With the presidential campaign underway, the news media have placed a lot of focus on updating their audiences on the latest polls and debates. It’s no longer a shock to see Donald Trump’s face streamed across headline pages of different news websites. One story, however, has been leading topic for the past few days, catching the attention of the public and overshadowing news about the presidential candidates.
The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has recently been the talk of the nation. Scalia, the longest serving justice on the court, was found dead in a resort in West Texas.
It has been confirmed that the 79-year-old Italian-American, died from a heart attack. Scalia’s family and colleagues grieve for his death, but it’s also worth taking a closer look with regards to how the news media presented his passing.
Hours after the public was informed of Scalia’s death, articles on the vacancy of the late justice’s position were published online. It makes perfect sense to fill an empty seat, but was it so urgent to have the need to look for a replacement almost as soon as the spot was empty?
I find it insensitive on the news media’s part to have rushed the publication of finding Scalia’s new successor. The least the news media could have done was give Scalia’s family more time to grieve for its loss.
Youth International Journalism (YJI) is a non-profit organization blog that focuses on journalism where any student can write, from ages 12 to 24 years old. More than 200 students write for the blog about various topics, whether something is happening in their hometowns or all around the world.
I had a personal experience with YJI, joining the organization in 2014. My professor at journalism college at the time was the ambassador from Brazil for YJI and connected me with the main editors in Connecticut. More than just writing about local and national issues of Brazil, I was able to meet students from all around the world, not only Journalism students but from many other majors and interests. I became friends with Americans, Nigerians and Pakistanis through the organization and it helped me improve my own writing and see the writing of others and the issues they addressed.
In YJI, I could write about a movie review until the latest breaking news that was happening on the country. The freedom to write something newsworthy is very wide and it had stimulated me to write more. Each YJI member receives directions of what to write and how to write, so the responsibilities of committing with the truth and other journalistic ethics can still remain on the text. The news reporting is done exactly the same as professional journalists, although the people that write the stories do not necessarily have to be professionals.
What I think is the most interesting thing about YJI is that you can not only write for the blog, but you can also draw a cartoon about something that is going on, or even send photos about a certain topic. You don’t have to be a working journalist to write for the blog and that opens a lot of possibilities to writers who want to publish their stories and have an experience under the press laws.
This past Saturday, Starbucks unveiled its new cup design for the holiday season—and it was met with hostile response from Starbucks drinkers.
Social media erupted in anger upon the release of the “minimalist” red cup, claiming that Starbucks (in addition to other large companies and corporations) was attacking Christmas and Christians by not celebrating the Christmas spirit on their cups.
In previous years, Starbucks’ cups have featured designs with snowflakes, reindeer and other seasonal symbols on its cups during the holiday season.
Many people are upset because they believe that Starbucks has become more “politically correct” and instead of changing the cups design in response to consumer demand, the change was made for political correctness.
There a large group of people on social media calling for the boycott of the company and they are gaining momentum. Even Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump spoke on the controversial issue, comically being known as “Cupgate.”
“No more ‘Merry Christmas’ on Starbucks. No more,” Trump said at a speaking event in Springfield, Ill., this past Monday. “I wouldn’t buy … maybe we should boycott Starbucks — I don’t know.”
Honestly, I don’t think many people are surprised that Donald Trump would comment on this issue during a speaking event; bringing up “Cupgate” provided Trump with a moment of comedic relief and an opportunity to implicitly express his support of Christianity and the celebration of Christmas.
However, I am surprised by the amount of coverage that this story is getting from national news networks. CNN did a story today (and I’m guessing they’ve been covering it since “Cupgate” emerged), in which they actually went through the history of Starbucks’ holiday cups for the past 5 years.
CNN news anchor, Carol Costello, had to hold back moments of laughter as they covered the story—mirroring my exact sentiments. How is this newsworthy? Why is the design on a cup of coffee national news?
The triviality of the coverage was made strikingly clear, because as soon as the coverage of the coffee cup was over, CNN’s next segment was regarding a battle taking place in Iraq to reclaim a key city from ISIS. Yet we are discussing a coffee cup’s design.
And now, the story has gained even more momentum as Dunkin’ Donuts has come into play with the release of their more “festive” holiday cup featuring the word “Joy” in red script surrounded by green pine branches.
It goes without saying that ratings are important for any news organization—it is how they make money. But at what cost? I’m sure the coverage of the Starbucks “Cupgate” provided news networks with a bump in ratings, but was it worth it when there are so many other important topics and events the news should be covering? I think that the cup design is something worth talking about, but it should not be covered as national news.
“I don’t think there has been a worse time for freedom of expression in Spain since the death of Franco,” said Juan Pedro Velazquez-Gaztelu, former El País journalist.
Spanish newspapers and journalist have watched the industry restructure and shrink in the past years. As debts increase, Spain’s most established papers have lost their editorial independence and have watched advertising revenues decrease under the rule of a conservative government.
Known as the “gag law,” individuals who post videos of political protests or amateur videos of public officers will be severely penalized, and in the case of journalists or papers, fired or fined.
As government control increases and revenues decrease, freedom of expression in Spain has been questioned.
“Newspapers are no longer led by their editors, but by chief executives who are worried about accounts and trying to maintain good relationships with those in power,” said Pedro Ramirez, a journalist who was fired from El Mundo.
According to him, newspapers are no longer doing their job as watchdogs, and in turn are giving in to political pressure and editorial restriction.
To think that established journalists are being censored and kept from doing their job worried me. Not only because its what many of us in class aspire to do and become, but merely for the same of the news and truth.
As a matter of fact, our generation and modern society are defined by the fast flow of information, and highly educated and aware individuals — if not that, at least the easy access to news and information. Hence, how is it possible that in a first world country, journalists are being penalized for reporting the truth?
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.
Access to news has increased significantly worldwide as new, high technology devices and social media became the main platform for news dissemination. Not only is it a current and immediate news outlet, it allows its users to become aware of the latest global events in a matter of seconds.
However, does all of this speed live up the the news’ worth?
As The New York Times posted in its latest Opinion section, the news media are sliding toward thinner coverage and ever-shorter “news-nuggets” of information. Despite the increase in number and variety of news platforms, all of them are characterized by small and impacting headlines that try to summarize the latest news in a few words — that is, as long as it fits on one’s phone screen.
Sadly to newspapers and to those passionate about journalism and the beauty of unveiling the truth, news, in the 21st century, is being summed up to 10 word tweets and quick Facebook posts.
Development and growth depends on informed, critical individuals who seek information and aren’t “in a rush” to scroll down to the next post. Knowledge comes from content, however how can it prevail if the interests have shifted and news is being trimmed to devote more time and space to pop culture, celebrity gossip, and the latest trends?
Maybe what we know as “news” is changing. Maybe its time to re-define our roles as journalists, or at least, time to figure out a new place where the role of “informants” truly meets people’s needs. Whatever it is, where did news go?
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.
Hurricane Joaquin, a Category 4 storm, is expected to blow past South Florida and head directly towards North Carolina as well as the entire Northeast coast.
According to Fox News, governors of three states have already declared a state of emergency: Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Since Joaquin will not affect South Florida, is it really necessary to continue so much coverage by our local news outlets?
As a South Florida resident, this news comes as an initial relief. I am used to constantly checking for updates on various tropical storms and hurricanes beginning in August. Residents in the northeast will experience a shift in media over the course of the next few days.
As a northeast native, I am incredibly familiar with news media coverage about blizzards as well as the occasional thunderstorm. When a rare hurricane travels up the East Coast, a sense of panic shocks the population.
The news in the northeast will focus heavily on Joaquin, as well as preventative measures citizens can take to protect themselves. The general unfamiliarity with hurricanes will influence news stations to continuously track Joaquin on all media outlets.
In general, I’ve noticed that news media outlets in South Florida focus more on the logistics of the storm while news media outlines in the northeast focus more on preventative measures citizens should take. As the Hurricane progresses, it’ll be interesting to see if South Florida continues covering Joaquin.
South Florida may get hit with hurricanes more frequently than another other parts of the United States, but that does not mean local reporters should clog local media outlets with constant coverage about Joaquin.
Journalism has always been a praised and honorable profession, but to what extent can it continue serving its purpose if it implies a life-threatening outcome to those who practice it?
According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 1,055 journalists have been killed worldwide in the past 22 years and 80 have already been killed in 2015.
Many may think that this number is due to the risky situations journalists put themselves in, however figures compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists show that journalists and reporters are murdered because of their profession.
Also known as “Death Watch” journalists, they are deliberately targeted and murdered either because of their reporting or simply because they are journalists.
The most recent death happened in Virginia recently where a former WDBJ7 employee shot dead a reporter and a cameraman for WDBJ7, a local CBS affiliate, live on air. The shots could be heard on footage taken by the cameraman before he dropped to the ground.
However, what worsens the situation is that many of these murders outside the United States and other Western nations are investigated and in almost 90 percent of cases no one is prosecuted. In other words, impunity is increasing the risks of this profession and media freedom has been decreasing with every shot fired against a journalist and/or reporter.
Despite the agreement that holds each nation responsible to ensure their journalists’ safety and the protection of media freedom, clearly journalists haven’t been acting of safe ground and daily suffer with the “death watch” label.
Not only is this a matter of respect but also of the implementation of legal frameworks to create an environment where not only journalists but any one can practice their profession in peace.
Nick Schiralli barely escaped death 14 years ago because he was late for work that day. Astoundingly, 14 years later, the 68-year-old is suffering from a disease after inhaling 9/11 fumes.
The latest official data show that more than 3,200 cops, firefighters and New York City workers have been diagnosed with cancer. The number is still rising and the residents are excluded from this number. After the disaster, it still hasn’t stopped taking away innocent lives.
On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after 9/11 took place, President George W. Bush and the New York government were eager to prove that they had not been overtaken by the terrorists. They issued a notice to the public that everything was under control and would return to normal soon. In order to appease and persuade the public, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Safety and Health Commission and the other departments endorsed “the air is safe to breathe; the water is safe to drink.”
Questioning usually comes after the rescuing. But after the 9/11 attacks, the American media and public opinion, who ordinarily criticize the government, became silent. A large number of television programs promoted the dedication and patriotism of the government, police, and the military, and rarely had a questioning voice.
Juan Gonzalez was the famous senior reporter, who dared to challenge the authority, but his questioning did not get much response. The environmental protection departments published data showing the air was “ within the security metrics” to stop criticism, but then people became affected and the public began to question: What is that irritating smell in the air? What is the substance that makes the fire continue to burn? Are there any toxic substances? However, the data released by the US government was still showing a safe and clear air quality and in order to prevent more questions from the press, the Environmental Protection Agency held an undisclosed press conference.
9/11 has always been a sensitive topic, but the fact is, the number of victims are still rising. In recent years, most of the mainstream media began to report the related issues and to pressure the government: the government should give an impartial explanation to the heroes and the victims of 9/11.
Severe weather. Violent crimes. Jaw-dropping plays. Sure, reading descriptions about these things are great, but think about how much pictures and videos take these to the next level. We’re able to witness the news with our own eyes, without having to rely solely on the words of a journalist, and that’s an incredible thing.
Take the recent occurrence in South Carolina, for example. A man was fatally shot by a police officer, creating an uproar within the community and across the country.
With the power of video, people around the world were able to see this disturbing event in plain view. This will help the public learn the facts rather than be fed rumors, because video doesn’t lie.
Images are an extremely powerful tool in journalism. They tell a story and capture moments that we would have otherwise missed. They let us learn the truth without risk of false information. They’re candid, real and often shocking.
Without them, journalism would run the risk of being bland or uninteresting. As can be seen in the photo to the right, images are a vital tool in journalism that not only back a journalist’s words, but also significantly add to them and enhance the experience for the reader.
I am a Feminist. It is not something that just happened, I think I was a Feminist for a long time and just didn’t have a word to express how I felt until very recently. In September 2014 Emma Watson gave her famous speech for the United Nations ‘He For She’ campaign.
HeforShe event sponsored by UN Women with Goodwill ambasador Emma Watson New York, USA -20/09/2014/SIPA_SIPA837.01/Credit:UN Photo/SIPA/SIPA/1409230856 (Newscom TagID: sfphotos325055.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]
She defined Feminism as “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”
She gave light to a very misunderstood word, opening it up to males and not just females, to her Feminism was equality for both sexes not just women.
Since then I have actively kept up with the facts, stories, events regarding a cause I feel so strongly about and there has been no shortage of ways in which to access this information. There are not only numerous organizations supporting this cause but also multiple ways in which you can recieve information whether it is through Instagram,Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat etc.
I even had the opportunity to see Secretary Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea Clinton speak on the issue of women’s rights on our campus for the Clinton Global Intiative University less than one month ago.
Chelsea Clinton introduced a newly created website that held all the data possible on issues pertaining to women’s rights. It covered statistics on the number of rape cases in the United States and countries across the world like India as well as the pay gap across the world between men and women. Aptly named No Ceilings the website has all the information you can get your hands on, whether you wish to talk about the data or act on it.
In addition to having all these platforms, Facebook collaborated with ‘He For She’ campaign and planned a live chat with Watson, that was held on March 8th ‘Women’s Day’. Comments posted and questions sent had a chance of being asked during the course of the conversation.
Not only is it becoming easier to access the information we require, it is becoming easier to engage with the information we are receiving, and that is exactly how media is changing the world.
Since coming to the University of Miami in August last year, I’ve been working on the student newspaper The Miami Hurricane. In that time, one word has been etched into my brain as being most critical to my job as a reporter: Deadlines.
Deadlines. All-day deadline work sessions. Don’t miss your deadline. From the get-go, the word “deadline” has been repeated again and again, with intense focus given to the importance of timeliness.
“Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.”
Noting this, it’s interesting to me that there’s been such a sharp focus on timeliness, within an organization that trains future journalists, when well-regarded standards of practice warn against doing so.
Even if not heralded as the most important aspect of journalism, timeliness receives the most attention. News, like anything else, is a business—specifically, the business of being first. And from an ethical standpoint, timeliness is essential to bringing news that is relevant and important to the public it intends to serve.
But ideologically, accuracy clearly reigns as just as — or more — crucial. Even if you are the speediest news writer in the world, it will mean nothing if your work is riddled with errors.
But during my experience as a student reporter, I’ve noticed that accuracy is only brought up in conversation once someone has already made an error.
Because accuracy is so important, people assume that others recognize it as such—like it goes without saying. But when you don’t say, it leaves the forefront of people’s minds to be replaced with what you are talking about: deadlines. And people are talking about those constantly.
If we give accuracy as much—or more—time in the spotlight as deadlines, hopefully we can better train ourselves as future journalists to avoid ethical gaffes before they occur.
I remember that, as a child, my mother would often chide me about the lack of filtration in the comments I made and the stories I told. There were no boundaries; I was a brutally honest child — and a loud one, too. Nothing that happened in the family stayed in the family. They often suffered the consequences of what they called my “verbal diarrhea.”
As I got older, though, I’d like to think I figured out what I should and should not say depending on the situation. However, there were times that I slipped up in a big way and was only lucky that spoken words weren’t lamented like the ones we let loose on the Internet. Media forums such as Facebook and Twitter have made it infinitely easier to express our opinions for the world to see and I learned the hard way that once it’s out there, there’s no taking it back.
So, when at 19 my Dad questioned why I didn’t have a Twitter account, I laughed and looked at him incredulously, “Do you really think Twitter is the best tool for someone who has to consciously remind herself of what she can and cannot share with the public?” At which he replied that he simply used Twitter for his work and perhaps I could use it in the same way.
The truth is that a social media forum such as Twitter terrifies me, the number of times celebrities get hauled up for their tweets or accidentally send out a nude picture for all of two seconds someone out there catches them and, like I said before, it’s words or nude images they can’t ever take back.
Twitter is essentially used to capture what you’re doing thinking or feeling in that moment in 140 characters or less. Often times when things are said in the moment they aren’t fully thought through, and these words can be read by future employers, college professors, colleagues and friends and can potentially hinder your future. We have to be careful about what we do and do not post on the Internet and Twitter does not help.
As I sit here working on an article for a sports website I write for, I’m realizing just how important it is in journalism to conduct thorough research. I often read articles that have only one source and/or very little information. What good does that do?
Research is vital.
The article I’m currently working on profiles an athlete and, if I wrote it only using my knowledge, I wouldn’t have much of an article at all. I’d have a few sentences at best. While gathering all of the information needed to write something like an athlete profile can be a long and tedious process, it’s imperative. So, I read information about the player on several Web sites and I conducted interviews with people who are very knowledgeable on the topic. By the time I was done with my research, I was ready to write. I finally had more than enough information to begin the actual writing process, which brings me to this current moment.
This process has made me wonder how a journalist could possibly write an article without first gathering relevant facts. And not just the basic facts that scratch the surface; I’m talking about the in-depth facts that have to be dug up from the depths of several resources. Every article needs some meat to it. Without it, the article is most likely going to be bland and ineffective in delivering the necessary information.
Therefore, an article isn’t actually an article until proper research is conducted. Journalism relies on research and without it, the industry would be practically useless.
I recently happened upon an article written by a young girl in India on the CNN website, titled ‘My country’s problem with menstruation’ the article tackles taboos surrounding menstruation in India. Being a young Indian girl, this article resonated with me and there was a level of depth and understanding I derived from this that I do not normally experience with most news articles.
The essay by 18-year-old Anisha Bhavani was picked up from the iReport section of CNN, which essentially is a forum where you can share original essays exploring personal identity and the things that affect and eventually make up who we are.
For the first time, CNN picked up an essay from iReport and showcased it on its main website. This to me marked a major transition for online bloggers and young writers out there today. The fact that something written from the perspective of a young girl, still in college, showcasing an intimate and personal anecdote of what it means to be a young woman in India was taken seriously and posted on their main website speaks volumes.
It means that, in today’s world, young adults who have something to say, cannot only freely express themselves, but also be taken seriously.
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?
Buzzfeed, a name I am sure you have heard of before, is a name I see everyday. As a journalism student I have always aimed of writing in a way that is both entertaining and informative and I feel that Buzzfeed encompasses just that.
What makes Buzzfeed so buzz worthy is that it is one of a kind, audiences can interact with the website by clicking buttons like “OMG” or “LOL” depending on the article. In addition comments by viewers are taken seriously and Buzzfeed take the extra step to acknowledge the readers for noticing these errors.
Recently, Buzzfeed uploaded a video involving President Obama “Things Everybody Does But Doesn’t Talk About, Featuring President Obama.” Buzzfeed managed to not only provide an entertaining video featuring the most powerful man in America but editors also managed to inform the public about ObamaCare.
In an age where media are merging, so are the aims of articles. In today’s world, you do not need to choose between CNN and ENews. Buzzfeed is a one-stop shop to newsworthy stories whether its entertainment or serious news. It is all about latest the buzz.
Writer’s block. At some point in every journalist’s career, they will run into some kind of writer’s block.
Quite the agonizing experience, truthfully. We want to write but the words are just not presenting themselves onto the page. So where does this condition come from?
There are a few possible symptoms that come from this diagnosis. Sometimes a topic for the article is hard to find. Other times, we do not have enough information to write a thorough story. Or maybe the topic is so captivating, that we just cannot find the proper way to start the article. And then there are times when we just do not have the motivation to write, which leads to procrastination; but that is a different story.
Whatever the reason may be, writer’s block can be caught by an innocent writer at any given time. However, there is hope.
To cure said writer’s block, a journalist can look at what is popular in the news or pop culture to get a topic idea. He or she could also re-interview their subjects or conduct more research to add to their article. If you are overzealous about writing your article, come up with an outline and brainstorm the skeleton of the article
Ironically enough, I experienced writer’s block creating this post. I have typed up and erased all of these sentences countless times, to the point that I reached a minor level of anxiety. My cure was simple: Get up, walk away and come back to it later. Once I returned, the hindering writer’s block disappeared … until next time.
Today, I had a rather depressing conversation with an older neighbor. She was asking all the typical questions most 20-something-year-olds get: How’s school? What are you studying? What do you want to do? The conversation was light until I answered a question with “I’m a journalism major.” I was met with a passive aggressive, “Well … isn’t that a dying field, sweetie? Anyone can be a journalist now.”
My heart sank a little and every fiber of my being wanted to rip out the flowerbed that judgmental woman was watering. I held my breath.
Social media, YouTube, Vine, Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr and other blogging sites are available to anyone who can afford the technology. While even I can admit that the prospect of iPhone-wielding teenagers becoming the majority of our news sources is fairly terrifying, the notion of journalism dying just because there are more means of “reporting” is, frankly, a cop out.
The way I see it is that journalism is not dying, but the playing field is getting increasingly larger and so is the number of players. The problem therein is competition. We need writers that can pull audiences away from what their sorority sister re-tweeted, what’s being shared on Facebook or re-posted on Instagram. I do believe that the challenge is not simply no one caring- its that everyone has media-induced attention deficit disorder.
The field of journalism is still alive and kicking-fighting actually. Fighting through the hoards of meaningless personality quizzes, “like if you agree” posts, and celebrity gossip to get to what is happening in the real world.
![HeforShe event sponsored by UN Women with Goodwill ambasador Emma Watson New York, USA -20/09/2014/SIPA_SIPA837.01/Credit:UN Photo/SIPA/SIPA/1409230856 (Newscom TagID: sfphotos325055.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]](http://students.com.miami.edu/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/most_influential_young_women_2014_emma_watson.jpg)
