Tag Archives: Journalism

California law impacts journalists

Posted on by
Reply

By MELANIE MARTINEZ

The governor of California, Jerry Brown, has recently signed a law that expands protections for journalists.

It reigns in the control of federal prosecutors by giving journalists a five days’ notice before they serve the reporters subpoenas on their records, so that they cannot leak them to the media.

This way, the government agencies’ ability to seize journalists’ records is substantially curbed. They must first give a notice to reporters and news organizations before seeking a subpoena of journalistic information. This information refers to that of a third party, such as internet service providers and cell phone companies.

This law comes about after the Justice Department’s investigation of leaks about a Yemen conspiracy to bomb a U.S. airliner in 2012. The government’s agents had seized phone records from the Associated Press without first notifying them.

In July the Justice Department pledged to notify news organizations if a subpoena on information is being sought.

Here in Florida, the government has existing shield laws and court-recognized privileges  for journalists and the media.

Although this a law enacted in California, an action like this affects the country as a whole and the journalists who report and write in it.

As seen throughout American history, when one state enacts a law, it says something about the state of the country and its policies as a whole.

The United States, though it is a democratic country with freedoms of press and speech, it ranks as low as 47th in the world by the Press Freedom Index created by Reporters Without Borders.

Though the California law mirrors the new media regulations put in place at the federal level, concerns over the way the Occupy protests were handled and the fact that the First Amendment is being taken for granted mean our government must keep moving towards total press freedom.

The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment in order for Americans to be able to truly express themselves and seek truth and righteousness from our government. As Americans, we can never lose sight of that.

As Abraham Lincoln implored in his Gettysburg Address, the world “can never forget what they did here.”

The only way we can have a truly free democracy is if we have a truly free press, existing sans restrictions that prohibit the public from knowing the truth in order to spark debate and have a government by the people, for the people.

Blogging vs. Journalism

Posted on by
Reply

By VALERIA VIERA

The talk Jay Rosen did about “The Twisted Psychology of Bloggers vs. Journalists” relates to how blogging and using the Internet to share stories is a whole new scenario, that’s actually interrupting journalists’ work.

“Work lives have been disrupted by the Internet. There’s an attraction there,” he says.

My point of view in this matter was supported when I read the words of an editor’s column in an Australian newspaper:

“The great thing about newspapers is that, love us or hate us, we’re the voice of the people. We represent the community, their views, their aspirations and their hopes. Bloggers, on the other hand, represent nothing. They whinge, carp and whine about our role in society, and yet they contribute nothing to it, other than satisfying their juvenile egos.”

This expresses reality and, for me, the complete truth. Yes, bloggers are going to be a constant problem in our society, but, after all, news is news and the newspapers are the ones going to inform citizens and the community in a way that doesn’t judge, that tells the truth, that’s reliable and remains a place where opinions don’t interfere, like in blogs. When you finish reading this contribution, you can choose which side, bloggers or journalists, or better, just understand where each one stands.

For me, journalists are the ones who have to go out there, have the experience, be in the situation (sometimes), so later on they can go and write the objective story. Bloggers just talk and write opinions (most of the time negative) about the news that have already occurred and told by the press. And if they do report original news, a lot of times it is not true, causing people to believe things that did not actually happen. Obviously, this can cause a lot of problems.

“I’ve said that bloggers and journalists are each others’ ideal “other.”

This sentence also grabbed my attention. I would say bloggers and journalists have a competition where, in fact, journalists have a fear of being replaced by these new individuals.

It is a new competition that, through the Internet, is overcoming the role of the press or, better yet, like was stated in The Introduction, the press itself is being absorbed into the media.

Peace journalism is great idea, in theory

Posted on by
Reply

By MARISSA YOUNG

In my Freedom of Expression class at the University of Miami, we have been discussing peace journalism.  Advocates for peace journalism recognize that today’s media are too eager to focus on violence and tend to favor what they consider to be the victimized parties and assign blame to the “others.”

Peace journalism attempts to give everyone a voice and expose untruths on all sides, while promoting peace and reconciliation instead of war and violence.

In this style of writing, journalists are not supposed to use words like “terrorists,” as these words are considered demonizing language. Instead, they are supposed to call groups by what they call themselves, like al-Qaeda.

Our assignment was to find articles and rank them according to a peace journalism rubric.  As I read through articles, I realized how difficult it would be to adhere to the peace journalism standards. For example, “murdered” has negative and obviously violent connotations, but what else are you supposed to say if that’s what happened? Saying that a man “killed” somebody may have a little less of a negative connotation, but the connotation is there nonetheless.

I agree that an author should make every effort to quote or at least talk to and write about all parties involved and I do think that in many cases this can be done better than it is done now. Sometimes, though, it may be too dangerous.

Should journalists have to reach out to a group that just bombed a civilian’s house? And how are they supposed to talk about this incident without victimizing the civilian? I’m not sure how peace journalism advocates would answer these questions, although it seems to me that the rubric is arbitrary; the person rating an article can interpret the categories and define them however he or she chooses.

One part of the peace journalism rubric is “writer advocates for one side/position.”  (A score of three indicates deviance from the peace journalism philosophy.) This is where peace journalism contradicts itself: it says that authors should be objective, but one of its main goals is to promote peace and reconciliation rather than violence.  Even peace journalism has its own agenda and is inherently biased.

I believe that peace journalism is a noble concept, but it is impractical. It is an unattainable ideal, but we can at least shift toward it, combining some ideas, like less thirst for blood and more open-mindedness, with traditional reporting styles.

Is news a dieter’s friend or enemy?

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA COHEN

Endless stories with wavering opinions on the newest, best way to lose weight are reported daily.

However, the information that is disclosed is never finite and usually contradicts previous reports by that same news source.

Among the most popular amidst ever-changing diet tips are super foods.

On Huffington Post’s “Healthy Living” page, it features avocados as one of its brain super foods; however, on the same page, it tells dieters to avoid the vegetable altogether.

And don’t get me started on the news reports on breakfast.

News reports are so unreliable that dieting reports should consider discontinuing, considering dieting tips are not newsworthy in the first place.

However, does this fluctuating information simply mirror the rest of news?

Reports about the country’s financial status, governmental status and presidential status are constantly changing. The problem with the media is that, alike the American people, it cannot make up its mind.

So, for now, the government is shut down, we should not eat carbs at breakfast and should never allow an avocado into our bodies.

But this could all change by tomorrow.

China’s journalists and the government

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA FERNANDEZ

Tensions are flaring between China’s journalists and government officials after the Southern Weekend newspaper took a stand against government censorship. Recent protests against the nation’s long-standing government involvement in the press launched what many are referring to as the Beijing News incident.

It all began when the New Year’s issue of a Guangdong province newspaper, Southern Weekend, printed a piece by the local propaganda minister that ran without the knowledge of any of the editors. This was the final straw for several of the newspaper’s employees who, up to that point, had been obeying China’s censorship laws by not running pieces that the government had asked them to pull from print.

Southern Weekend’s fed-up editors publicly spoke out on Chinese microblogging site Weibo, claiming that the article allegedly written by Tuo Zhen, a provincial-level official, was “raping” the newspaper’s independence. The post went viral and was eventually taken down, but that hasn’t stopped a flow of criticism against China’s censorship laws.

The most recent backlash occurred when officials answered Southern Weekend’s plea for less government involvement with increased censorship and additional propaganda.

Another article was written, however. It was not as easy for officials to get news outlets to run the article this time around. Officials issued an order to several newspapers nationwide to run the article Tuesday, but only a handful followed through. However, newspapers like the Beijing News, who chose not to run it on Tuesday, were forced to do so the following day. The Beijing News did not give in easily and caved only when authorities physically arrived at its offices.

What really happened at the Beijing News office is still unclear, but several posts on Twitter said that the Weibo accounts of Beijing News employees were all deleted. Alleged photos of a chaotic Beijing News newsroom also made its way through Twitter.

One Beijing News employee, who chose to remain anonymous, confirmed that there was a meeting of administrative-level employees Wednesday morning.

If Dai’s resignation is confirmed, this will likely be the most defiant act a newspaper leader has taken in response to the recent Southern Weekend situation.

Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, has blocked all chatter on the Southern Weekend situation, as well as of the Beijing News incident, but that has not stopped Chinese sources from getting the news out.

Crossing the line when posting

Posted on by
Reply

By SHAI FOX SAVARIAU

The National Rifle Association is attempting to get a journalism professor dismissed for tweeting that the navy yard shooting was their fault.

David Guth, a professor at the University of Kansas, tweeted “#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”

David Guth's tweets after the Navy Yard Shooting.

David Guth’s tweets after the Navy Yard shooting (Screen capture by Shai Fox Savariau).

Kansas State Rifle Association’s President Patricia Stoneking said that Guth should not be allowed to teach.

Stoneking said “The KSRA will do everything possible to see to the removal of this man. He should be fired immediately. His statements are outrageous,”

“Any person with such a vile and contemptuous attitude who has influence over our children as a professor does should be immediately fired.”

Officials at the University said that Guth’s tweets do not reflect the views of the university.

In later blog posts, Guth wrote that he did not regret writing these things and that he is prepared to be criticized by others.

I don’t fully agree with how Guth expressed his feelings via Twitter. I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech, but speaking out about how the NRA’s sons and daughters should be hurt next time there is a mass shooting is not the way to get your point across.

As a journalism professor, I believe Guth does have a duty of showing that he can express his opinion in a way that’s not attacking another group of people. Speaking out and inciting violence on the Internet, which is not a private place, is not the civil way of expressing yourself.

I think that as journalists, we have to carry ourselves in a certain way. A big thing for a journalist is to report news without including bias. Yes, Guth’s tweets and other blog posts were just him expressing himself about the navy yard shooting. But, he could have written his distaste for the NRA in a way that wasn’t so gruesome, in my opinion. Even outside of work, Guth has that duty to carry himself with poise towards any breaking news situation. Even on the Internet.

Guth is also a professor at a university. Being that I am a college student myself in a journalism program, I can relate to this situation. I would not appreciate knowing that a professor of mine was writing such harsh things on the Internet.

Teachers of any kind need to be very careful of what they post on any type of social media. It can be seen by anyone and since teachers are responsible for the shaping of younger minds, it is important that they don’t encourage these types of violent responses from their students, especially journalism students.

Guth’s students will be on a job hunt very soon and if they are exhibiting the type of behavior that he showed on Twitter, then it may be a challenge for them to find a position.

Social media can be a very powerful tool but it must be used in a way that won’t offend others.

Original article can be found here: http://www.kctv5.com/story/23480333/ku-journalism-professor-underfire-for-nra-related-tweets-after-navy-shootings.

The dreaded knock

Posted on by
Reply

By MELANIE MARTINEZ

When covering a story, it is almost always necessary for a reporter to conduct interviews. These interviews are for experts, witnesses or any other person involved. It doesn’t take much, since most people like to talk and relate their knowledge or experiences. And for the reporter, he or she gets to meet people, gain insight, and learn new things.

But what happens when the story involves a mass shooting? And the people you have to interview are the friends and families of the victims?

In light of the recent Washington Navy Yard shooting, this issue comes to the surface.

I came across an article in the Huffington Post aptly named “The Worst Work of Journalism.” It delves into this topic, and explains how uncomfortable and devastating it is to be sent to cover stories of mass shootings and murder, charged with the task of interviewing the loved ones left behind the disasters.

In the article, its author Brian Rooney explains how as a journalist, he has had the unfortunate job of having to interview the family and friends of people who have passed.

He explains that when the injustice of murder occurs, the victims must be humanized. They must have faces, histories, voices and people who loved them in order for others to truly see the horror of a taken life.

This requires the miserable task of getting information from the loved ones of the victims. No reporter wants to be sent to cover a story where they’ll have to knock on the victim’s door, that dreaded knock.

Rooney describes the people who are open and friendly and give a lot of information. He recounts the story of a time he interviewed the boyfriend of a girl who had just been shot in the head by an ex-paramour. The boyfriend spoke of his girlfriend affectionately as he cleaned her brains out of a cookie jar.

Rooney also describes the people who don’t want to talk at all, and the dilemma of being told by your boss you must get the interview even after repeated declines.

Every reporter, like Rooney says, hopes that when they knock on the doors of the families  and stand outside the church services that it’ll be the last time. That society will see how horrible these massacres are. That things will change. All we can do is hope for no more dreaded knocks.

To read the full article, visit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-rooney/the-worst-work-of-journalism_b_3943447.html