I thought that the book's presentation of ethics in journalism was extremely intriguing. I got the facts and I had examples to support or refute those facts (well maybe theories is a better word). In the sidebar I liked how they mentioned fair play as one of the values. Journlaism is about objectivity )at least ideally it is) so it is important to get both sides of the story regaardless of the situation. Generally I am not a fan of "formulaic nmodels" persay...like the Potter Box. But I do get what the model was trying to do...make it a little more easier for us in complicated situations. Over last weekend I happened to watch the movie "Never Been Kissed". The movie is a about a reporter who goes undercover as 17 year old and pretends to be a high school student and is asked to report on the school. Was that correct? I am not really sure. I think a reporter should go undercover if the situation concerned could affect the lives of the public. (A major pressing situation). And umm freebies....I don't know how I feel about that either. In one way it could be seen as an object given to anyone interested in the event. On the other side it cold be seen as a blatant bribe. Personally if I received a freebie...I think I would keep it and make it point to know that all the other journlaists got the same and that it would not affect my story. People really pay their sources? Ridiculous. Enough said. And should journalists give "full disclosure of their financial investments and memberships..." No. We are not public figures. Politicians are. We need to ensure that any story we do does not have a conflict of interest with out personal life. And if it does, the editor needs to be notified. I do not really that we should publish the rape victim's name without permission. And the information that you depart is based on your judgement, but it is important to realize that the editor knows all the information before you choose to take away any information.
NYM article decries Travis Fox of the Washington Post as a "globe-trotting hard-news yin ". I want to be him. Exactly. And he was so right in saying that online media should not replicate TV. Online journalism is synonmous with convergence in journalism. And I personally think the computer is becoming more and more popular than TV so it is veyr important o pay attention to the media feature online. I personally liked how Fox denounced the practice of print reporters to go on front of the camera in the online media.
The blog was interesting but the main thjing that I got out of it was the paragraph on curiosity. It is so easy to say "Eh justthe same ol'" But it can never be the same ol' stuff there always something new.
"it is a new and unsettling twist that compassion begins to fail with the mere addition of a second person" What? Sad but true. I do not really know what it is about horrific events, but the the point made in the CJR is true. For instance the Iraq war. The first death was front page news...slowly all deaths just became part of a large number. I know that journalism cannot make all the difference. But that is not the point. the point of journalism IS to make some difference..a little bit of change.
The online storytelling excerpt was very informative. I am personally a fan of clickable interactives and narrated slideshows. And someone in these four article had made the poit of print journalist tending to repeat the print version of their story on the online version. On the online version the print version needs a little twist. CONVERGENCE. that is what it is all about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment