with Aereo, and at least cable networks pay retransmission fees to the networks.

I personally doubt that the Supreme Court will find Aereo legal, unless networks and Aereo work out some sort of retransmission deal.

On the other hand, if Aereo is approved, the way we watch television could change forever.  In today’s digital age, few care about the platform of entertainment or information as long as they get it, which makes the convenience of Aereo an increasingly appealing option.

Advertising in news reporting


Product placement isn’t a new concept in advertising.

Most of us see the giant Coca-Cola glasses in front of “The Voice” judges — that are most definitely not inconspicuous- and accept it for what it is. But would people be more sensitive to product placement or advertising in general if it were integrated into our news?

There was a time where advertisements made up a majority of the newspapers. Those who could read would grab a paper and the lead story may very well be that Greg is finally selling his old goat. Well maybe not; but the point is over time we have moved into wanting to know less about what our neighbors are selling and more about what is going on in the world around us.

We also have evolved to wanting our news to be honest. By this, I mean most people want their news in its purest form, unscathed by other opinions or influence. We want the facts.

However, advertising could be creeping its way back into our news sources.

I’ve noticed a trend in online news reporting where a company will tag its name onto a story. For example, you will read “insert headline here: brought to you by T-Mobile.” A tag line like this is to be expected from cites like Buzzfeed, maybe the Huffington Post; But CNN?

As a student majoring in advertising, I admire the idea to sponsor a news article. Especially for T-Mobile to sponsor one focused on technology and cell phones; it’s a great way to reach their target audience. However as a journalist student I don’t know if I support the advertisement. I think by having a company sponsor an article news and advertising move towards becoming too intertwined.

If the two begin to mesh more I can see problems with people not being able to distinguish facts from exaggerated advertising, or the message of the news being lessened by the distraction of an advertising campaign.

In my opinion, while the tag lines don’t seem to be an issue now, the integration of ads and actual news articles could lead to issues and will be an interesting development to follow.

Print journalism is still important


As with many college students who meet other college students, we say the same things like, “What’s your name? Where are you from? What’s your major?”

Well, being a student enrolled in the University of Miami’s School of Communication, I proudly said, “journalism,” when asked about my major.

The girl said that being a journalism major is, “nice,” but then made a comment basically telling me that I was wasting my time because print journalism will soon be unnecessary.

I really wish people would stop saying that.

Yes, I will agree with the fact that anything print will soon be deemed unnecessary and done away with. We live in an online world. It’s faster and more efficient.

What I don’t understand is why some of the fellow college students I meet keep telling me that my major is essentially a waste. They say I should go into broadcast journalism or even media management.

Here’s my response to you all: The printed newspaper is dying. The online world is thriving.

A print journalist is one who writes for a newspaper or magazine, so if the publications are moving online, print journalists will move online as well.

Maybe universities should change the name of the major to “web” journalism, but web journalists would literally be doing the same things as print journalists. They need to know how to write quickly, cover stories, and do newsgathering.

Print journalism has adapted and is flourishing online. It is in a new dimension and will, in my opinion, do very well.

Whether in print, online, or on TV, all journalists should be respected in whatever aspect he or she chooses to do and should never be told that their choice of major is unnecessary.

Print journalism Is dead?


A professor at the University of Miami School of Communication recently stated that “print journalism is dead.’

Is print journalism, in fact, ‘dead’? Or is it evolving into an online experience? Although television news is becoming increasingly popular, online reporting is crucial, therefore print media are not dead, but are simply changing.

As a student who is passionate about writing and reporting the most up to date and factual news, I firmly believe that many will continue to rely on written reports as opposed to television news.

Many articles are headlined “The Dire State of the Newspaper” and “Death of the Newspaper,” which is scary for many print journalism majors at colleges and universities, but online journalism is booming. Blogs, online magazines, and popular television stations are in need of talented writers. Although the newspaper itself might be on the decline, there is hope left for talented writers.

The revenue that newspapers make is dropping steadily year after year, from 48 billion to 44 an then to a staggering 28 billion. This is a 44% drop in revenue, which seems particularly scary to some, but once again this drop is due to the evolution of print.

So do not fret, print majors, you will be more than able to showcase your talent in some form or another.

Has journalism fallen?


Theodore Dawes explains in his article “The Fall of Journalism” that people tend to think that the newspaper is the product and that people are the customers. He says it is the other way around, stating that “advertisers are the customer and reader attention is the product.”

He explains that for years he has asked the same question: “Why are newspapers published?” and says he has received no good answer. To him, the real answer is because it makes money for the publisher.

Dawes believes that it is all driven by advertising and is about money, not really about the structure of it and those well-written articles, pointing out that he has “never taken a course in journalism, which I regard as a boon to my career and particularly to my reporting.”

This is an interesting point of view by a journalist himself, also expressing the relationship between newspaper owners and reporters; this first one taking advantage of reporters.

“Newspaper owners have for centuries utilized this leaning to pay reporters peanuts.  In fact, reporters are the lowest paid among occupations that require a college degree. In most places they earn 40-50 percent less than the local librarian. The newspaper owners benefit greatly from the naiveté of those in their newsroom.  They’re not going to say a word.”

This caught my attention because it should not be like that since reporters are primarily the ones who find something newsworthy for people and who are making an impact in the audience.

Dawes has another interesting point of view regarding journalism: he does not believe there exists such thing as “journalistic objectivity,” which is “a significant principle of journalistic professionalism that can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.” He states that people believe they are reading the objective news, when in fact they are not: “Objective news was and remains a joke, but Americans continue to believe it exists.”

There are many points of view in society about what journalism is or should be, and many people out there who have different opinions and ways to look at the profession as a whole. But we journalists have to keep in mind that no matter what it is said, we always stick to the basics of professional journalism: write the truth and only the truth. Be honest to your audience and always give them something newsworthy for them to read about.

You can read more at: