Tag Archives: Television news

Satire shouldn’t be our only news source

Posted on by

By DYLAN WEEMS

Midterm elections are finally over. The Republicans now control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. While this isn’t really a problem, the way that the news covered the elections was abysmal. It seemed like the only thing that the news cares about was how the president was going to get along with Congress if Republicans won the majority. Policies and state legislature seats seemed to go unnoticed by everyone—everyone except the big three satirical news shows: “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report” and “Last Week Tonight.”

While these shows bring significant amounts of laughter to millions across the nation, it is a little sad that they seem to be the most legitimate news source at times. They seem to highlight the true issues of the elections in a way that people want to watch. I will admit that due to the fact that “Last Week Tonight” airs on HBO, John Oliver has a little more leeway to peel back the layers of politics without worrying about angering sponsors.

However, that is an issue in and of itself in other news organizations. They are so afraid of angering candidates that would pay money to put advertisements on their channel that they don’t ever delve into the real issues of elections.

Satirical news is fantastic and entertaining, but it needs to be balanced by true, in-depth journalism that pulls no punches.

The age of 24-hour news filler

Posted on by

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

News used to be delivered in the form of daily newspapers. First with cable television and increasingly so with the Internet, coverage has become nonstop. 24-hour news channels are constantly on the air. Ironically, as Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, authors of “Warp Speed,” comment, news is delivered less completely as a result of 24-hour coverage because stories are now often presented in little pieces interspersed with speculation.

The concept of newsgathering is becoming distorted. What once valued significance and thoroughness becomes a waiting game with superficial filler. This is heightened by the desire to be broadcast live. Reporters may stand around waiting for breaking news to occur.  As Richard Sambrook and Sean McGuire at theguardian.com noted, “when a presenter feels compelled to say, ‘Plenty more to come … none of it news … but that won’t stop us,’” while waiting for the royal birth in 2013, “then there really is a problem.”

This deterioration is further driven by the desire to be first. The Internet enables videos and other forms of communication to be transmitted instantly. It is a race between channels to be the first to air breaking news. This has ethical implications since speed often correlates with inaccuracy. The traditional function of journalism, which is to share true, reliable accounts, is sometimes replaced by journalism in which the information is published before being verified.

Not all inaccuracies can be easily erased. Such was a case with the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. The media repeatedly misreported information in the rush to share new discoveries. In addition to erroneously reporting 12 dead, The New York Post linked Salah Barhoun to the attack. The innocent 17-year-old was featured front page as one of two “bag men,” suggesting that he was a suspect in the bombing. You can imagine the toll this false accusation took on his reputation, which may follow him throughout his life.

Should we be watching news or fluff?

Posted on by

By EMILY JOSEPH

While watching the 6 a.m. news today, I noticed how much of the newscasts, particularly local newscasts, are filled with edited packaged stories. These are stories that are prepared in advance and are not time sensitive, including interviews, event features and pieces that require less in-depth journalism.

Essentially, they could air any time that week probably.

While these are nice additions to news shows and can lighten up a hard news day, should they actually be classified as “news”? At 6 a.m. I saw a story about the new Trader Joe’s opening and one about a new store at Disney where children can go for “Frozen” makeovers (like the characters from the movie “Frozen”).

Not only are these features very “fluffy,” but they seem to take up more time in a 30-minute newscast than hard news or breaking news stories. I understand and accept that the morning news shows (“Today,” “Good Morning America,” and so forth) are usually a combination of feature and hard news, but now that local news is following that path, I think enough is enough.

Some people only have 30 minutes in the morning to watch the news and I don’t think hearing about the new Trader Joe’s is at the top of their lists of concerns.

News should be for everyone

Posted on by

By DYLAN WEEMS

The local television news is suffering. I’m not entirely sure what happened to it, either.

Out of a 22-minute newscast, it feels like 20 of them are reporting “who was killed where?” To me, that isn’t news at all. The newsworthy part is whether or not the person who did it is still loose or in custody.

I think it is more than a little ridiculous that, when someone is killed, reporters interview the family about how they feel. Obviously they are all upset, but their loss does not have an effect on the majority of the community.

I will admit that this sounds incredibly cold-hearted. However, in my view, local news should be spending a lot more time on the policies of local government or reporting about the status of small businesses in the area. These are things that concern everyone living in the area of the broadcast and should be treated as such.

Taking the time to explain everything to the community can only help in the long run. The policy that “if it bleeds, it leads” needs to change, at least locally. This also goes back to fear mongering. It makes people believe that the community is in worse shape than it is in reality. I’m not saying that the news should absolutely ignore crime news, but I am saying that it shouldn’t take up the majority of the news.

There needs to be a higher standard.

Professionalism (or lack thereof) in Miami

Posted on by

By KACIE NELSON

What is the job of a broadcast news anchor? I think we all agree that it is to entertain but, most importantly, it is to inform the rest of us about the most recent and relevant events occurring in the world everyday.

Here’s the problem. Miami’s news station, Channel 10, has completely lost the balance of informing while entertaining, and thus in my opinion has lost any reputability.

As I watched the newscast this evening, the first things that struck me were the female news anchors’ outfits. One of them was wearing an almost-too-tight, bright purple dress during her report. I was a bit put off, but let it slide.

Next they showed another female reporter and her outfit, in my humble opinion, was inexcusable! She wore a bright pink, tight skirt with a black sleeveless top, made of lace.

What?!

When did it become okay to throw out the rule of dressing professionally to your workplace just because we live in Miami? As far as I’m concerned, it’s not okay. If I am expected to listen to the news that you are reporting, it would be nice to not be distracted by your inappropriate outfit.

Furthermore, the writing behind the newscasts and the stories were just sub-par at best. Multiple times the reporters used slang terms or reported their story in such a gossip-y way that it made it seem invalid.

For example, during one story about the manager of the Miami club that recently had a shooting that resulted in many injured minors, the reporter explained that their camera crew went to her Miami home and “knocked on the door but no one answered.”

They proceeded to show the reporter knocking on the front door of a residence and receiving no answer.

Then they explained that when they finally did find the manager and asked her questions, “All they got were dirty looks” and proceeded to show the owner giving the camera dirty looks. They showed this clip roughly seven times.

It was clear that there was no substance to their story, but for lack of other content they proceeded to run it. This is just not acceptable.

My concern with Channel 10 news is that people watch it to be informed about current events and not to see cute clubbing outfits on the anchors and reporters. And not to see poor quality news stories.

Inside the CNN studio tour

Posted on by

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

One place certainly every aspiring journalist should visit is Atlanta. The capital of, and the most populous city, in Georgia is home to massive media operations and newsrooms power houses recognized worldwide.

It was in this city were the legendary Ted Turner would begin the Turner Broadcasting System and  establish the headquarters of the infamous “Cable News Network”; better recognized today by the simple acronym of CNN .

These days, the CNN Center is adjacent to the Centennial Olympic Park in downtown Atlanta and is open to anyone who is down for a taste of what real world journalists undergo on a day-to-day basis. It allows visitors to get a feel for what goes on behind the scenes during news gathering and broadcasting as well as an insight into the various CNN networks. Notably, the center is responsible for instructing the ordinary citizen on how dignifying the world of news coverage and reporting can be.

431929_10152751416178134_8760692127951284375_n

CNN center: home to the world’s largest freestanding escalator

Along the approximately 55-minute guided walking tour; one is able to peek into the newsroom, control room, studios and headquarters main hallways.

The tour begins on a long ride up the world’s largest freestanding escalator as recognized by Guinness World Records. The 196-feet long and eight stories high escalator used to take visitors up to “The World of Sid and Marty Krofft,” an indoor amusement park, but is now CNN’s main newsroom.

You’ll find a replica of a CNN newsroom studio set when landing on the base after that long flight up. While you are waiting for the tour to begin, you’ll be able to videotape or photograph yourself broadcasting breaking news stories as an anchor.

As the tour begins, you’ll access a control room replica of the headquarters’ cable-TV news service, which is actually located on the same spot three stories below. Guests are instructed on the main concepts and activities that take place under this technical hub, allowing them to experience the behind-the-scenes elements of a news broadcast.

10441958_10152751416883134_8403776665373654303_nNext, you’ll visit one of the many CNN spin-off cable news channel studios, HLN’s (“Headline News”) Studio 7E.

This special-effects studio demonstrates visitors the technology that goes into the production of news. For example, the use of a teleprompter, on-air graphics with the aid of a green screen and high-tech touch screen are explained.

Although the tour will involve traveling down many levels of stairs, the following station is totally worthy to get to. A glass-wall on the building’s main hallway will allow you to catch a panoramic view of the main CNN studio, Studio 7. Actually, this is the largest studio CNN has ever built anywhere in the world and, if you are lucky enough you might even catch someone working on air.

10665667_10152751416843134_638452646018851032_nAfter touring the on-camera presence sites you’ll be redirected to the equivalent of a “chem-lab” for a journalist; the newsroom.

Here you are able to take a bird’s-eye view of both the main CNN and HNL newsroom as people downstairs are on working-mode. This is actually were the magic happens, because it is here were writers compose the news scripts after long processes of gathering and verifying information. In other words they are the responsible for the accuracy and relevance of the facts that households will eventually receive.

Exiting through another of the building hallways you will soon find yourself in front of other of the CNN en Espanol and HNL’s studios were, again if lucky, you might be able to catch an anchor and support crew on duty.

Soon after, you are dismissed, but not after being thanked for your visit. Of course, then you are redirected to the souvenir store where you are able to find amazing merchandise all encrypted on one way or another with the iconic reddish acronym.

Although such tour might sound as fun, it is really just the simplest of the bunch the place has to offer.  If you prefer a more extensive (and therefore expensive) VIP tour, you would actually get the chance to step out onto the main CNN newsroom floor and explore production areas that are not normally accessible to the public.

There’s also the possibility for you to go behind the scenes of HLN’s popular morning show, “Morning Express with Robin Meade” on another of the packages.

10609530_10152751415863134_9059171804339138202_nNo matter your choice, visiting this news landmark will definitely add to your knowledge and experience.

If you are not news savvy, you’ll learn the basics and, if an aspiring journalist, it will complement your understandings and light a beacon of persistence and perseverance to get a job on the spot (because it sure did in me!).

Getting to go inside Atlanta’s CNN headquarters is certainly an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Not to mention a game changer.

Why is Miley Cyrus a CNN headline?

Posted on by

By KYLA THORPE

I find it pretty ridiculous that on CNN’s website, one of the top headlines of the day is how Miley Cyrus is facing a long recovery, following an “extreme allergic reaction.”

Yes, the trusted news site is still very good about reporting what matters: The sunken South Korea ferry, the latest development in Ukraine, and so forth.

But why Miley Cyrus? I know it’s not fun to have an allergic reaction to anything, I’m not saying that whatever she’s going through isn’t worth anything, but is it worth being a top headline on a major news source’s website?

I think it looks ridiculous that CNN is reporting on serious world matters and decides to include a slightly reckless celebrity who’s having a personal medical issue.

I’m sure that CNN feels as though it’s okay to post things like this. The site is hoping to draw a younger demographic to the site. Honestly though, if I’m looking for the latest on Miley Cyrus, or any other celebrity, I’m going to go to a trusted source for celebrity news.

I’ll admit that the demographic interested in Cyrus will go to CNN to read about her, but those readers are probably going to leave the site soon after, if they even read the full article.

If CNN’s trying to keep up, this could soon become problematic. Who knows, next month they could be reporting on the next world crisis and somewhere else on the page there will be a featured article investigating why a certain actress looked so terrible on the red carpet.

The people who genuinely read CNN for its intense news stories are probably not interested in how Cyrus is feeling. I read the article. All it talks about is her having a sinus infection on her risqué concert tour and then taking an antibiotic that gave her the allergic reaction.

Please, CNN, this isn’t the kind of news that deserves this attention on your site. Maybe if Cyrus went to a third world country and did some meaningful community service, then it would be warranted as a good human interest feature. And still, I would feel like that would be a publicity stunt. Being on such a broad world stage, CNN should be careful.

Sometimes it only takes one to start something and then everyone’s doing it.

Colbert shocks media as new host

Posted on by

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

Since the announcement of David Letterman’s retirement from “late night” last week, rumors of who the new host for “The Late Show” on CBS would be went viral. After much speculation about Chelsea Handler and SNL alumni Amy Poehler, the network confirmed on Wednesday morning that the host would be Stephen Colbert.

This, unsurprisingly, took the news and entertainment media by storm.

What is so refreshing and bold of CBS’ choice is the host himself — he’s a satirist, comedian, writer, host, and producer — not many hosts have that on their resume. The network is hoping he will be the perfect competition for the neighborly network of NBC, which offers “The Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon and “Late Night” with Seth Meyers in its lineup — all three being hosts who represent a younger demographic of political, progressive, comedic, and sharp audience members.

In a classic “Colbert-esque” public statement, the comedian said,

“Simply being a guest on David Letterman’s show has been a highlight of my career. “I never dreamed that I would follow in his footsteps, though everyone in late night follows Dave’s lead. I’m thrilled and grateful that CBS chose me. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go grind a gap in my front teeth.”

This latest shake up in late night has received mostly positive reviews from the media and from social media, which is where I first heard of the news. However, Colbert’s infamous character from the show he hosted on Comedy Central for the past two decades, “The Colbert Report,” was quite a controversial one.

Suey Park, a writer and activist, who wrote an opinion post on Time.com about the matter, stated that,

“The main thing we’ve learned from #CancelColbert, and the outcome we now see as Colbert is elevated once again, is that the belittling the voices, activism, and writing of women of color is a profitable venture.”

Colbert’s portrayal as a satirical conservative has caused him to be as hated as he is loved due to his racist, stereotypical, and prejudice remarks—all made under the assumption that he is playing a “character” but, after 20 years, this has become a blurred line.

One thing is for sure, he will definitely be stirring up the “plain as toast” comedy routine that is “The Late Show” and the media are sure to love it.

How Aereo could change television

Posted on by

By JENNA JOHNSON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March Madness ratings grow

Posted on by

By LONELLE LEWIS

The second round of the NCAA tournament showed higher ratings than last year’s coveted March Madness tournament. It is off to the best ratings in 23 years.

According to Nielsen ratings group, Turner and CBS Sports saw a three percent growth from last year to 6.0 nationwide household ratings this year.

Coverage of the first full day of games made NCAA tournament history as there wereNCAA-March-Madness-Live-iPad-app four overtime games. One game that took place during the day was No.11 seed Dayton’s upsetting No. 6 seed Ohio State.

This was a game where many predicted Ohio State would win by a considerable amount. Viewers, who might not have watched the entire game, may have tuned in during overtime. Games between noon to 4:45 pm saw a 12 percent increase from last year.

The NCAA has made games more accessible via the web and mobile devices which may have boosted the ratings. The overall tournament average rating is up eight percent from last year.

The Golden Rule for TV news

Posted on by

By KERRIE HECKEL

Recently I watched a newscast where there was an abrupt shift between a package covering different theories on what happened on flight 370 to another announcing that Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher were expecting twins.

I was a bit taken aback that the station had scheduled a story on a tragic event to precede such a perky report on celebrities. To me, it felt that by grouping the two so closely together Flight 370 had been belittled.

It was as though the disappearances and possible deaths of these people was just another human-interest story.

My viewing experience got me wondering how I would feel if a friend or family member of mine had been on that flight and how I would feel if I was watching that station. Surely the event would be devastating to me and to see it taken so lightly by others would be sickening.

So why then did the news station set their schedule up in this way?

The story itself was reported professionally. I don’t think the news station meant to be malicious.

What happened was a crime of carelessness.

In the news station’s defense, Flight 370 has been in the news for quit some time now and it is natural to be slightly desensitized after hearing about an event over and over, and for journalists, who hear and report about tragedies on a daily basis viewing tragedy from an unemotional place is all the more natural.

Still it is important for journalists to remember their audiences do not share that same nonchalant attitude toward death. Especially if their audience could include family members of those involved.

In the case I address now, Flight 370 could have been reported much more tastefully had the scheduling been amended. Yet journalists could avoid issues like this one all together by adopting the golden rule and report as they would like to be reported to.

Separating fact, fiction of Flight 370

Posted on by

By JOHN RIOUX

Nearly two weeks ago, Malaysian Airlines flight 370 disappeared with 239 passengers on board.

Information regarding the flights whereabouts has become some of the most sought after daily news. Many different theories and conspiracies have been brought to the public’s eye through various methods of news.

Networks such as CNN have been dedicating hours upon hours to this single issue, endlessly talking about a discussion that has no concrete answer.

It is important that the media focuses their theories based on certainties that have been given rather than headlines that will receive views.

The fact that there is no definitive answer yet on where the plane is located gives journalists the opportunity to write stories they know will garner attention. Rather than pushing their readers to known truths, many are spreading conspiracies that often times have no basis.

While I understand those in the media are under heavy pressure to entice readers to their page, spreading fictional work is not the way to go about it.

People are drawn to abnormal headlines as they want to be apart of something that has never happened before. There are many people who are hoping the disappearance of the plane is a conspiracy, as numerous stories would come from it.

While nobody truly knows where this flight is, I hope news networks and journalists alike stop pushing their own personal agendas. It is tedious to watch analysts argue about something they know very little accurate information about.

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.

Risk gene tied to Olympic athletes?

Posted on by
Reply

By CLARA BENDAYAN

With the Olympic Winter Games well under way, it seems fitting to draw comparisons with its counterpart: the Olympic Summer Games.

While the summer games boast more athletes and a greater variety of events, the winter games exhibit an uncanny amount of risk-taking.

We watch 15-year-olds being thrown feet off the ice and perform pirouettes in the air, all while placing their safety in their partners hands.

Our jaws drop as we watch 17-year-olds ski 90 miles an hour down a steep hill that spans more than four football fields in length.

Our knuckles clench and turn white as we anxiously grip the edges of our seats while watching 26-year-olds rocket down icy sheets with their faces just mere inches from the solid surface.

While watching, most people are thinking something along the lines of “Are these people crazy?” Or “I would never be able to do that.”

The risks these athletes take on a daily basis are monumental and can be fatal in many cases.

Is this need for speed inherent? Former alpine ski racer, Todd Brooker seems to think so. He thinks “it’s just part of your life. It’s something you’re born with.”

In fact, he may actually be onto something.

For the past two decades, scientists have known of the existence of a risk gene, and they say that one in five of us possess the genetic marker.

Steve Perino, the ski reporter for NBC at the Sochi games, mentioned speed addiction in his coverage. Science supports this phenomenon by claiming that it is based on the chemical reaction that this type of risk taking behavior produces in the brain.

It would seem to make sense that something ingrained in our biological makeup would be the force behind some people’s complete lack of fear when it comes to performing tasks that most humans wouldn’t dare try.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a physician who covers health and medicine for NBC, said, “There’s a reason why some of us are spectators and others are Formula One drivers.”

How else can it be explained that some people perform death-defying acrobatics on a sharply inclined snowy hill that’s more than 30 stories tall, while others can’t even jump off a diving board that’s four feet off the ground?

In my opinion, it seems to make sense that there is a scientific reason as to why many of us are spectators, while a select few of us are in Sochi right now skiing down steep hills at over 80 mph. However, it also makes me think about how it will affect the games in an ethical way if people begin to get tested for such a gene.

The brilliance of the Olympics is watching teenagers and adults alike performing acts that many of us will never come close to executing. It’s seeing how they grew up miles or continents away from us and one day decided to pick up a snowboard when they were toddlers.

There’s an outpouring of heartfelt stories where we see athletes as two-year-olds diving into a pool for the first time, realizing they had a love for the water and then watching them stand on the podium with a gold medal in hand years later — proud of themselves, their determination, their hard work, and most importantly confident in their choice of pursuing these sports.

If people are able to test themselves for the gene, what’s going to happen if the only Olympians we see are those who tested positively and use that fact as their sole motivation? Will we still admire their courageousness and passion?

While very interesting, I believe that this gene may rid the Olympic Games of its very essence — becoming an athlete based on passion, love and dedication to the sport. Because you believe that you are capable of defying odds and taking risks. Not because some machine confirmed that you’re genetically made for something greater.

So what’s the final verdict? Can this extraordinary defiance of fear be founded upon science? Are Olympians destined to become risk-takers from birth? Is there a concrete, scientific reason that explains why we don’t all become Olympians? And most importantly, what will happen to the Olympics if people begin to test themselves for the risk gene?

The Sherman effect in sports journalism

Posted on by
Reply

By RYAN HENSELER

As most know, last Sunday the Seattle Seahawks emerged as Super Bowl champions, manhandling the AFC champion Denver Broncos, 43-8. The win was largely thanks to the defense, particularly the secondary, nicknamed the Legion of Boom (L.O.B). The unit has been touted recently as one of the greatest defenses in NFL history. However, arguably the best player on that defense, CB Richard Sherman, is also undoubtedly the most controversial figure in the game today.

Sherman made national headlines due to his postgame interview following the NFC Championship game, an event in which he made a game-saving play to help the Seahawks defeat the San Fransisco 49ers. When Erin Andrews asked Sherman to analyze the final play, he forcefully yelled at the camera, “I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me! … Don’t you ever open your mouth about the best, or Imma shut it for you real quick! L.O.B!”

Obviously, this response is not typical for a professional athlete in a post-game interview. However, it raises the question, should it be? Most players are taught by their organizations to speak to reporters in near clichés and give simple answers that are seen as more professional. For example, a more common answer to Andrews’ question would be, “I was just trying to make a play and I’m glad my teammate was able to come down with the interception. We played a great game today and the 49ers are a great team.”

Although something to that effect would be a typical answer, it is questionable whether that is all that the player would really like to say. The reason that sports in general, and the NFL in particular, are so popular and exciting to watch is the intensity and passion displayed by the players during every single play. When you think about it, it is a weird concept to ask the players to shift out of hyper-competitive mode into interview mode so soon after the game is over.

Would the game not be that much more interesting if more post-game interviews were honest and candid like Sherman’s? It would add a whole new element to the game for the fans, who are rarely really able to see the trash-talking and personal interactions between opposing players that go on between the lines.

Even Andrews herself, who many thought would be troubled by the incident, was very supportive of Sherman, saying, “I wish more athletes would be like that. We want someone to lose their minds like that.”

Although it is unlikely that most coaches, particularly old-school coaches like the New England Patriots’ Bill Belichick, will allow their players to speak this way to the media, it will be interesting to see if there are any even minor changes in the way that players handle reporters next season. If there are, and fiery interviews like Sherman’s become more commonplace, we could be seeing the start of a completely new style of sports journalism.

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.

News should report 3-D printing risk

Posted on by
Reply

By ADAM HENDEL

The innovation of 3-D printing and introducing it to the general public raised concern in the news for a while. Reports initially said this it is something about which to be concerned. From the YouTube videos I have seen and posts I’ve read, the capability to make homemade weapons and paraphernalia is easily achievable.

On Nov. 11, CNN doubted the serious risk of introducing 3-D printers to the public in an article titled,  “Texas Company makes metal guns with 3-D printer.”

The article acknowledges the potential for fear that criminals will be able to obtain modern weaponry without leaving their homes. However, the article dismisses the idea by saying that the printers and supplies used to make the 3-D parts are too expensive for the average citizen.

I disagree though, it is only a matter of time before the cost for the process will be affordable and will replace the printers we have in our offices.

The company featured in the article claims to use a very expensive 3-D printer. The basic model printers cost only a few thousand dollars and still produce very accurate printing. It is an amazing innovation and like the article mentions, it is a viable option for commercial use, but it still poses threats.

In May, Cody Wilson, 25, a member of a small non-profit group called Defense distributed posted instructions on how to an exact working replica of a modern handgun. The group also posted a video of a live firing with the homemade gun on the group’s website. The instructions on the Internet were taken down after the US state department sent a cease-and-desist letter. If there wasn’t such a serious concern, why was their group so tightly monitored

These printers will be advantageous to business owners and production of goods, but it still is a scary thing. even though some analysts have dismissed it, there is no denying the use of these printers for crime.

Reporters’ impact before a big storm

Posted on by
Reply

By DANIELLE COHEN

Miami is one of the major cities in the United States to have a history greatly impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms. As a result, the upcoming end of the hurricane season is a big deal. Hurricane season ends on Nov. 30 and, until then, many Miami residents are often extremely cautious of approaching storms and warnings.

As many Miami residents were starting to believe the rest of the Miami hurricane season was in the clear, subtropical storm formed in the northern Atlantic Ocean on Monday. At approximately 5 p.m. the subtropical storm was about 650 miles southeast of Bermuda. The storm had maximum sustained winds of 60 miles per hour moving northwest at nine miles per hour.

Reports from the National Hurricane Center announced that the storm is supposed to head north on Tuesday and later that evening turn to the northeast.

Some strengthening is expected to occur over the next day or two and this storm could near hurricane strength by Tuesday afternoon.

With all of this going on in today’s world, it is hard to think about the world without reporters informing the public about approaching storms or hurricanes.

The information before a storm allows people to protect themselves and their family by taking  precautionary steps to prepare for a hurricane or tropical storm. In severe cases reports could even convince people to evacuate the area. These measures not only saves lives but it helps people protect their homes and belongings beforehand.

Reporters not only help protect the people and their belongings that could be affected by the storms but also the areas economy. Reports suggest that filling up on gas, food, water, batteries, and flashlights and other objects are extremely important before a storm. When reporters report a storm there becomes a surplus in the economy before the storm and a high demand for these items at local stores.

Not only could reports help save people’s lives and have an influence on the economy, but also they influence the employment world. As a result of reports, schools may be cancelled therefore parents may not attend work and teachers may have days off. This could simply be a result of a report of a storm made on the news and may potentially not even be accurate. Schools may be able to stay in session causing adults to attend their jobs.

Storm reports hold great importance and can greatly impact people, the economy, and the amount of local students attending school and residents attending work.

Pilot’s announcement causes panic

Posted on by
Reply

By AXEL TURCIOS

Last week, passengers from Southwest Airlines flight 3426 lived their worst nightmare when they heard the captain saying the plane was going down.

According to passenger Shelley Willis, who spoke to CNN,  the announcement at first sounded like a joke, but then it was terror that took over.

“He said, ‘We’re going down.’ And everyone is looking around like, ‘is this a joke? Is he serious?’ And then you felt the nosedive.” Willis was saying.

Based on later reports, the captain had apparently been working on a plan with flight attendants after getting an alert prompting irregular cabin pressure. While doing so, he accidentally activated the PA system letting everyone on board hear those horrifying words.

The Boeing 737 aircraft, took off from Tampa to Raleigh Durham International Airport in North Carolina.

Willis, who is a nurse, said that the frightening drop that occurred at about 100 miles from the airport, gave a panic attack to the first-time flyer seated next to her.

Could this have really made an impact on the passengers’ lives?

Many news media outlets were saying that many of the flyers were complaining about the way the captain handled the incident. Others were speculating about possible future lawsuits demanding compensation after the “uneasy feelings” experienced.

At the end, the aircraft was leveled out and landed safely at the original destination.

Southwest Airlines said in a statement; “flight 3426 experienced a ‘maintenance alert’ that was resolved at 25,000 feet.”

As of now, questions are still to be answered, but the fact is that things like these may scare the heck out of anyone. Probing that flying is not for everyone because when you step inside a plane you are not 100 percent sure you’ll step out.

Think about it next time you decide to board a flight to London. Why? Flying from Miami takes almost nine hours to cross the Atlantic Ocean to reach the European continent.

For those passengers who experienced terror aboard flight 3426, might take a little bit more than nine hours to actually step inside an aircraft once again.