Jeff Cohen...is a superstar.

Having Jeff come to the class on Tuesday was a total eye opener.  As I approach graduation and the horrific fact that I actually have to grow up and do something with my life, I realize that my goals and ideas of where I'll be are constantly changing.  Big corporate media is always the aspiration of budding journalists.  We want to be the next Katie Couric or the next staff writer of the New York Times.  We're jaded by the fame and the desk at 30 Rock and all of the flashy parts of big media.  But we forget the base of the job...real reporting and journalism.  The idea that a corporation would silence or restrict the work I do, or compromise my journalistic integrity like they did to Jeff, is appalling.  Independent media is looking better by the second.  It's a journalists rebellion! Digging up real stories, uncovering and exposing problems, working to solutions, all while sticking it to the man.  I might have found my niche.  I guess we'll see.  I am saddened that my Cinderella dream of becoming the next Joan London or Barbara Walters isn't as fairly tale as I thought.  But I am excited by the new possibilities and all that digital and independent media has to offer.   Hopefully there's a place waiting for me somewhere...

Tabloidization...

I fully believe that there is a place for celebrity news, gossip, and all things Hollywood. But not on the pages of some of the most respected newspapers and news programs we have. I'm all about information. Celebrity news is information whether we like to believe it or not and it belongs in tabloids and little flimsy papers you find at the checkout of the supermarket. Newspapers are the place where the public should be getting the information they NEED to know, not necessarily what they WANT to know. I agree with the article in the CJR that if newspapers want to take on pop culture, do it in an educational and informative way by looking at cause and effect on our society. Journalists are supposed to help people make responsible decisions, be good citizens, and to understand the world around them through information that we dig up and often analyze and put together. The things that end up on the pages of tabloids don't really fit the mold. So go ahead New York Times, take on pop culture, but don't see it and spit it back at us. Look for trends, study cause and effect, and try to remember our purpose, otherwise, you're no more credible than the STAR.

Agenda Setting

Agenda setting in the news industry is so frustrating to me!  The part that really gets me is that fact that I feel so helpless, that there is so little I can do and that the whole field of journalism is plagued by it.  Agenda setting is dangerous.  If journalists, editors, and makers of news media aren't careful with what they present and how they present it, they can create a whole different version of the truth that can cloud the perception of an audience.  But the problem is that we can't put everything on the front page and we can't even cover every problem an every event that happens in a day due to lack of resources.  So do we just give up?? I hope to see a smaller gap between what's important to the public and what is displayed in the news.  The only way to make this work is to ignore the financial pressures and executives and use the passion we have for the people we cover to put out what is important to them.  News should be service, not a product.  But we can't do it alone.  I think people in the news industry right now need to re-evaluate why they're here. 

A Year in the News

The article "A Year in the News" from the Project for Excellence in Journalism was an eye opener for me when it comes to the state of the industry and journalism as a whole. A few things stuck in my mind after reading it that are absolutely appalling to me. First of all, the fact that the number of stories in the news agenda is shrinking is dangerous for everyone. Journalistic stories need legs. When something happens, be it tragedy or war or triumph, the event itself is important but more important is how we got there and what can be done to prevent the bad and succeed in the future. It's the stories that follow big events in history that could lead us on the right path. Another thing that bothered me is the lack of attention that the news industry is paying to the information needs and wants of their audience. When I saw the graph of audience interest to coverage, I can't help but ask why?? I understand that advertising is important and the world turns by money but we have to go to the roots of our profession and realize why we do what we do. We are supposed to inform, educate, be a voice to the ordinary citizen, and work to make life better through understanding and information. If we lose sight of the stories that are important to the people we serve, we'll lose everything. I could go on forever I suppose, but dinner time calls! More next time...

The Future of Media in the World!

Watching the EPIC 2014 and Prometheus presentations in class was interesting today and I was surprised to find that they seem eerily accurate. I think the idea of the prosumer is the future of journalism and that civic or citizen journalism will take the future by storm. It seems that the large corporations such as google, microsoft, amazon etc. will be the forums for the new format of news. The fact that citizens can get closer to events and witness them as they happen (even better perhaps than newspeople) will change the face of media along with technology. It does seem difficult to believe that such large conglomerations like google or microsoft would ever merge but according to the general trend...it's not out of the question. I think that with more and more people involved in the media and media corporations growing larger and larger, media could possibly overpower the government when it comes to public opinion. Governments will have to be a lot more careful on how they conduct the administration due to the fact that government secrets will be harder and harder to keep. Also, with this kind of power in the hands of regular citizens, I find it hard to believe that dictatorships and authoritarian governments will continue to exist.

Public Diplomacy in the New Administration?

The issue of Public Diplomacy is a tricky one. I have a hard time letting the government get away with broadcasting straight propaganda to other countries. It all has to do with the unequal flow of information for me. It would be completely different if we were getting all different radio stations full of public diplomacy from other countries (including the developing ones) but unfortunately that's just not the case. I have no problem with putting opinions out there as long as there are opoosing opinions to counter and balance it. For people with little government and few political ideas to grasp, US public diplomacy could be brainwashing and downright intimidating. I think that the new administration can broadcast American ideals and systems but without calling them supreme or seeing them as the end all (or "End of History") if you will. I'll say it again and again, who says American style democracy is the best model? Fact of the matter is that it is still a baby in the scheme of things. It is short sighted to say we won't find a better way....

Media Systems in the UK, Canada, and Japan

Figuring out media systems is difficult! So here goes nothin...

In the UK I believe that the primary media system is the Social Responsibility model with the Libertarian model following close behind. In the pring world in the UK, there are a lot of newpapers and magazines to choose from that are privately owned! The marketplace of ideas is quite free. However, in the broadcast world, the UK puts quotas on programs of public importance (news, childrens' programming etc.) There is also a govt. owned television broadcaster (BBC!). I feel that the UK has a stronger governmental presence in the media than the others.

Canada was especially difficult to determine. I believe the primary media system is the Libertarian model with Social Responsibility model as the secondary one. The media is very similar to the US and although there are quotas on how much nat'l content must be played, the quota can be overlooked if there isn't enough of the nat'l content to play.

In Japan, I believe that the primary media system is Libertarian with the secondary being Democratic-Participant. The govt. has a very small role it seems in the media world. There is a variety of programming with very few restrictions. People are very interested and invested in the media in Japan as well according to the time they spend with it each day. People have very good internet access as well with very very few restricitons compared to even the US!

Media in Europe and such...

The article in the CJR by Mariah Blake was disturbing to say the least. I can see the situation from both points of view. As a journalist, I always want the most information the fastest. However, compromising my ethical values by listening to a private phone message or paying off officials for seriously private information is beyond what I could do. Stories should be written from what is outas public information and what can be attained legally. But I also see the side that if something shady or criminal is happening in the government or hollywood, it's important for it to be recognized. Something needs to be done to curb the black market trade of information but without completely regulating journalists. What that something is I don't know!

Media in the Middle East

Until just recently, I wasn't at all very informed about the media situation in the Middle East. Although freedoms are extremely restricted to Western standards, (as always) I have hope! There are great things happening in technology all of the time. The onset of the blog has been amazing for communication. In the article, The New Arab Conversation, ordinary people who are experiencing war can reveal what it's like from the inside. People are embracing the idea of civic journalism and feeling a call to duty of informing and communicating with others. Governments may control much of the media and use it for their own propaganda but amazingly people can find a way around that and have a voice. The problem is that internet access in many Middle East countries is still severely limited. But I believe it will only take time. The article, Musharraf's Monster, shows that independent television is trying to take a stand and make changes. New, young leaders are generally more open to freedom of speech which is promising. Examples like Dubai and the Al-Jazeera media phenomenon are examples of what I see as an inescapable advancement thanks to globalization and the movement of ideas. How long can governments keep control of these institutions before they start "biting the hand that feeds them?"

All Things Journalism

The journal article Terrorism, Global Journalism, and the Myth of the Nation State, pretty much sums up what we've been talking about as of late. They are the "should be goals" of all reporters. The four objectives stated by Deni Elliott are:
1) News reporting that is independent of governmental agendas and public sentiments.
2) Investigative skills and a keen ability to look where others are not pointing.
3) Reliance on "old news" to give day-to-day stories context.
4) Patriotic rather than nationalistic reporting.
Elliott brings up some great points about terrorism and borders being dissolved and all of the problems we're facing today....but what else is new? These have been the endeavors of journalists (as long as I have been alive) since the beginning haven't they?
I did like the explanation of Nationalistic vs. Patriotic journalism although it makes sense and is somewhat common knowledge (like all of Elliott's points). But the hard part is the reason that these things are still being talked about are that...they're difficult! Reporting things that look bad for the government or big business can ruin a journalist, it's the right thing but a hard thing. It is scary though how, without the clarification and the investigation of journalists, the government could pretty much lie to our faces or confuse us as citizens! (such as the connection of 9/11 with Iraq) I like to think of the media as almost another "check and balance" for governments to keep an eye on. As for the Hobbes' "solid borders theory" and global journalism...our world has changed so that we're connected enough and borders have dissolved so much through the movement of people and cultures and information that we can't just be part of a single nation anymore. We're part of a global community. We as journalists have a duty to the citizens of the world. Happiness and safety are universal rights...universal things that transverse borders and cultures and rules of foreign governments. I guess that's why I want to be a journalist. If I don't feel a call to this duty, to help my global community find truth, who will?

Teach for America or Peace Corps? Who needs more help?

Both the Peace Corps and Teach for America do great things. The question is whether to help at home or abroad? The answer is easy for me. We have great school systems and a great economy (compared to many in the world) but there are still problems and poverty in the U.S. but when juxtaposed against the rest of the world...we are extremely privileged on the whole. I would choose to join the Peace Corps. My heart breaks for others who battle disease, poverty, starvation and political unrest and corruption is other parts of the world. I'm not saying individual people don't matter and that I'm leaving my homeland to fend for itself, it's just that overall...others just need more help. I feel a duty not only to my country but to the global community and to humanity.

Spiky or Flat?

All of the readings regarding the economy, politics, globalization, and technology (as well as other various topics) acted in almost a mental battle royale as to the current situation of the global community. I found the arguments very interesting to read when contrasted against one another. Friedman's "The World is Flat," seemed more of an optimistic look at the current and future economic situation. I'm entirely an optimist, or at least I try to be, but I can't help to be influenced by reality creeping in. Friedman's idea that the economic capabilities and potential of regions all over the globe are catching up to one another. He uses the argument that expanding technology and "connectedness" are helping to lessen the gaps between the have's and have not's of the global community. I found Ghemawat's and Florida's rebuttals to be unfortunately, but realisitically more along the lines of truth. Although the internet is becoming more widespread, people often don't reach out and connect with people from other countries and instead stay connected within their neighborhood or country. In addition, those being connected and those becoming economically successful are places that are very few but far between. Many countries still have restrictions on internet access or are so intrenched in problems like Malaria, AIDS, starvation, and pollution that technology and becoming a world economic power is far from reach or seemingly lifetimes away. In "The World is Spiky," Florida contends that the areas of high economic productivity and innovation may be spread out across the map but are concentrated in small areas, more specifically in the West. As these cities and regions become more successful and advance, it increases the gap and leaves the vast majority of regions in their economic dust.

NWICO and Development Journalism

I for one, am all about giving a voice to the voiceless and getting the messages of the less fortunate out into the world. I could only hope for the equitable and two-way flow and content of information but the hard part is getting there. The NWICO is a generally great idea...conceptually and ideally. The hard part is how to get the LDC's to the point where they can produce media and continue a flow of information that will equal the Western world. How do you implement a system or set of rules in a country where media is an extra; dessert if you will? When many countries have to deal with problems like famine, disease, lack of resources, and corrupt government, there may be a need for free and prolific media and the telling of their problems and stories but how? LDC's could use government money and have a government sponsored media outlet but there's no way that it wouldn't have some sort of agenda and usurp the very core idea of a true communication and flow of information instead of propaganda. So where will the money come from then? If American money were to sponsor it, there would be an agenda as well (we never really do charity without an agenda...sad and pessimistic maybe but true). Foreign correspondents are a step in the right direction but still need purifying to rid the information coming out of them of a Western focused filter and truly speak for the people. However, with the declining number of foreign correspondents...things are looking more grim by the minute. There are so many questions to answer in this issue that I'm at a loss. Where can the LDC's get the money for a media infrastructure and working free press without government propaganda? How can the U.S. and Western world help without colonialising? It's frustrating to think about but it needs to get figured out...I can only imagine what we would learn if the people of LDC's truly had a global voice.

Electronic Colonialism and things...

I actually found reading this part of the book to be fairly easy and understandable. (Which is rare for a textbook!) I liked how McPhail compared Electronic colonialism to the other forms of colonialism in the past and also how he compared media to "wearing a mask."All this about the Electronic Colonialism Theory and World Systems Theory was hard for me to read though. Hard because I was almost ashamed to be American. Don't get me wrong, I do plenty of my share of enjoying American media and think we produce some very fine quality things, it's just that I feel like when we bombard other countries with it so much, it's like we're discounting their culture. I know we talked about how a lot of countries don't have the option to create a lot of their own media but who's to say that broadcast media is the best thing for the people anyway. If American media can co-exist with existing cultures....power to it. I would hate for the world and all the peripheral and semi-peripheral nations to homogonize because of our influence. What a boring world! I love other cultures. Speaking french and spanish, I've wanted to travel the world and indulge in all that other countries have to offer...it's not about the media for me in that aspect. I was also really unnerved by the passage where McPhail talks about the World Systems Theory where business leaders of core multinational media firms seek to convert and capture the attitudes, minds, and purchasing behavior of others. We're victims of it as we speak. The clothes we wear, food we eat, any materials we buy and how we think about others is shaped my media. Are we simply purchasing puppets? It's scary to think about. Media is part of culture...i don't think it should manipulate it and warp it for us and others in the global community.

The Fate of the World...According to Some

It's been a long day. Between the Rory Kennedy event and the 2 readings, things are tending to look a little grim for the world. But I have hope still! The speaker was fantastic and gave me some great journalistic/documentary aspirations. We'll see...

At first, I wasn't sure what the agenda was for The Coming Anarchy by Robert D. Kaplan. However it began to take shape after a little reading. My first thoughts were the same as any conversation concerning Africa. My heart breaks for the whole continent. I'm overwhelmed with the situation and wanting to help. But when Kaplan used West Africa as a model for the future of the U.S, it got a little scary. It's hard for me to think we could end up that way and "how did this begin and how can we prevent it?" become the bigger questions. In the words of Kaplan, "Democracy is problematic, scarcity is more certain." Those words became clear and evident to me when I thought about the environment as a possible cause for conflict. The population will increase in the poorest parts of the world where development even now is difficult. I never really thought of the environment being such an issue but Kaplan posed it as a threat. One last part of the reading that struck me was the contradiction between Huntington and Kaplan in their views of borders and conflict. Huntington thinks borders will be the natural place for clash between civilizations but Kaplan talks about their insignificance. With Islamic Extremism and the recent terrorist cells, borders mean nothing as the groups of individuals shrink. Even in the U.S, we have so many cultures Kaplan argues that with racial polarity, educational dysfunction, and social fragmentation, it would be easy for a solid feeling of patriotism to slip through the cracks. People would naturally stick to smaller groups. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

In response to The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria, my definition of democracy was completely turned upside down! I think many people are in the same boat as myself when it comes to having a certain idea of what democracy is according to the Western constitutional liberalism model we see everyday. It's easy to look at struggling countries and our economic/political success (if you can call it that) as a country and want to implement our ideas. Yet when you look closely at the flaws in our system such as the small number of justices in the supreme court with life terms, the not so equal representation in the senate, and more, it seems our form of democracy is just "an exit on the road" as opposed to Fukuyama's "End of History." The word democracy is seemingly misunderstood. Democracy can lead to constitutional liberalism but not necessarily the other way around. I liked how Zakaria gave a lot of examples of different "democracies" to open my eyes to the possiblities of definitions. Democracy doesn't always equal harmony. I also agree with the fact that it is important to not confuse the need for a powerful government with the need for a legitimate constitutional government to build a strong base. It's hard for me to see even constitutional liberalism model of democracy as perfection but it's certainly a start and a place to improve from. Onward ho!

End of History and Clash of Civilizations

In response to the article by Fukuyama "End of History? ", I have to say that I think he's jumped the gun. The westernization of the world and spread of democracies has been the pattern in our global history thus far but who's to say it won't take an entirely different direction. The democratic system itself is relatively new. Socieities of people living in times when the feudal system thrived would have laughed at the idea of democracy...and here we are. It's definitely short sighted to say that democracy is the end all of political systems. They aren't perfect (as we talked about in class). How a new system will come about is hard to predict. Perhaps it will take a drastic social change or some sort of cataclysmic event to bring it about. Who knows. All I'm saying is that things are constantly changing and moving in our global community and like the past has shown, constant change is inevitable. History can't be finished...we're still living it!!

Huntington says that the normal state of the world is about cultural conflicts. He believes that a clash of civilizations will occur near their borders and that it is inevitable. I must disagree (for the hope of humanity!). Although wars have occurred regarding larger groups of people through time, who's to say things won't turn to peace. Huntington says that the West naively believes in the virtue of Western values but there are only so many of us. What is the basis of our values, our culture? When you get down to it, American culture is quite void of tradition and the richness that other cultures have. We're so diverse in race, language, culture, and everything that I cannot determine a defining one! We are learning about other people all the time. With new technology and the access to global communication, I think that cultural gaps will begin to close instead of open. In the U.S., our national language is moving toward Spanish and we're more tolerant of different races, religions, political systems and orientations than ever before. Certain vlaues are universal. Instead of communication and globalization leading to conflict, I think it can lead to peace and understanding. I have to believe so...what else is there to believe in?

Maiden Voyage

My first blog entry....EVER. Here goes nothin'....