Video Voyeurism

L.A. Times.com just announced that MySpace.com will be expanded to those who don’t register on the original MySpace site. As a spin-off of the main site, this site will have videos made by professionals and amateurs, grouped by categories of subject or interest.

In the article, Jeff Berman, MySpace general manager for video, said users can establish their own channels to show off their own videos or those they have found elsewhere, saying, “It's just going to get easier and easier for everyone from the soccer mom to the garage band to create video."

And, guess what! Those channels will be sponsored by advertisers or developed jointly with mainstream producers. Why? “Video is increasingly important at the top social-networking site because users want it and because it keeps them around to watch more ads.”

So, just some random thoughts here:

Per our discussion in class tonight, would any (or all?) of these video-streamers be considered journalists? They are certainly practising mass communications.

Are there citations rules for these videos? If I use a video I found somewhere else, do I have to mention that fact?

Is everything and anything put out on these sites "fair game"? We know employers have begun to check such sites - what if some psychopathic stalker zones in on you? Does any of it become a source for professional journalists, looking for those sensational stories? Couldn't something out there be used against someone by perhaps becoming part of the evidence in a court case? What would you do if you saw something about illegal activity - would you bring it to the attention of the proper authorities? Could a "vlogger" (how do I copyright that term?) claim First Amendment rights, not just for freedom of speech but for freedom of the press?

As we learned from the text, newspapers are usually produced at a loss – the real income comes from the advertisers. Smart marketing move by the advertisers to take advantage of this new venue.

Who are all of these people who put stuff out on MySpace and YouTube? Berman stated in the article that 50 million viewers watch streaming video on MySpace each month – but that number puts them in second place behind YouTube. Is this contributing to the “information” overload of today's world? Please tell me people aren't watching this instead of any real news!

How do 50 million video voyeurs find the time to watch these videos, much less have time to produce and/or post them? They must not be working full-time and attending college!

I’m probably “old-fashioned”, but is nothing private anymore? Why do people have this need or desire to put themselves and their lives on display? Why do other people have the need or desire to watch? Maybe it's the new equivalent of people-watching, without going to the mall or the State Fair.

I guess with no classes next week, I’ll have some time to go check it out!

(PS: sorry I was wrong about having 10 blogs done, Brian – the total of 10 I saw included the little one I did the first night when we set up our blog spots. Hope to talk with you and Craig next week. Thanks for a really good class!)

What's news?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) News Coverage Index listing of the top ten news stories (by percent) for June 10 – 15 is worth a quick look.


This is a ranking of news topics for newspapers, online, network TV, cable TV and radio. Here is the overall ranking, for all five sectors.

Rank Story Percent of Newshole
1 Immigration 10%
2 Palestinian Conflict 9
3 Events in Iraq 7
4 2008 Campaign 7
5 Fired US Attorneys 3
6 Iraq Policy Debate 3
7 US Domestic Terrorism 2
8 Space Station 2
9 Iran 2
10 CIA Leak/Libby Sentence 2

Three topics were covered in each media: Immigration, Palestinian conflict and events in Iraq.

Beyond those three, it’s interesting to see what each covered that did not make the list above:

Newspapers: U.S. economic numbers, Sopranos TV show, same-sex marriage

Online: TB traveler, Afghanistan, U.S./Russia relations, Beirut bombing, U.S. economic
numbers

Network TV: Duke Lacrosse scandal

Cable TV: Paris Hilton, Duke Lacrosse scandal, LA hospital death case

Radio: Global warming, Sopranos TV show, hurricane season

In the chapter entitled “What is Journalism For?” in The Elements of Journalism,
the authors say, “The increasingly interactive relationship between journalist and
citizen has raised questions in newsrooms about whether journalists still have a role as agenda setters - trying to signal to the audience what news is important, the top stories.”

I was feeling pretty bummed out about the quality of the news available to us, but it was somewhat comforting to find this information.

It looks like journalists are doing a pretty good job, after all. It also points out how important it is that we, as critically thinking citizens, fulfill our responsibility to look through this smorgasbord of news.

Media crossovers: shades of the future?

A June 20th article in the New York Times detailed:

“Exposé: America’s Investigative Reports” returns this weekend for its second season on PBS, with a 20-week run of episodes that highlight investigative reporting from news outlets nationwide. But this season viewers who cannot wait until the broadcast premier on Friday night can watch each new episode beforehand in streaming Internet video.”

The article mentions the difficulty PBS affiliates have in not having set times or days for their programming – each affiliate evidently sets their own scheduling so the only thing PBS can do in promoting a program is advise viewers to check the local PBS listing.

While networks have “streamed” episodes in advance to promote shows, this is something of a first as they show an entire episode online before the show airs.

Is this jumping the gun or “scooping” each other?

Executives at WNET, which produces the series in association with the Center for Investigative Reporting in Berkley, Calif., indicated they “were not concerned that online audience would cannibalize on-air viewing.”

Stephen Segaller, WNET’s director of news and public affairs programming, and the executive in charge of “Exposé” said,

“The decision to make “Exposé” episodes available first online made “a statement about our collective, institutional view that more and more of our programming has to be available on every platform where anyone can find it.”

This makes sense in considering the “Engagement and Relevance” element of journalism. New methods of reaching people may further the likelihood of getting news and information into their hands. A Generation X’er may very well prefer getting information from the Internet versus watching a PBS television show.

The method may be different but the journalistic purpose is still served.

And the wall came tumbling down...

I think we need to send a copy of The Elements of Journalism to NBC.

The headline for a June 22nd article in the Los Angeles Times proclaimed:

“Paying $1 million for Hilton interviews alarms journalist ethicists, ranklesNBC employees”

Evidently NBC’s entertainment division has been bidding for an interview with Paris “effectively circumventing the news division's policy prohibiting payments for interviews.”

According to the article:
"It seems like there are end-runs all over the place, and they are being done in the name of competition," said Al Tompkins, who teaches broadcast ethics at the Poynter Institute, a media resource and school in Florida. "I don't know what transpired here, but what I do know is that any compensation that comes through a network — whether it's a book deal or movie deal or offering special access — none of that has any place in news.”

Although The Today Show host Matt recently indicated his disdain for the intense media coverage of Paris in an interview with Larry King, his co-host, Meredith Vieira, is the journalist supposedly slated to do the coveted interview.

During a time of layoffs and cost-cutting measures, a bidding war for the Paris interview is sitting very well with “demoralized” NBC news division employees.

And as journalism becomes more subjugated to entertainment and the news to corporate profits, we get more cotton candy for our brains.

Marxism versus Broichism

Per an article by Laurie Kellman, Associated Press writer, dated Thursday, June 14th,

“The Bush administration still opposes a bill to shield reporters from federal efforts toforce them to reveal their sources despite sponsors' revisions, a Justice Department officialsaid Thursday.”

That’s not really a surprise to those of us in Communications 303, is it? We will soon be writing a case study related to this topic and I am looking forward to hearing what each of you has to say on the subject.

But what I want to consider in this blog is the thought of news as a “commodity”.

The text refers to “…the idea that news has become a commodity that is in oversupply.” It also touches on the apparent confusion in America over what’s news versus what’s entertainment.

Is news in oversupply or is there simply a shortage of understandable news? How do we hone in on and extract the news that impacts us as individuals and as a nation?

A Citizen’s Bill Of Rights and Responsibilities struck a chord within me, especially the section On Proportionality and Engagement stating,

“We have a right to expect journalists to be aware of our basic dilemma as citizens: that we have a need for timely and deep knowledge of important issues and trends in our community, but we lack both the time and means to access most of this critical information.”

Marx and Engels theorized: we are who we are as a result of our position in the economic situation of our time.

Broich theorizes: we are who we are as a result of our position in the information situation of our time.

We look to the press to provide “a journalism of sense making based on synthesis, verification, and fierce independence,” as the text says.

Are we willing to fulfill our role as citizens who seek and demand the truth? If so, we need to be informed about the issue of shield laws.

According to Kellman,“The legislation, said Mike Pence, R-Ind., "is not about protecting reporters. It is about protecting the public's right to know."

O.J. knows about Murrow?

Interesting story in the Washington Post on Sunday: Media Smackdown provided some material very relevant to the chapters we were reading in The Elements of Journalism text.

According to Post columnist, Howard Kurtz:

“Journalists are getting whacked from every side, poked in the eye by public figures disgusted with what passes for news these days,”

Doesn’t that sound like some sort of overview of the chapters we just read – Engagement and Relevance, as well as Make The News Comprehensive and Proportional?

For O.J. Simpson, of all people, to bash the press for its coverage of Paris Hilton instead of the space shuttle launch…well, as Kurtz says,

“O.J. invoking Murrow -- take a moment to digest that.”

However, Kurtz goes on to point out that there is some element of truth in the criticisms of today’s journalism, as does the text.

I think it lead us to the question posed by Kovach and Rosenstiel,

“Should journalists give people what they want or what they need?”

I’m afraid the answer might be “whatever sells” which right now seems to be Paris instead of the space shuttle.

A future in journalism?

Wow! Just as I’m reading the intro of Kovach and Rosenstiel’s The Elements of Journalism, here’s an article in the New York Times entitled Fewer journalists seeking fellowships.

The group formed at Harvard and the foundation of this book, the Committee of Concerned Journalists, researched the state of journalism. They interviewed journalists, held public forums, surveyed journalists and looked at the history of journalism.

Their conclusions mirror the concerns mentioned in the NYT: journalism has become less about information and more about the bottom dollar as the bottom line. Per the text, “Journalists’ bonuses were increasingly tied to the company’s profit margins, not to the quality of their work.” This has led to fewer journalists seeking fellowships – those who are journalists are afraid if they’re out of the office, they may not have a job to return to. Those who aren’t journalists may be wondering about a career in journalism.

When the textbook was originally published in 2001, journalism was at the front end of an onslaught of what columnist Angel Jennings calls, “the fallout of the media industry’s turmoil.”

Is what we are seeing today the eye of a media hurricane with journalism as a profession struggling to hang on? Or (scary thought!) is journalism still at the beginning of the storm?

We are all in this Mass Communication Ethics class and some of us are majoring in Journalism and Mass Communications. Does the information in the NYT article and the text make us cautious about a career in journalism?

Does it also make you, as it does me, fearful about the continuation of the freedom of the press?

Are the 10 items listed in the text as necessary to fill the task of the first element of journalism, “to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing,” just words or does it cause in us fledgling journalists “a crisis of conviction”?

And, if we don’t become real journalists but remain simply citizens, what do you think about #10: “Citizens, too, have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the news?”

Brian, perhaps that’s a good topic for a case study?

Lippmann and The Wall Street Journal

Per Allan Sloan of the Washington Post (Wall Street Journal’s Net Worth Isn’t In Profits: June 5, 2007), he’s concerned that the Wall Street Journal’s reputation of fairness and balance could be in jeopardy if Rupert Murdoch owns it and puts his own political and economic interests in its news pages saying, “Yes, the Journal's journalistic reputation is Dow Jones's primary asset. But that doesn't mean Murdoch won't try to skew its journalism. He is what he is.”

I couldn’t help but think about Lippmann’s Public Opinion as I read this article. His assertion was, “I argue that representative government…cannot be worked successfully…unless there is an independent, expert organization for making unseen facts intelligible to those who have to make decisions.”

Sloan appears to cast the WSJ in that role but would Lippmann look at the Wall Street Journal as an independent, expert organization? Would he have any such veneration for the WSJ? Or since Lippman believed “political science” should be the “formulator” of public opinion, not the press itself, would he consider the WSJ as undeserving of the honor and respect Sloan gives it?

This leads to a question: If not the press, who in today’s world, would Lippmann consider qualified to determine public opinion?

We receive information from so many places but how do we know who formulated the message or what spin has been put on it? Who can we trust to provide accurate, impartial information to us – the WSJ?

Have you ever read the WSJ? I feel guilty as I confess I haven’t.

Have we become so accustomed to being fed opinions in 30-second sound bytes, that we are unable or unwilling to thoroughly research our opinions? Does that confirm we are part of the group Lippmann thought were not capable of understanding the intricacies of government?

Can we be “critical thinkers” or are we victims of media frontal lobotomies?

The Power of Reason

Nigel Warburton says of John Locke, “he believed that God had given is the wherewithal to achieve knowledge of God, of our moral duty and whatever was necessary to get through life but that, ultimately, the powers of reason were limited.”

So what might the limiting factors be?

■ An actual inability to reason due to some mental incapacity. We can’t expect a baby or someone with limited thought functions to reason – they simply don’t have the capacity to reason.

■ If as Locke believed, we learn everything through experience then perhaps one might simply not have had sufficient experience to allow them to reason through something. Think of a person who has not had any education, has not traveled beyond their limited boundaries and has no contact with an outside world. Their powers of reasoning would probably be quite stunted.

■ Lastly, and perhaps the most common, might be an unwillingness to open one’s mind due to fear, dogmatic beliefs or apathy. The first two of those could be considered to be due to external factors: some influencing person or experience has shaped the thought processes of an individual.

But the latter one, apathy, is more likely due to internal factors within the individual. Things you might hear to indicate apathy would be:
· I am just not into that.
· I’m too busy to bother with all that.
· Other people have to worry about that – not me.
· Boring!

A trend noted by the Project For Excellence in Journalism, is “The
Argument Culture is giving way to something new, the Answer Culture.” Their report, The State of the News Media 2007, states: “A growing pattern has news outlets, programs and journalists offering up solutions, crusades, certainty and the impression of putting all the blur of information in clear order for people.” How convenient for all of us!

Thomas Jefferson: Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.