Looking for something?

This Blog has moved! i'm now at http://jrjobes.wordpress.com/ and have a post about albums dropping next year!

To do list...

1. synthesize my first post into an opinion article about bias in the media.
2. make my second post not complete garbage.

i got a long road ahead of me

Some qualms with an article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/02/dan-gillmor-22-rules-news

Now i'm going to tread very very lightly here. First off, this blog is my opinion, i have respect for everyone in the journalism field and this is only an exploration of my learned values and created opinions. I assume this blog will be read by absolutely no one and would gladly take this down if the writer of the article requested. So i guess this is an evaluation of the article in my eyes. If i don't mention a point, then i agree with it.

3. Telling the reader of an article what is unknown sounds like a great idea, however the last sentence bothers me. There is a large potential for this to be abused, and it sounds like it requires much more work for the reporter with little gain. Let's say a reader knows more about the story and tells the reporter. The reporter then has to decide if this new information affects the story. If it does (which would probably be rare) then the reporter must work to confirm this information. If the reporter can confirm that this new information is true and cite something confirming its validity, then the story gets updated. The story would then be recirculated (to validate the work the reporter put in and to further inform the audience) on the news website or reprinted in the next edition, be it paper or magazine. The audience then sees this updated story's headline. What are the chances the audiences still holds interest in the article?

There are many factors contributing to the audience's interest here. Number one is Timeliness. Will this new information matter to anyone now that x amount of time has passed since they first read the story? This also introduces repetition to the audience. Even if the new information significantly changes the story, will the audience still care? If they don't, the reporter just wasted his/her time working to get this new information published.

12. I'm gonna side with precedent on this one and say that anonymous sources should stay anonymous unless if stated so by the source. There is no real right answer here but i think i would do the same thing if i were in that situation.

15. In terms of competing with other news outlets, this is a self defeating idea. I wouldn't want to tell readers of someone else's when they could read my hard work. It's a very selfish thought, yes. I'm sure I'll feel differently about it when i have a comfortable job and some type of "tenure" on me.

Flavored cigarette ban

nytimes.com 

After a lengthy discussion on a forum I frequent, I've decided that i oppose this ban on the terms of its seemingly vague stipulations. In a private conversation with a person on the forum, i had this response:

"What bothers me is the fact that something so unexact has passed under our government. I feel like it was written quickly just to appease hundreds of [angry] constituents. Granted i do not know if there is causal evidence that show that kids are more likely to smoke a lot if they tried flavored cigs as a kid, nor do i know if the cigs underage kids smoke are predominantly flavored ones. And with this evidence not expressed in any article i have read about the subject, i am unsure if the ban will even affect kids smoking habits."

I am still curious if there is evidence to show kids like flavored cigarettes more, but in hindsight i assume that a causal link was found between trying flavored cigs underage and a smoking addiction. However, i am also a naive student who assumes that government organizations prove their points instead of just stating them. My main problem is that from the looks of the article i posted above, the legislation itself is lacking a concrete definition of what will be banned. If there was a more concrete definition of what would be banned and it was stated concisely enough so the director of the F.D.A. could explain it well then i would support it.

As the debate went on, my classification of the New York Times as unbiased happened to come under fire. It was implied that the political affiliation of the owner of the newspaper was at play in the article. Last semester i took a class called Principles of American Journalism, which inspired me to write this response:

The idea that a magazine owners political affiliations trickle down to the extent that a lowly beat reporter would make sure to give his story subliminal support for whatever political party or position to appease said owner is ludicrous. Not every reporter hired for an organization shares the owners ideals. To discriminate by political affiliation is illegal, and being that the NYTimes is a news organization, it is under the microscope of other news organizations for competition purposes. Not to mention pressures to remain a credible news source and to eliminate bias as much as possible, a cornerstone of journalism.

I really do believe that these news organizations work to eliminate bias as much as possible, and i'm sure there are many people who believe the exact opposite.