I'm sure we all remember the "Louisville Purge" scare that took place about a month ago, as it raved social media for about a solid week or two and even grabbed attention of national news corporations. But amidst the many organizations that reported on this case, our local Wave 3's memorable coverage of this story really stood out in my mind; like a sore thumb. As I delved deeper into the realm of Wave 3's coverage, their techniques that could be better worded as violations (of the 9 Principles and 7 Yardsticks of Journalism) were evidently much more severe than at first glance.
The first misleading detail that I noticed was the title of one of the articles produced by Wave 3 that I had found: "Threats based on movie taken seriously by police". You can tell right away that this title did not have any informative words as to exactly what was being "taken seriously", meaning it lacked key information that should be highlighted in a headline. And though Wave 3 may have seen this as some sort of method to attract readers due to their ambiguity, I just see this as for what it really is: a foreshadowing of a further violation of the Explanation Principle. As the article went on, Wave 3 did not give any particular "who" or "how" that may have caused this circulating story and only discussed the thought of impending danger by police. Without these further crucial details that their readers definitely needed to be aware of at that time, they proved their violation of the Explanation Principle even more so.
As I went on to find another key article about the Louisville Purge published by Wave 3, I found that the organization had actually managed to violate two of the Principles and Yardsticks in one report. As it happened, in this newer article, Wave 3 had finally given out the pivotal information on how the Louisville Purge was just a hoax and had began through the social media account of a high school student native to Louisville. But the initial feature of their article that I had noticed gave away their violation of the Enterprise Yardstick: the time the story was posted.
At roughly 1 a.m. on August 16th, nearly three days after their first article on this news story had been published, Wave 3 gave out the information that would have saved hundreds of readers from anxiety and worry if provided at an earlier date. But they didn't just release these details after a long period of time, they also released it during the time that the "Louisville Purge" was said to be taking place. Imagine being about 5 excruciating hours into the timespan of this event, with every window, shutter, and door of your home locked up and you huddled in the corner of your basement; imagine receiving an alert from Wave 3 saying not to worry, it was all just a hoax and you can go about your normal lives without a single care of the matter. Wouldn't you have wanted to be informed a tad bit sooner?
The second violation committed was well-defined as I read further and finished this particular article. Like stated beforehand, Wave 3 had indeed provided new vital details that clarified this story, but they had not provided any sign of a source or given credit to another organization that had found the story prior. We know that the story was not solved by them due to how their more informative article was posted at a very late point in time in correlation with the Louisville Purge, and it should also be noted that the actual (original) source that cracked this case was Manual High School's online student news publication, Manual Redeye. This means that Wave 3 could have broken the Verification Principle or the Context Yardstick or even possibly both. They also mentioned that crime in Louisville (that had hit its peak 6+ months ago according to the date provided in their article) had been the reason for such strong police concern. But despite their claim and how simple it could have been, they did not provide a source of an article that speaks of these outbreaks of violence that could have informed their readers in a more in depth light for the reasoning of the police's actions for this event.
At the end of the day, Wave 3's violations likely could have been easily prevented. Their credibility as a source for news could have been kept in tact if they had simply provided credit to the original source of their content. And if they were to try having stronger measures taken to carry out their investigative journalism, they could find both the answers and sources they need immediately through the work they do and be able to provide it to the public in a timely, relevant manner. These possibilities for improvement on their [Wave 3's] part may seem to only be scraping the surface, but when it comes to expectations for journalism and the principles and yardsticks, the basics must be covered in order to receive the response and feedback that may be desired.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Response to Sylvia's Blog Post: The Printing Press
I really enjoyed this particular post by Sylvia because her musings on the Catholic Church and deceit through how many were illiterate before the printing press have a very distinct reality. I can completely agree with Sylvia on this topic. It is very true that many more people became educated with the newfound mass production of books through the improved printing press by Gutenberg, and through this people were also opened up to so many other opportunities and ideas of their own. And in a way, we can really thank the printing press for so many things beyond just literacy because literacy allows us to understand and comprehend, which allows us to think and develop our own opinions, which allows us to become and define our own person, and that's probably one of the most important contributions to diversity in our world.
If you would like to know more about Sylvia's entry, be sure to check out her actual blog post through the following link: http://sylviasjournalism.blogspot.com/2014/09/class-response-printing-press.html
If you would like to know more about Sylvia's entry, be sure to check out her actual blog post through the following link: http://sylviasjournalism.blogspot.com/2014/09/class-response-printing-press.html
Response to Laurie's Blog Post: Literacy IS Power
Laurie's correlation between books, literacy, and tyrants really opened my eyes. I had never realized how often that this theme of a ruler taking away sources of education for a society seems to occur in modern day books to express tyranny. I found it a bit ironic, though nonetheless true, as to how we've been reading this theme in pop-culture books so often and probably not registering how we are using our literacy to learn about illiteracy. I also thought her examples were great details for further describing her interpretation on this topic. They really allowed myself (and I'm sure all of her other readers) to connect the whole concept and see how truly important knowledge and the ability to learn are in another light.
To gain more insight on Laurie's thoughts, check out her blog post here with this link: http://dreaminreality14.blogspot.com/2014/09/literacy-is-power.html
To gain more insight on Laurie's thoughts, check out her blog post here with this link: http://dreaminreality14.blogspot.com/2014/09/literacy-is-power.html
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
When Was the Last Time You Read a Magazine?
Magazines: the things that you encounter at doctors' offices or in boxes stored by your mom in the attic but never typically give a second glance to. When we went over the topic and history of magazines in class, I was actually a little surprised to find that the concept and focus of them weren't always the way they are in today's magazines in both format and purpose. You know, eye-grabbing front covers like "Obama goes golfing...conspiracy?!?" and whatnot, but maybe during their prime times of success, they would entail headlines more along the lines of "Abraham Lincoln and how many top hats he really had" instead. But what we learned was that the idea started out with a general theme so general, in fact, that the first magazine was inspired to be called and published as General Magazine (by Benjamin Franklin).
The commonly implicated approach of magazines at this time was to target all people as an audience. They included a variety of content in their binds, ranging from important news stories that adults would often discuss to crossword puzzles to entertain children. Personally, I think that this technique used by magazine businesses to gather their market was a very creative and solid one. They were able to have several aspects compiled into one informative issue that would appeal to likely anyone you could pick from a crowd. But as time wore on and the 20th century drew near, magazines began to become less and less popular with the development of newer technology such as the radio. Magazine creators, with no other thoughts as to how to move forward, concluded that they would have to demassify their aim for readers and begin to focus on topics that would appeal to particular groups of people.
I personally think that magazines could continue to be successful without targeting niche audiences. With certain marketing skills, I believe that a broad-topic magazine like The Saturday Evening Post could make a comeback in the world. Not that I have ever really enjoyed reading a magazine, of course, but if there was one of general interest that stood out from the rest that are all focusing on niche audiences (which is all my generation has ever truly been exposed to), then maybe I would pick it up and give it a read.
The commonly implicated approach of magazines at this time was to target all people as an audience. They included a variety of content in their binds, ranging from important news stories that adults would often discuss to crossword puzzles to entertain children. Personally, I think that this technique used by magazine businesses to gather their market was a very creative and solid one. They were able to have several aspects compiled into one informative issue that would appeal to likely anyone you could pick from a crowd. But as time wore on and the 20th century drew near, magazines began to become less and less popular with the development of newer technology such as the radio. Magazine creators, with no other thoughts as to how to move forward, concluded that they would have to demassify their aim for readers and begin to focus on topics that would appeal to particular groups of people.
I personally think that magazines could continue to be successful without targeting niche audiences. With certain marketing skills, I believe that a broad-topic magazine like The Saturday Evening Post could make a comeback in the world. Not that I have ever really enjoyed reading a magazine, of course, but if there was one of general interest that stood out from the rest that are all focusing on niche audiences (which is all my generation has ever truly been exposed to), then maybe I would pick it up and give it a read.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Newspapers May Never Leave, and That's Okay
After Johannes Gutenberg's reinvention of the moveable printing press through the incorporation of metal, there was an overwhelming expansion of mass production in the world, and especially for one specific medium: newspaper. Despite it being seen as one of the most useful means of communication when it was first invented though, many people today seem to feel that newspapers are outdated and need to just be ridden of altogether. But I disagree; the importance of the newspaper in the past was quite evident, but I think that importance is also still very alive and well in today's world (just for differing reasons).
Around the time they were first invented, newspapers were seen as a golden tool for spreading and communicating information and news. It was one of the first mediums, meaning it was also one of the first devices used to release information to a mass audience, which is a feat in and of itself. But one specific crucial event took place a couple hundred years after the newspaper's invention which would solidify history and ideas far beyond the realm of simply newspapers themselves.
John Peter Zenger, a publisher of a newspaper in colonial North America, had criticized the governor of a colony and was put on trial for it. But he was found not guilty because what he had written in his newspaper was the truth. This result and newfound principle was so impactful then that later it was even written into the Constitution that people have the freedom of press and speech. Through the newspaper, journalists were able to establish a right to deliver the truth to others without corruption getting in the way.
Even in our modernized world, I believe that the newspaper is still a very essential medium. Honestly, I don't think that we give the newspaper enough credit. Often times it seems that we take the newspaper and its many advantages for granted due to our increasing use of technology. But as we learned in one of our previous lectures, the newspaper actually has a quality that neither televised information or the Internet will ever have: physical existence. The newspaper will always be a hard-copy item that you can hold, something that is tangible and takes up mass. With this one sole detail, the newspaper provides so many uses that we would not have access to while looking at a digital screen. You can cut out a portion of the newspaper that you want to keep or you can store newspapers whole and even keep records with them.
And the physicality of newspapers actually connects to another point that distinguishes them as non-linear. When it comes to newspapers, you can just pick one up, flip to a section, and only read a particular story that you wanted to read. You aren't forced to receive all the other information in the articles before that specific one like you would if you were listening to the news on the television. You can control when and where you receive the information, and you wouldn't have the possibility of missing a detail because you weren't paying attention at a certain time; the newspaper will always be there and will always have the information readily accessible.
In the end, I can agree with some of my fellow classmates on how newer media may provide information faster or easier, but those media certainly don't lessen the history and unique attributes that keep the newspaper relevant today.
Around the time they were first invented, newspapers were seen as a golden tool for spreading and communicating information and news. It was one of the first mediums, meaning it was also one of the first devices used to release information to a mass audience, which is a feat in and of itself. But one specific crucial event took place a couple hundred years after the newspaper's invention which would solidify history and ideas far beyond the realm of simply newspapers themselves.
John Peter Zenger, a publisher of a newspaper in colonial North America, had criticized the governor of a colony and was put on trial for it. But he was found not guilty because what he had written in his newspaper was the truth. This result and newfound principle was so impactful then that later it was even written into the Constitution that people have the freedom of press and speech. Through the newspaper, journalists were able to establish a right to deliver the truth to others without corruption getting in the way.
Even in our modernized world, I believe that the newspaper is still a very essential medium. Honestly, I don't think that we give the newspaper enough credit. Often times it seems that we take the newspaper and its many advantages for granted due to our increasing use of technology. But as we learned in one of our previous lectures, the newspaper actually has a quality that neither televised information or the Internet will ever have: physical existence. The newspaper will always be a hard-copy item that you can hold, something that is tangible and takes up mass. With this one sole detail, the newspaper provides so many uses that we would not have access to while looking at a digital screen. You can cut out a portion of the newspaper that you want to keep or you can store newspapers whole and even keep records with them.
And the physicality of newspapers actually connects to another point that distinguishes them as non-linear. When it comes to newspapers, you can just pick one up, flip to a section, and only read a particular story that you wanted to read. You aren't forced to receive all the other information in the articles before that specific one like you would if you were listening to the news on the television. You can control when and where you receive the information, and you wouldn't have the possibility of missing a detail because you weren't paying attention at a certain time; the newspaper will always be there and will always have the information readily accessible.
In the end, I can agree with some of my fellow classmates on how newer media may provide information faster or easier, but those media certainly don't lessen the history and unique attributes that keep the newspaper relevant today.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Mass Communication: an almost Unregistered Concept in Everyday Life
During one of our earlier lectures in Journalism I, we discussed mass communication and all the intricacies that go into its process. There are three key qualities of mass communication that distinct it from group communication (one person to several defined others) and individual or 1-on-1 communication: it has the potential to reach a mass audience, it does not have immediate feedback, and it can travel through time and space. And though for some that may seem to be new information, it is probable that they have been using mass communication for a long time without even realizing the concept.
I remembered this lecture especially because I found it so intriguing that we as a society actually use mass communication on a daily basis, and sometimes without even realizing it. Our whole class was only just learning about this topic when we discussed it a couple weeks ago, but I'm sure that for many years now we have all been using tools such as the Internet to use the very idea we were learning about. We may login to Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram and post a status update or picture. We may get on Vine or YouTube and upload a video or vlog that we want to share with others. The key to all of these interactions is that in our technologically developing society, we are constantly given opportunities to share, post, and communicate with others on a massive format.
You don't get immediate responses to your Facebook posts like you would in an everyday conversation, but you may get 60 likes from people who you may not even know and end up receiving several comments at a later time, which is just one example of how you aren't able to get immediate feedback. Another aspect is that you can't keep that conversation over the course of time; it ends when the words leave your mouths and you part ways. But if you were to record that conversation and upload it to YouTube, the type of communication could also become a mass one, allowing you to save that conversation and view it 20 years from now if you wanted to.
And though I find it a bit ironic as to how we have all likely been using mass communication for a long time without even grasping the full idea, I do think it is a very useful technique that we have developed through human innovation and is actually quite fascinating in itself. But due to how the world is growing ever-increasingly connected to each other through our technological advances, mass communication is rapidly becoming a regularly incorporated notion to lives all across the world, and I think it's about time that we recognize that fact as a whole.
I remembered this lecture especially because I found it so intriguing that we as a society actually use mass communication on a daily basis, and sometimes without even realizing it. Our whole class was only just learning about this topic when we discussed it a couple weeks ago, but I'm sure that for many years now we have all been using tools such as the Internet to use the very idea we were learning about. We may login to Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram and post a status update or picture. We may get on Vine or YouTube and upload a video or vlog that we want to share with others. The key to all of these interactions is that in our technologically developing society, we are constantly given opportunities to share, post, and communicate with others on a massive format.
You don't get immediate responses to your Facebook posts like you would in an everyday conversation, but you may get 60 likes from people who you may not even know and end up receiving several comments at a later time, which is just one example of how you aren't able to get immediate feedback. Another aspect is that you can't keep that conversation over the course of time; it ends when the words leave your mouths and you part ways. But if you were to record that conversation and upload it to YouTube, the type of communication could also become a mass one, allowing you to save that conversation and view it 20 years from now if you wanted to.
And though I find it a bit ironic as to how we have all likely been using mass communication for a long time without even grasping the full idea, I do think it is a very useful technique that we have developed through human innovation and is actually quite fascinating in itself. But due to how the world is growing ever-increasingly connected to each other through our technological advances, mass communication is rapidly becoming a regularly incorporated notion to lives all across the world, and I think it's about time that we recognize that fact as a whole.
The Nine Principles and Seven Yardsticks: the Ultimate Guide for Journalists
A while back, we discussed the nine principles and seven yardsticks of journalism in class. We learned in the lecture that these rules were constructed for the use of journalists so that they know what's expected of them when they cover stories.
I was very glad that we covered this in class because it seemed like such crucial material to know, and it had really surprised me that I hadn't heard of these standards before. One of my favorite things about the principles and yardsticks though is that they don't just stop at what to report; they go into how. They give detail into how journalists can (and as implied, should) conduct their careers and strategies for reporting as well. A couple examples of these concepts are enterprise (actively investigating) and inclusiveness (keeping what you report on proportional). With the use of the "how" rules, we now know how to improve on our tactics and what to strive for in the future.
And though the school year has just started out, I honestly think that this may be the most important topic we will have covered in class. These fundamentals are internationally accepted and so presumably are internationally followed, meaning that throughout the rest of our lives we will likely be critiqued based on these standards, no matter if the extent of our careers in journalism are this particular course we're taking at school or if we're being paid to do fieldwork coverage in another country. The nine principles and seven yardsticks carry a lot of weight with them, but I believe they are an important load to bear.
Here are links that provide all nine principles and all seven yardsticks:
- http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/ (9 Principles)
- http://www.gradethenews.org/feat/recentgrades/indices2004.htm (7 Yardsticks)
I was very glad that we covered this in class because it seemed like such crucial material to know, and it had really surprised me that I hadn't heard of these standards before. One of my favorite things about the principles and yardsticks though is that they don't just stop at what to report; they go into how. They give detail into how journalists can (and as implied, should) conduct their careers and strategies for reporting as well. A couple examples of these concepts are enterprise (actively investigating) and inclusiveness (keeping what you report on proportional). With the use of the "how" rules, we now know how to improve on our tactics and what to strive for in the future.
And though the school year has just started out, I honestly think that this may be the most important topic we will have covered in class. These fundamentals are internationally accepted and so presumably are internationally followed, meaning that throughout the rest of our lives we will likely be critiqued based on these standards, no matter if the extent of our careers in journalism are this particular course we're taking at school or if we're being paid to do fieldwork coverage in another country. The nine principles and seven yardsticks carry a lot of weight with them, but I believe they are an important load to bear.
Here are links that provide all nine principles and all seven yardsticks:
- http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/ (9 Principles)
- http://www.gradethenews.org/feat/recentgrades/indices2004.htm (7 Yardsticks)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)