Tag Archives: Journalism

NFL handles Ray Rice scandal poorly

Posted on by

By MICHELLE BERTRAN

Ray Rice, who was a running back for the Baltimore Ravens, has been banned from the National Football League because of an incident that happened in an elevator when he knocked out his then-fiancée. I would now like to address how poorly the NFL has handled this situation.

It is not certain yet, but supposedly, the video of Rice violently assaulting Janay Rice (now his wife), was given to someone in the NFL office back on April 9.

When the video was supposedly seen by this individual, not yet by the media, the NFL’s punishment to Ray Rice was only a two-game suspension. Then, as soon as the raw footage got released by TMZ on Monday,  the NFL banned Rice. Therefore, it is being speculated that the league went (or tried) to go under the table here.

In my opinion, banning Rice from the NFL is an extremely lenient punishment for what he did; he should be grateful he is not behind bars. The NFL is trying to clear the situation up and see who saw what and when, but NFL spokesman; Brian McCarthy released a statement to CNN on this speculation.

“We have no knowledge of this. We are not aware of anyone in our office who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on Monday. We will look into it,” McCarthy said.

It is not a coincidence to me that, then, Rice’s punishment was only a two-game suspension when the media had not gotten hold of the video, then as soon as the media gets the video and a huge controversy arises over this is when the NFL decides to make a bigger move.

If this is the case, it will only prove that the NFL is solely about its money and has no type of ethics. The NFL sets the example for many different groups of people, even children, and the example it is setting right now is sickening.

I would argue that the NFL is in need of new leadership that will handle these kinds of situations in a proper manner and how they deserve to be treated.

Journalism: One of the most dangerous jobs

Posted on by

By KATHERINE FERNANDES

What comes to mind when we think about the most dangerous jobs in the world? We may think of firefighters, astronauts, bodyguards, men working for the military or perhaps fishermen, but few of us would believe that journalists face greater dangers for reporting the news.

According to the United Nations, “Journalism is one of the most dangerous professions in the world.”

Journalists go out to the streets to explore and report what is happening. Unfortunately, in this profession, the stories covered may result in kidnapping, assault and even death of journalists and their staff.

Nowadays, journalism is more dangerous than ever. The cruel beheading of South Florida native Steven Satloff and James Foley in Syria are great examples of this risky job. Covering a war is obviously a dangerous task, but being brutally killed in front of a camera just for saying the truth and reporting the news, is unacceptable.

In the recent years, Syria has shown to be the deadliest country for journalists to operate. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at least 70 other journalists have been killed and more than 80 journalists have been kidnapped in Syria, some of which cases are not publicized. CPJ estimates that approximately 20 journalists are missing in Syria and many journalists are still believed to be kept by the Islamic State.

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said “journalists report on human rights violations and bad governance, give voice to the victims and the oppressed, and contribute towards raising awareness of human rights issues, and this service deserves better protection.”

Sadly, journalists have less protection than any other risky job. People don’t realize this until they see innocent journalists that have been arrested, kidnapped or murdered.

In these years, the death of a journalist is usual. Last year, at least three dozen reporters were murdered in their jobs. They didn’t have a uniform or carry a gun, they were simply doing their job; asking questions, looking at records and reporting the truth.

Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Somalia, Brazil, Ukraine and Russia have been considered the most dangerous countries for journalists in the last years.

In 2014, an aggressive fire killed more journalists than American soldiers in Afghanistan. In the same year, three Al-Jazeera journalists were convicted and sentenced to prison for seven years with terrorism-related charges in Egypt.

Another shocking case back in 2001, was Jose Luis Ortega Mata, an editor of a weekly newspaper in Mexico. He wrote an article on drug traffickers funding the election campaigns of Mexican politicians. Too much coincidence that days after his article was released, someone fired two bullets into his head without any reason.

Cases like this occur on a daily basis. Some are published and some are not and it is hard to make justice over these journalist’s deaths.

Reporting requires curiosity, written and verbal communication skills, objectiveness and passion for the truth. But what it mostly requires is courage.

Reporter’s work is to inform the citizens by telling the news, which is the material we use to think about the word’s happenings beyond ourselves. As any other job, journalism doesn’t deserve threatening to those who practice it. Needless to say, people with a journalism profession deserve more protection for informing the world.

And the Pulitzer goes to . . .

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

In January, the Pulitzer nomination of The Washington Post and the U.S. edition of The Guardian for their reports on Edward Snowden and the NSA leaks caused a controversy. But Monday, the two news organizations actually took home the 2014 Pulitzer award for public service.

The Pulitzer board said The Post and The Guardian U.S. were awarded the prize for “authoritative and insightful reports that helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework of national security.”

The Pulitzer Prize is one of the most prestigious and sought-after awards in journalism, literature and photography. Not only is expert reporting and writing involved for journalism, but the story must also be something that matters.

I’ve noticed there is often a discrepancy between stories considered newsworthy and stories that actually matter. For example, CNN.com usually has a few trending topics, most of them national or global topics that are indeed relevant for a few days. Then there are a few feature stories, usually more lighthearted but have that bizarre element to them that makes them newsworthy.

There are also those random stories about the latest developments in a celebrity’s private life that in my opinion really shouldn’t be trending on CNN. Because that kind of story begs the question…

Who cares? Does it matter? Maybe. But does it really?

I don’t care, personally, but I realize that a lot of the nation does care and, in the end, that will likely determine what is newsworthy. Whatever gets hits on the page, or eyes glued to the TV screen.

This is another reason why it is not at all typical to see celebrity gossip on a website for a print newspaper like The New York Times or The Washington Post. They’re trying to focus on stories that have lasting impacts, while CNN is trying to capture the viewership of society on television. Thus is born the divide between print and television journalism. I’m not trying to say that either one of them is wrong or that one of them is more entertaining.

I’m just saying that a television news website probably won’t win a Pulitzer.

This is how online journalism will survive

Posted on by

By KYLA THORPE

There’s a lot of competition among news sources today. Whether it’s CNN sending your phone live updates or seeing the trending Tweets of the moment, a news source has to be pretty special to keep an audience.

So how would a news company stay alive, financially? When the news was only in print, it was easier for news companies to make money. Either people would buy subscriptions and have the paper delivered to their homes or they’d go to a newsstand and buy it after seeing an enticing headline.

Unfortunately, for the money-making aspect of journalism, many people now don’t have to pay to see breaking-news stories. While this is a good thing for society, to stay informed, this ties into why print journalism is going down. No one really has to pay to read the news anymore.

I am aware, though, that even when print was king, a major chunk of the paper’s income was from selling two-thirds of available space on their pages for advertising. This, I feel will keep content available online for the world to still enjoy.

Every news site today has advertising, even celebrity gossip sites. While readers are constantly jumping to different sources for information, other businesses recognize that even seeing their ad on a news site for five seconds is enough exposure for them.

Fore example, on The News York Times‘ site, AT&T is advertising itself next to the news source’s logo. Even more noticeable, on CNN’s site, the first thing that appears is a video that you then have the choice to skip after five or so seconds.

While many people can be agitated by ads, they really need to understand that advertisement is pretty much the only reason they can read the news sources they adore.

Yes, there are other profits. There are still people and businesses who invest in news companies. Also, The New York Times has a digital subscription available for their international paper for 99 cents. And then there are people who would still prefer to have the paper physically delivered to their homes.

But the winner is still advertising. Readers will most likely look at numerous sites for information, all for free. All online news sources have to do is make sure they have great content. Advertisers will gravitate towards the sources that have higher volumes, therefore taking care of the news company’s profits.

They will keep online journalism alive.

Coverage of Ultra lacks details

Posted on by

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

In 2013, about two dozen young adults were hospitalized after attending Ultra Music Festival in downtown Miami — but the media refused to cover these instances.

While rumors of overdoses, deaths and injuries rotate among numerous social media websites every year during Ultra Music Festival, no major news corporations seem to cover such events.

In order to find out whether the rumors are true, local Miami news organizations such as Miami New Times, investigated into the matter. Reporters discovered that Miami Fire Rescue did not have full information in regards to the matter other than that out of the 44 placed calls to 911, only 24 people were taken to the hospital. According to the Miami New Times:

“Police arrested 167 people at Ultra this year [in 2013], primarily for narcotics and gatecrashing. (Last year [in 2012], there were 78 arrests during the three-day event, 45 of them for narcotics, and more than 60 people were injured last year [in 2012].”

While these statistics are valid, they are not covered by the media nearly enough. People from the ages of 15 to 40 are attending this festival and many are doing so blindly of the health and safety risks the event entails. From the lack of transportation and water, to the non-existent cellular data service and overcrowding, the festival can be more dangerous than people think.

Yet, every year, thousands of electronic music fans from around the world continue to purchase $400 tickets for a three-day weekend where they most likely will get more sweat from surrounding attendees jumping to the beats of the music than they bargained for.

This weekend, March 28-30, there will most likely be ambulances on the festival grounds, but even more alarming will be the lack of reporters on the scene to document it.

America’s not-so-Secret Service

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

Recent antics of the U.S. Secret Service are no longer so secret ….

Three agents from the Secret Service were sent home from Amsterdam after one was found passed out drunk in a hotel hallway. And their activities have become international news.

An investigation is underway and the agents are blamed with “not doing more to prevent another embarrassment” for the Secret Service, as two years ago they suffered a scandal in which agents brought prostitutes back to their hotel rooms in Cartagena.

Among protecting high profile figures such as the president, the secret service also investigates crimes like counterfeit and credit card fraud.

White House Spokesperson Jay Carney said, “Generally, the President believes … that everybody representing the United States of American overseas needs to hold himself or herself to the highest standards.”

Thus, the three Secret Service agents were sent home as a disciplinary measure. Rightfully so, since their actions were somewhat shameful to the country.

However, isn’t it also a tad shameful for the news media to blatantly broadcast the incident? If America is really concerned with protecting the reputation of the Secret Service, it seems to me that they would like to keep the disciplinary measures “on the down-low.”

The federal government and president could’ve likely dealt with the three agents privately in order to avoid drawing attention to the scandal (that is, if one could call it a scandal compared to the one in Cartagena).

Of course, journalists are all for exposing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so it doesn’t surprise me that this story came out. That being said, I do think that exposing the weakness in a prestigious government agency might be unwise in a climate of international political unrest. It is suspected that the recent disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines flight may have been an act of terrorism.

I’ve usually leaned towards abridging some rights when safety is involved, but I realize how fine that line is.

Perhaps exposing the scandal will force the Secret Service to clean up their act. Freedom of press can often have a “watch dog” effect on the government.

And now that I think of it, I don’t want a sloppy Secret Service.

Taking advantage of the news

Posted on by

By NICOLE HOOD

When you read an article about something happening on the other side of the world, you don’t always know what references the author is making. This comes into play, especially today, when talking about extremist groups, past conflicts and past tensions between countries or states or cities.

While most people I know would scroll past the links describing “What the Brotherhood is,” I think those links are one of the most important things about web journalism. It’s an example of how our technology has given us such easy access to such important information — to really understanding the core and depth of articles about groups, people and places that we don’t normally learn about. Instead of skimming over important facts and definitions, we can now reach it with a click, as long as we’re not too lazy to do even that.

As an avid reader and writer growing up, I wanted to know what every word meant if I had never heard of it before. As a college student studying journalism and international studies, I wanted to know how international crises came about; what happened in the past, who did what and what that meant for international relations.

Sadly, I find that most people solely want to know what is happening right now, because they find that more important, more pressing to know, than things that have happened in the past—especially if they feel what has happened in the past is resolved. As a student I’ve learned that any conflict has a history, that historical events have created relationships between countries and people that affect what is happening today.

Is it just enough to read that one article, and pass over extra links between the paragraphs? I say no, I say that you should always read more into just the number of deaths, more than just the name of the opposing parties. Just knowing there is a conflict does not mean understanding what is happening.

Do others find that extra reading to be boring? Do I sound like that history teacher in high school that is always trying to make you understand ‘why history is so important’?

I say this because I’ve learned how you can think you know something confidently but that there are so many lives behind it, there are so many relationships that are always growing and changing and that they change what is happening every day.

There is a reason more than one journalist covers every event; they can’t say everything about it in one article. There is so much in every article about international happenings that there is always something you haven’t learned yet. Most people pass that by — and even if you think looking something up in another screen is too much to ask, journalists have linked you to plenty of information somewhere that your mouse will pass over anyways.

Those little blue links are designed to help you overcome the laziness that keeps you from taking that extra step for more information. They are there because that information is important and it gives, or comes from, a different view.

That’s what journalism is about. It’s was news is about; it’s the reason why people read the news in the first place—to get out of their bubble. They do it to know what is happening that they can’t see, that they haven’t encountered during their day. If you apply that way of thinking to learning about the world, you learn that one article is only what one other person has seen or taken an interest in. You read the news because what you can’t see is important. Do it full-heartedly.

The obsession with Flight 370

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

After Malaysia Air flight 370 went missing on March 8, the news media have been obsessed with finding it. Every TV station, network, and website offers viewers new developments, clues, and even theories at any opportunity.

The story even has celebrities captivated — Courtney Love chimed in tweeting a picture of the ocean with what appears to be oil on the surface that she thought might indicate where the plane landed. (Her theory was later rejected by crowdsourcing site, Tomnod.com).

Screen Shot 2014-03-18 at 4.57.17 PMAirline issues are often in the news, from excessive airport delays to mechanical difficulties and, unfortunately, sometimes a plane crashes. However, none of these stories make the top story of news websites for 11 consecutive days.

What makes this story so interesting is the mystery of it all. Audience attention has raised many questions: Why did the plane veer off course? Who was responsible? Was it an act of terrorism or simply a freak accident? And more importantly, why is this plane so hard to find it?

So far, many of these questions have been unanswered. The flight appeared to be on the correct course from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing until all contact was lost at 1:22 a.m. The Royal Thai Air Force radar and the Malaysian military radar were able to track the plane turning west over the Indian Ocean toward the Strait of Malacca.

Investigators theorize that the plane was intentionally steered off-course, but still have no working knowledge of the plane’s final fate.

I think it is rare and particularly interesting that a story is picked up while it has more questions than answers. It doesn’t even lend itself to news coverage well, as there is no footage of the actual plane. Newscasters can only offer the new developments and interview aviation experts, occasionally throwing in some b-roll of the Indian Ocean or the aircraft tracking system. The story has become slightly more conducive to television with the background checks on the pilots and interviews of family members. In this particular case, the lack of answers is actually what causes the story to not to be newsworthy, but to stay newsworthy for so long.

However, though Flight 370 still remains a mystery, what is not a mystery is how much the families of the missing must be suffering. The story is both a mystery and a tragedy, and as the story develops, I truly hope that the media gives due respect to those who are personally affected by it. At times it is easy to become enveloped in the conspiracy and suspense, but the media must also remember that the 227 passengers lost is more than just a number.

People continue to love Woody Allen

Posted on by

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

Film director Woody Allen has held both the most reputable and most controversial reputation in Hollywood during the past 50 years.

However, the biggest controversy to date involves a 22-year-old child molestation allegation against Allen, who is nominated for an Oscar for best original screenplay for his latest film, “Blue Jasmine.”

The scandal, which involved ex-wife Mia Farrow many years ago, was revisited in a recent open letter to The New York Times, where Dylan Farrow spoke publicly about the accusations that her adoptive father, Woody Allen, had sexually abused her when she was seven years old. “He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set,” she said in the letter. “Then he sexually assaulted me.”

While Woody Allen was neither charged nor convicted of the crime, news coverage of the controversy has left a permanent mark on his image in the public eye.

Despite the on-going media coverage of accusations and rumors, as his fans and movie connoisseurs well know, audiences worldwide have continued to adore his work, which is exemplified with his recent Oscar nomination.

It is fascinating how a person’s talent, impressive career, or honor in a field can have the magnitude to surpass all controversy.

A prime example of this type of spectacle is the infamous “Charlie Sheen meltdown” of 2011, where his multiple rehabilitation attempts led him to absolute mayhem and embarrassment — for Warner Bros., that is.

Behind all of the accusations and rumors that were being spread daily, he continued to be one of the highest paid actors of all time, and his show, “Two And a Half Men,” continued to be at the top of the ratings. In retrospect, his “breakdown” was drawing in more of an audience than ever before.

While these individuals continue to gain the power that comes with fame and success, there will always be thousands of incredible artists in the field that will never get the amount of attention they deserve. While this is no news, it is something to reflect upon this upcoming Academy Award season.

Press freedom tested in Hong Kong

Posted on by

By KERRIE HECKEL

Hong Kong is experiencing what CNN calls its all-time low in press freedom.

Historically, Hong Kong has served as the “window into China,” reporting stories about government criticism that mainland reporters could not or would not report.

However, Hong Kong is experiencing serious decline in their press freedom as journalists fall victim to being bullied out of reporting.

Protest organizer and veteran reporter Shirley Yam says headlines and complete pages have been removed from newspapers, columnists have been sacked, and interviews have been bought.

“We get calls from senior government officials, we get calls from tycoons, saying ‘we don’t want to see this in your paper,'” Yam said.

A prime example of oppression of the press in recent days is Kevin Lao.

Lao was editor for Ming Pao, a daily newspaper known for its coverage of human rights, before a Malaysian editor replaced him.

To add insult to injury, Lao was hospitalized Wednesday after being attacked with a meat cleaver. The source of Lao’s attack is unknown, however, many fear that if incidents like Lao’s aren’t addressed seriously and stopped, public fear will grow and Hong Kong’s press will be further prevented from running stories dealing with government and big business.

The issue in Hong Kong highlights the relationship between the press and its government. It seems there is a conundrum with the fact that journalists are supposed to serve the watchdog function over the same government that they depend on to give them the rights and safety to do so.

In the United States, we experience the luxury of a constitution that explicitly tells us there is freedom of press within the First Amendment. Checks and balances within the government makes sure this right is protected.

However, in places where the press is not so fortunate, being watchdog to the government can be dangerous, especially if the government doesn’t want to be monitored. This is the heart of the issue in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong legislative council member Cyd Yo told CNN, “Beijing is a control freak. It cannot bear any opposition.”

It seems to me that journalists and the public alike are on a long road for change in the special administrative region of China. While many are protesting now, what China needs is a fundamental change in how its government relates with the press and a change like this will need both time and passionate supporters.

News coverage of dangerous trends

Posted on by

By NICOLE HOOD

In the last year, CNN has covered two dangerous trends: a game called “Knockout” and another called “Neknominate.”

Knockout is a dangerous game that CNN started covering in November 2013. It entails one individual (generally in a group of teenagers) going up to a stranger and punching them with the intention of knocking them out instantaneously.

CNN has also reported that Knockout has caused more than one death in the Northeastern states of the US. Videos of teenagers doing this generally come from security cameras on streets, and news coverage showed these videos with the intention of exposing the game and impressing upon people really how lethal and irrational the game can be.

Neknominate, on the other hand, is a drinking game that has become trendy through social media. Videos are easily accessible and abundant on the internet.  Here, an individual generally downs a hefty amount of alcohol mixed with something else, takes a video of it and, upon finishing the drink, the individual nominates a friend to out-do them within the next 24 hours.

Videos show teenagers not only downing usual mixed drinks but, in an effort to out-do their friends, players have mixed in their drink with a dead mouse, goldfish, insects, engine oil and dog food. Five people have died from playing this game, all being men under the age of 30. News coverage battles social media and the spread of this openly videoed social trend.

While players of one game generally avoid social media (for the risk involved of going to jail or juvy), players of another game use social media as a form of pressure to encourage others to play. Either way, the news reporters step in not only to report what is happening but to prevent others from participating in social trends that appeal to one’s (generally teenager’s) dangerous need to prove themselves to their friends or to the public.

In my last blog post, I wrote about the dangers of news pieces including certain social topics. In this post, however, I’d like to acknowledge how using social topics in the news can put a much needed negative spin on social trends. Of course, these social trends are newsworthy partially because the harm coming from them are not temporary but rather fatal, and most players don’t realize that.

People who watch these videos of Neknominate on Facebook might see it as an exciting challenge or other, uninvolved viewers might find it fascinating that someone would drink liquor out of a toilet or successfully drink something with a dead rat in it.

The news’ video compilation presents the same content but instead of a bunch of kids sitting around a computer oohing and aahing at a friend doing something nasty, the video shows a wider audience how Neknominating is fickle and dangerous.

Sources:

Print journalism is still important

Posted on by
Reply

By KYLA THORPE

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.

A multimillion-dollar media holiday

Posted on by
Reply

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

When most people think of Valentine’s Day, the images that come to mind are chocolates, flowers, cards, and candlelit dinners—all manufactured images by advertisers and media companies that have perfected their techniques of triggering viewers’ tear ducts into consumerism. Once the holiday approaches, people are compelled to be suddenly generous and search for the ideal gift for loved ones, and it comes at a price.

The average person spends about $130 on Valentine’s Day each year, with men spending roughly double the amount of women. “The average man plans to shell out $135.35 to impress the people in his life while women only expect to spend $72.28,” stated a survey.

Advertisements continuously promote manufactured love—filled with clichéd greeting cards and abundant heart-shaped chocolates. Many people feel obligated by these unrealistic expectations portrayed through media to buy gifts, reserve dinners at fancy restaurants, and send Valentine cards to loved ones out of pure obligation to this mainstream holiday.

The Greeting Card Association states that about 190 million Valentine’s Day cards are sent each year, and that does not include the millions of cards exchanged by kids as well.

Furthermore, it is the most prosperous holiday for florists, with about 224 million roses grown every year before February. Data shows that 64 percent of men and 36 percent of women buy flowers for Valentine’s Day, according to the IPOS-Insight Floral Trends Consumer Tracking Study.

These costly expectations directly and indirectly affect relationships as well.

About six million people anticipate or plan a marriage proposal on Feb. 14 every year, creating a stigma that pressures many couples into making major decisions on a deadline. Coincidently, condom sales rapidly increase right before the holiday. According to the Indo-Asian News Service, “sales of condoms increase up to 20 percent during Valentine’s week,” which coincides with the supposed $15 million spent on infertility and pregnancy tests the following weeks after, according to The Nielsen Company.

All expenses aside, the holiday’s significance in American culture, and in cultures around the world, is founded in the precious nature of relationships—whether with a significant other, family, friends, or even colleagues and classmates.  While mainstream media have created a multimillion-dollar industry out of the holiday, Valentine’s Day is a reminder to make sure the people who mean the most in your life know they are loved. Maybe advertisers and corporations do have the right idea, after all.

Print journalism Is dead?

Posted on by
Reply

By ALEXANDRA SILVER

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.

U.S., international coverage differ

Posted on by
Reply

By MELISSA MALLIN

Growing up, my parents always watched the news. In the morning, on the way to school, before/after/sometimes during dinner, and right before bed; it was always on.

If my parents weren’t directly sitting down watching the news, it played as background noise. As a teenager, I often awoke to the deep voice of the local news anchor reporting last night’s drama. I remember thinking, “I don’t know how my parents can watch so much news, it’s such a negative and depressing way to start and end ones day.” But, for as long as my parents watched the news, I never really questioned what was being reported.

That was, until I got to college. As I got older, I started paying more and more attention to the news before concluding that most, if not all of it, was full of crap. It always seemed as though reporters weren’t telling the whole story or at least leaving out important details as to obscure the truth.

Something always seemed to be missing, you know, the part of the story that actually made sense. As I continued to grow, I began questioning the information my own country’s media was telling me. The media seems to portray America as a target and victim and in order to prevent the invasion of evil from other countries, we must go to them first and fix their wrongdoings. In the international realm, It appears as though, America has this drastically different conceited view of itself, then that of the rest of the world.

If you’ve ever been to a different country, then you probably know that citizens in most countries strongly dislike and even hate the United States for what it has become. Many people from other countries view Americans as having a materialistic, self-absorbed, ignorant culture that consumes too much, saves too little and bullies the rest of the world. In their eyes, Americans are promiscuous, lethargic, wasteful and arrogant. They believe that Americans think they know everything, believe the rest of the world should be like them and are exceedingly uninformed about politics.

In contrast, Americans view themselves as self-righteous, confident, and moral individuals that carry a sense of nationalism, individualism and religiosity. Americans believe it their duty to overly consume so the economy remains stable. As individuals, Americans tend to be egotistical, conceited, and self-reliant. We, as Americans, believe what we look like, how we dress, and what other people think of us, are much more important than the atrocities of American and/or international politics.

For instance, take a look at these American and international versions of Time magazine covers. The American version tends to the values of American lifestyles whereas the international covers focus on important issues worldwide. Topics from the American version include “The child free life,” “The science of favoritism,” “What makes school great,” “Chore Wars,” and others such as anxiety, Jay Leno, pain, and football. The same issue’s international version of the covers involved “Germany saving the Euro to save itself,””Why Germany can’t save itself,” “Pakistan’s Despair,” “Travels through Islam,” and other topics including revolution redux, the global economy one year later, last stand, and Haiti, the aftermath, respectively. As you can see, the American issues of Time magazine are drastically dumbed down and directed towards everyday life versus keeping us informed about the global issues at hand. In fact, stories featured in the international version are often never included or even mentioned in the American one.

Just compare American news sites to International ones. If you visit Fox News, the main page is filled with stories including Mark Zuckerberg’s stance on immigration, Iran’s nuclear program deal, the longest married couple in the United States, and a postal worker who was shot and killed. Compare these headlines with those featured on an international news site like RT (Russian News) and you’ll see a huge difference. RT includes a multitude of stories involving the Iran nuclear program, and headlines include “Snowden leak reveals NSA’s goal to expand surveillance,” “Crack smoking Toronto mayor more popular than Obama,” and “IRS leaves tax payers at risk for fraud”. The website contains both Russian, international, and American news and includes many stories not found on American news sites. If they are featured on an American news site, the American story is written in a way as to obscure or leave out certain facts that the international site puts forth so bluntly. In my opinion, the international site is more informational and truthful than our own American news. I’ve found more information keeping up with the international stories than I have by keeping up with my own mainstream media.

I’ve recognized this as a pattern in American journalism. Mainstream American news tends to cover less important topics than they obviously should. Our news has drifted away from global and domestic importance and evolved into another form of entertainment. The American media keeps citizens more informed about Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy and Miley Cyrus’s destructive behavior, than on investigative reports about the real issues going on in the middle east and abroad. More importantly, they ignore what’s right in front of us-our country’s own domestic self-destructive behavior.

Our society has fallen ill from its own stupidity. If we continue on this path, we will be left only with what our American media tells us. American news has evolved into yet another form of entertainment in which stories have been dumbed down to attract viewers. The American media obscures the truth, leaves out important details, and often only tells one side of the story if they include the story at all. It is my strongest recommendation that Americans start outsourcing to international media sites in order to grasp and comprehend the whole story. International media doesn’t hide or dumb down global issues in order to entertain and increase their number of readers. They report the story as it is, with collectible facts and truth, and in its full entirety. International media includes details, left out by our own media, and reports the way American media should be reported.

If we continue believing everything the American media tells us, we will lose our capability to think for ourselves and will one day be limited to receiving news the same way North Korean’s receive theirs. We will be told only what our government wants to tell us, and will be forced to live in a false reality, completely oblivious to the outside world.

It is in our greatest self-interest to prevent this from happening.

For more visit, http://livingtheamericandreamineurope.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/how-americans-see-americans/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/what-the-world-thinks-of-us_n_1631833.html.

Kennedy and changing TV journalism

Posted on by
Reply

By SHAI FOX SAVARIAU

With the JFK assassination 50th anniversary upon us today, many people are looking back on how this event has shaped history. One thing it did change was the way Americans watched TV for news.

It is said that through the coverage that CBS broadcast about McCarthyism in the 1950s, this was the rise of broadcast journalism. But the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 also made a large impact and marked the point when Americans began to get most of their news and information from television.

From the time there were reports of the first shot fired on that fateful day to days later when the funeral was broadcast live, Americans were focused on their television sets. Until this event, on-going live coverage of a major news event had not happened.

Broadcast journalism has evolved in the sense that now it follows the subject from the beginning to the end. Reports are a narrative now. It became the most accessible medium of news. (Until the Internet came to play, however.)

Kennedy had won the hearts of many Americans by using the television. Since TV was becoming more of a commodity for everyone to have in their homes, people were more in tune with Kennedy and his family and they were more aware of the Kennedys because of the images the TV provided. During the Kennedy/Nixon debates, for example, in the 1960 campaign for president, more than 70 million viewers were tuned in and this is around the time when people in the U.S. were purchasing their first television sets.

When people look back on the assassination, what is mostly remembered are the images that TV had provided at the time, which includes the youngest Kennedy child, John Jr., saluting his dead father during the funeral procession.

The arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald and his assassination by Jack Ruby was also televised that weekend. It was the first time a murder had been televised live to the nation and world. Something that was new to the world at the time.

News has always been about immediacy and accuracy but, after all this happened, it soon became more investigative and thoughtful about the events that were occurring.

These series of events would also shape coverage of the Vietnam War later in the decade as well. The advancement of technology continued to grow and the maturity of broadcast journalism did as well. It became more known that televised news was a more profitable news medium and this was the start of the decline of print journalism.

Broadcast journalism is what helped bring the American people together during that time of despair and has continued to through history and the present.

Deciding what news to broadcast

Posted on by
Reply

By MARISSA YOUNG

In my first blog post, I wrote about how news programs are becoming increasingly lenient about their definition of news.  On Monday, Al Sunshine, a former Miami broadcast journalist, spoke to one of my classes.  He brought up another issue: Do we, as journalists, give our audiences what they want or need to hear?

Audiences might want to hear about the latest celebrity gossip: who slept with whom, who’s pregnant, who was caught doing drugs in the bathroom. Other than entertainment, that news has no effect on most people’s daily lives.

But people need to hear about other issues. They need to know about unexpected weather conditions. They need to know about the latest disease outbreak. They might not want to, but they need to know what politicians are doing with their tax money (even if it isn’t scandalous).

So how do you decide what to give audiences?  An obvious solution would be to air both types of stories.  With time and space limits, though, that is impractical. Companies air stories that are of popular interest because they attract the most viewers. However, when it comes down to it, the need to know about certain issues trumps media companies’ concerns about viewership and profitability.

Sometimes, stories can be an issue of life or death. For example, if a certain toy has been recalled because of a toxic part, parents need to know to take it away from their children.

If there is time to air only one story, one that is either popular or critical, is there really an option here?

Could any journalist with a sense of human dignity choose better ratings over the chance to save someone’s life?  Is it better to risk concealing potentially lifesaving information than to risk boring some audience members for a couple minutes?

There is a reason it’s called NEEDING to know, and we must remember this when deciding which news to broadcast.  This way, there will be no guilt hanging over journalists’ heads if they do their best to tell viewers anything that might be vital.

Facebook: Social media site for news

Posted on by
Reply

By REBECCA FERNANDEZ

Social media are allowing for news-related content to reach more screens faster and easier.

For those seeking news, Pew Research found that 65 percent of Americans consume news on at least one social networking website. Of these Americans, Facebook is the choice for news consumption. This also holds true for users who consume media on multiple social networking sites. Right now, Facebook is the go to social network for news consumption. That means about half of the users are getting news on the site. That beats out all of the other social networks by a large margin.

What we’re seeing is a shift in news consumption. Information needs to be mobile-friendly, engaging, short and to the point. While Facebook can achieve all of that, it’s struggling to keep its younger base.

The younger audiences have fled away from Facebook because new social media like Instagram, Twitter, and Vine have emerged and offer newer, fresher ideas. Facebook has been generally the same since 2008.

Social media can promote kindness

Posted on by
Reply

By ADAM HENDEL

Aside from the gossip and irrelevant entertainment, social media have allowed greater numbers of people participate and come together for good reasons. Social media have become a huge influence for partaking in charitable causes.

Parents complain that kids waste too much time on Facebook, but it has become necessary to follow social media for event planning. Word of mouth and the news are not as effective to raise public awareness on their own.

Michael Scott is a 5-year-old boy with Leukemia who was able to live out his dream thanks to the use of various social media sources that advertised his big event. According to The Huffington Post, Michael’s dream to be a super hero came true on Nov. 15 as San Francisco transformed into Gotham for a day. Make-a-Wish estimated that more than 7,000 people participated in the event.

The attendance was great thanks awareness on Facebook, Twitter, and other social sources. With almost 486,000 followers on Facebook, and 140,500 on Twitter, the possibility for a huge crowd was a probability. Many important people caught wind of Batkid’s charity. Even Barack Obama posted his own social input on vine by saying “Way to go Michael, way to save Gotham!”.

Social media are not only making community participation in charitable causes more prevalent, but also stories of random acts of kindness have the ability to rub off on their viewers now more than ever. For a lot of people the story is not directly read from the news station, but rather heard of when re-posted on Facebook or Twitter.

It is popular to post videos of random acts of kindness in social media threads. The videos are so popular that many have drawn enough attention to be news worthy. The Huffington Post wrote an article titled, “YouTube Pranksters Behind VitalyzedTv give Homeless Man New Teeth in Touching Video” in which a perfect example of one of the heart warming videos is featured.

People following the news, social media, or the YouTube channel have commented on the inspiration the feel from the video post. I believe that people posting videos of themselves being generous, even if only for publicity, are good influences by provoking the thought that we at home should be doing generous deeds too.

Social media can abused for its slander and extensive over-use by youth, but it can be used for good. I think it has opened doors that will ideally make people want to be more involved in positive community causes or just helping out someone in need.

New PlayStation conquers nation

Posted on by
Reply

By AXEL TURCIOS

Late Thursday night, long lines of tech fans waiting for the PlayStation 4 release were recorded outside of game stores around the nation.

Fans had been waiting for more than a year for this big event that promised to bring the latest in gaming advancement.

From new games to a better and faster console, Sony, a tech giant, gave buyers the most advanced in technology, just a week before competitor Microsoft launches the new Xbox One.

In fact, both consoles are promising many new features, but the Sony strategically put on sale its own at $100 less than Microsoft.

Making it available for $399 and breaking records after selling more than one million consoles within the first 24 hours.

For many, this means a war that is being declared, for others, a battle that is just starting to launch.

“So far so good, the HD graphics and the gaming experience make it a great deal,” Claudio Garcia, a gamer, said after obtaining his own PlayStation 4.

Garcia, like many others, had to wait a long time to get their hands on the new technology.

As for now the fever for the new PlayStation remains hotter than ever in this part of earth; however, fans around the globe still wait for what so many call the new era of gaming.