1. Should NBC News have aired any of the footage? Some of the footage? How should that be determined?I think that they should have for sure aired it. People would have found out that NBC had it and it would have shown a huge backlash toward them. I think it is necessary to air it, but not after a few days. By now, everyone has seen it, and people do not need to see it anymore. It is very important to show some of the footage because it is news.
2. As a journalist, what are the ethical considerations in determining coverage of this controversial content?
It is an ethical dilemma because it could affect the families of the victims and the people at Virginia Tech. I think it is important to show, but not after a day or two. It would hurt people to see the video over and over. One thing I think is ridiculous is that people talk about how he is "glorified". I do not see anyone ever saying anything about how he did was great, everyone is saying about how he is crazy. He is not being glorififed at all, and the only reason that people are showing it is because it is news. I do not think it should be showed anymore, however.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Final Story, feature lead
“I’m sorry”..for what?
Ashtan Lucenti, a sophomore WSU student, could be spotted wearing a bright blue T-shirt with the saying “I’m Sorry” on it. One might find that a bit odd, however Lucenti was not the only person wearing the shirt. Other members from Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) were also wearing the shirts, which caused a lot of questioning.
Liz Walker, a junior and a member of CRU, explained what the shirts stood for. “The ‘I’m Sorry’ shirts consisted of a three day campaign with Campus Crusade for Christ. It gave Christians a chance to say they were "sorry" for the way they might misrepresent Christ.”
Walker made it clear that CRU wanted feedback from the students in how they think Christ has been misrepresented. A large cardboard elephant was placed on campus on April 12th, surrounded by members of the club wearing the shirts, available to answer student questions. “We wanted to see what non-Christian students thought of the campaign and asked them to write on the elephant,” said Walker.
According to Lucenti, “The “I’m Sorry” shirts were part of a larger movement on campus to reach out to those who have either been hurt by some one who is Christian, misunderstand what it means to be Christian or is confused about who God is in general.”
Lucenti went on to state that, “The point of wearing the shirt was to get people’s attention in the hopes that they would ask about what it meant, which would in turn would spark a conversation.”
The goal of the shirts was definitely reached. Lucenti spoke of many students who came up to her and asked what her shirt stood for, and she was delighted to explain it to them.
She did face some adversity. “I actually had one person call me hypocritical, so it made it a little difficult to believe that the outreach was for a good cause. But in the end the cynical comments were outweighed by the amazing conversations and support,” said Lucenti.
For Stephanie Jamison, a junior and another member of CRU, the “I’m sorry” shirts were important for her own personal self reflection. “There are a lot people that have been hurt by a church or even just been confused by someone that claims that they know God. I think that for me it was good to just think about what I am sorry for and the things that I have done that have misrepresented Christ. If I had confused even one person with my words or actions, then I am really sorry.”
According to Jamison, the idea of doing this on campus came from a book entitled “Blue Like Jazz.” The book took place at Reed College, and there was a confession booth that people could go in. Christians would be in the booth and confessed to the students that they have misrepresenting Christ in different ways. This has happened at other campuses and been very successful, said Jamison.
Some students wonder whether this will be an annual event. The three girls were not sure, but had a unanimous decision. “I definitely think it should be done annually,” Walker said.
“This was the first time we did it at WSU and I think it stirred up a lot of conversations and rebellion from a lot of people,” said Jamison. “There were good and bad things that came out of this campaign, which is expected. Even though there were a lot of people that went against the campaign, it was worth it to see even one person come to know and love God.”
Ashtan Lucenti, a sophomore WSU student, could be spotted wearing a bright blue T-shirt with the saying “I’m Sorry” on it. One might find that a bit odd, however Lucenti was not the only person wearing the shirt. Other members from Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) were also wearing the shirts, which caused a lot of questioning.
Liz Walker, a junior and a member of CRU, explained what the shirts stood for. “The ‘I’m Sorry’ shirts consisted of a three day campaign with Campus Crusade for Christ. It gave Christians a chance to say they were "sorry" for the way they might misrepresent Christ.”
Walker made it clear that CRU wanted feedback from the students in how they think Christ has been misrepresented. A large cardboard elephant was placed on campus on April 12th, surrounded by members of the club wearing the shirts, available to answer student questions. “We wanted to see what non-Christian students thought of the campaign and asked them to write on the elephant,” said Walker.
According to Lucenti, “The “I’m Sorry” shirts were part of a larger movement on campus to reach out to those who have either been hurt by some one who is Christian, misunderstand what it means to be Christian or is confused about who God is in general.”
Lucenti went on to state that, “The point of wearing the shirt was to get people’s attention in the hopes that they would ask about what it meant, which would in turn would spark a conversation.”
The goal of the shirts was definitely reached. Lucenti spoke of many students who came up to her and asked what her shirt stood for, and she was delighted to explain it to them.
She did face some adversity. “I actually had one person call me hypocritical, so it made it a little difficult to believe that the outreach was for a good cause. But in the end the cynical comments were outweighed by the amazing conversations and support,” said Lucenti.
For Stephanie Jamison, a junior and another member of CRU, the “I’m sorry” shirts were important for her own personal self reflection. “There are a lot people that have been hurt by a church or even just been confused by someone that claims that they know God. I think that for me it was good to just think about what I am sorry for and the things that I have done that have misrepresented Christ. If I had confused even one person with my words or actions, then I am really sorry.”
According to Jamison, the idea of doing this on campus came from a book entitled “Blue Like Jazz.” The book took place at Reed College, and there was a confession booth that people could go in. Christians would be in the booth and confessed to the students that they have misrepresenting Christ in different ways. This has happened at other campuses and been very successful, said Jamison.
Some students wonder whether this will be an annual event. The three girls were not sure, but had a unanimous decision. “I definitely think it should be done annually,” Walker said.
“This was the first time we did it at WSU and I think it stirred up a lot of conversations and rebellion from a lot of people,” said Jamison. “There were good and bad things that came out of this campaign, which is expected. Even though there were a lot of people that went against the campaign, it was worth it to see even one person come to know and love God.”
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Press Conference Piece
Rolling Stone magazine announced that they are unveiling Rolling Stone Radio online, according to Brett Atwood, Editor of Music Services to Real Networks.
“Rolling stone radio is a new multi -hannel internet specific streaming music service,” stated Atwood on Wednesday, April 4th.
There are twelve different channels playing online, and the user can choose which type of genre they would like to listen to.
In a month, an exclusive thirteenth 24/7 David Bowie station will be unveiled. “We partnered with David Bowie and his fan site to have him be the DJ,” Atwood stated. “He will program and host this channel. He’s selected songs that are his favorites.”
"As DJ for the BowieNet radio station on Rolling Stone Radio, my first playlist will include favorite songs from the last five decades. I'm hoping music fans all over the world tune in and join me,” Bowie stated.
In addition, Bowie will be talking in between the songs, and will be playing his own music. It will also include unreleased exclusive content.
Rolling Stone Radio and Real Networks came together to establish the website. “We think it will be the number one music service within a year,” said Atwood.
Seema Williams, an analyst at Forrester Research, stated “"This is going to be the year when Internet radio emerges from the shadows into the mainstream. This could become a truly mass medium ... and when that happens, radio as we know it will cease to exist."
“We are going to be bundling the Rolling stone real player with the normal real player,” said Atwood. This means that the plug in be there as well and will quickly enable this service to be penetrated out to the audience.
Rolling Stone is looking into having other artists have exclusive stations on the online radio. The names cannot be announced yet, but will be announced within the next three weeks. Atwood insisted upon the fact that these artists are well-known.
When asked about commercials on the station, Atwood stated that there will be three to four minutes of commercials for every 60 minutes of music. It is less than traditional radio, he said.
Another benefit, according to Atwood, is the ability to rate the music. Editors will take into account the ratings for songs and enables the public to have a say in what music is played online.
“We're very excited about the implications of Rolling Stone radio," said Atwood.
“Rolling stone radio is a new multi -hannel internet specific streaming music service,” stated Atwood on Wednesday, April 4th.
There are twelve different channels playing online, and the user can choose which type of genre they would like to listen to.
In a month, an exclusive thirteenth 24/7 David Bowie station will be unveiled. “We partnered with David Bowie and his fan site to have him be the DJ,” Atwood stated. “He will program and host this channel. He’s selected songs that are his favorites.”
"As DJ for the BowieNet radio station on Rolling Stone Radio, my first playlist will include favorite songs from the last five decades. I'm hoping music fans all over the world tune in and join me,” Bowie stated.
In addition, Bowie will be talking in between the songs, and will be playing his own music. It will also include unreleased exclusive content.
Rolling Stone Radio and Real Networks came together to establish the website. “We think it will be the number one music service within a year,” said Atwood.
Seema Williams, an analyst at Forrester Research, stated “"This is going to be the year when Internet radio emerges from the shadows into the mainstream. This could become a truly mass medium ... and when that happens, radio as we know it will cease to exist."
“We are going to be bundling the Rolling stone real player with the normal real player,” said Atwood. This means that the plug in be there as well and will quickly enable this service to be penetrated out to the audience.
Rolling Stone is looking into having other artists have exclusive stations on the online radio. The names cannot be announced yet, but will be announced within the next three weeks. Atwood insisted upon the fact that these artists are well-known.
When asked about commercials on the station, Atwood stated that there will be three to four minutes of commercials for every 60 minutes of music. It is less than traditional radio, he said.
Another benefit, according to Atwood, is the ability to rate the music. Editors will take into account the ratings for songs and enables the public to have a say in what music is played online.
“We're very excited about the implications of Rolling Stone radio," said Atwood.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Frontline Story
1. When referring to the allegation that Mayor Jim West was pursuing underage boys online, why do you think editor Steven Smith differentiated between a legitimate news story and one that is not legitimate when he said, "If he's [Mayor Jim West] engaged in this activity … we need to know that. If he's not -- there's no story" ?
It has to do with ethics, Smith needed to know what had actually happened and apparantly by creating a fake identity and having one person with a non believable story was enough to cover the issue and take down the mayor in a cruel way.
2. How did reporter Bill Morlin justify the use of a concealed identity on Gay.com as part of The Spokesman-Review's and the FBI's "sting operation"? Why didn't Morlin himself create the assumed identity to engage Mayor West online?
Morlin’s code of ethics kept him from pretending to be someone he wasn’t. It is legal, however, to hire consultants. The purpose for their investigation was to supposedly search for the truth.
3. Why do you think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties?
Because it was human interest and they feel like people need to know. For such a small town, it was obvious that with not much else going on that this would be the big story and would sell a lot of papers. Also, the town is conservative and this is a story that people want to know about, if no other reason than to just scorn the mayor for his closeted homosexuality.
4. In the final analysis, who benefited from The Spokesman-Review's decision to expose Mayor West and his alleged improprieties? Who was hurt? Do you think the outcome was worth it? Explain your reasoning.
I definitely do not think it was worth it. It seems to me to be completely unethical and discriminatory toward gays. There was no evidence that he had molested boys in the 1970s. There is no evidence the he was seeking sexual favors from children. Mayor West was hurt and his sexual orientation is no one else’s business. No one came forward and said that West abused them, except for one person whose story was skeptical. He was battling for his life. Although I understand why it was reported, I do not agree with it by any means and consider certain aspects of it to be completely unethical.
5. The Spokesman-Review has been criticized as conducting a "witch hunt" in its reporting on the private lives of some city officials. Below is a link to another recent article on Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch. Do you think that there are any ethical problems in the reporting in this story? Why or why not?
I think that the Spokesman-Review tried to pry into the lives of city officials because there is nothing else to do. Private lives should be kept private and I think that the newspaper is blurring the lines of codes of ethics and personal matters. I think that by trying to figure out if Lynch was at the park or not is completely ridiculous and not necessary to report on. Who cares why he wants to have a leave of absence? It is his own right to do so and no indications should be provided on what he could be doing or what his sexual orientation is.
It has to do with ethics, Smith needed to know what had actually happened and apparantly by creating a fake identity and having one person with a non believable story was enough to cover the issue and take down the mayor in a cruel way.
2. How did reporter Bill Morlin justify the use of a concealed identity on Gay.com as part of The Spokesman-Review's and the FBI's "sting operation"? Why didn't Morlin himself create the assumed identity to engage Mayor West online?
Morlin’s code of ethics kept him from pretending to be someone he wasn’t. It is legal, however, to hire consultants. The purpose for their investigation was to supposedly search for the truth.
3. Why do you think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties?
Because it was human interest and they feel like people need to know. For such a small town, it was obvious that with not much else going on that this would be the big story and would sell a lot of papers. Also, the town is conservative and this is a story that people want to know about, if no other reason than to just scorn the mayor for his closeted homosexuality.
4. In the final analysis, who benefited from The Spokesman-Review's decision to expose Mayor West and his alleged improprieties? Who was hurt? Do you think the outcome was worth it? Explain your reasoning.
I definitely do not think it was worth it. It seems to me to be completely unethical and discriminatory toward gays. There was no evidence that he had molested boys in the 1970s. There is no evidence the he was seeking sexual favors from children. Mayor West was hurt and his sexual orientation is no one else’s business. No one came forward and said that West abused them, except for one person whose story was skeptical. He was battling for his life. Although I understand why it was reported, I do not agree with it by any means and consider certain aspects of it to be completely unethical.
5. The Spokesman-Review has been criticized as conducting a "witch hunt" in its reporting on the private lives of some city officials. Below is a link to another recent article on Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch. Do you think that there are any ethical problems in the reporting in this story? Why or why not?
I think that the Spokesman-Review tried to pry into the lives of city officials because there is nothing else to do. Private lives should be kept private and I think that the newspaper is blurring the lines of codes of ethics and personal matters. I think that by trying to figure out if Lynch was at the park or not is completely ridiculous and not necessary to report on. Who cares why he wants to have a leave of absence? It is his own right to do so and no indications should be provided on what he could be doing or what his sexual orientation is.
Monday, April 2, 2007
In Class Assignment 4/2
Both of these websites are news-based. In addition, both of these are not traditional news sites, because they are more biased and can influence the public because it is not sponsored by big media sites. Also, they both include links to stories and most stories are not first hand reporting. They both give opinion and news. The Huffington Post has a blog area while the Drudge Report did not, as far as I could see.
Based on the headlines, it seems that the Drudge Report has a more democratic/liberal leaning because some of the main links talk about Democratic candidates, for example, Hillary sets record for any Dem during a single primary quarter... ,Clinton Backs Public Funds for Campaigns... and the main headline at the top deals with global warming, generally a democratic issue. SUPREME COURT RULES: 'CLIMATE CHANGE IS SERIOUS'...
I think that the Huffington post is more republican/conservative because its main story was about Giuliani's wife. There are also postings near the top about republican candidates like John McCain and talked abouit positive outcomes of being in Iraq, which is generally a more conservative topic.
There is definitely a difference in criteria in choosing these headlines. Obviously there will be a bias in whichever the person in charge thinks is the most important. Huffington and Drudge both choose which is most important and put those on the top of their online publications.
One example of a headline that doesn't match up is one from the Huffington Post regarding positive change in Iraq. In reality, the headline doesn't say anything about that. I found another example from the Drudge Report. The link states that Hillary has set a record, however the actual website asks if it is a good or bad thing.
I think that these sites do have the power to influence the public. If someone does not like traditional media then they will definitely go to these sites. Also, these sites are popular because they are different and people might have more trust in average citizens than national media. People might also go to these sites because of their political leaning and their views on news in general.
Based on the headlines, it seems that the Drudge Report has a more democratic/liberal leaning because some of the main links talk about Democratic candidates, for example, Hillary sets record for any Dem during a single primary quarter... ,Clinton Backs Public Funds for Campaigns... and the main headline at the top deals with global warming, generally a democratic issue. SUPREME COURT RULES: 'CLIMATE CHANGE IS SERIOUS'...
I think that the Huffington post is more republican/conservative because its main story was about Giuliani's wife. There are also postings near the top about republican candidates like John McCain and talked abouit positive outcomes of being in Iraq, which is generally a more conservative topic.
There is definitely a difference in criteria in choosing these headlines. Obviously there will be a bias in whichever the person in charge thinks is the most important. Huffington and Drudge both choose which is most important and put those on the top of their online publications.
One example of a headline that doesn't match up is one from the Huffington Post regarding positive change in Iraq. In reality, the headline doesn't say anything about that. I found another example from the Drudge Report. The link states that Hillary has set a record, however the actual website asks if it is a good or bad thing.
I think that these sites do have the power to influence the public. If someone does not like traditional media then they will definitely go to these sites. Also, these sites are popular because they are different and people might have more trust in average citizens than national media. People might also go to these sites because of their political leaning and their views on news in general.
In Class Assignment 4/2
Both of these websites are news-based. In addition, both of these are not traditional news sites, because they are more biased and can influence the public because it is not sponsored by big media sites. Also, they both include links to stories and most stories are not first hand reporting. They both give opinion and news. The Huffington Post has a blog area while the Drudge Report did not, as far as I could see.
Based on the headlines, it seems that the Drudge Report has a more democratic/liberal leaning because some of the main links talk about Democratic candidates, for example, Hillary sets record for any Dem during a single primary quarter... ,Clinton Backs Public Funds for Campaigns... and the main headline at the top deals with global warming, generally a democratic issue. SUPREME COURT RULES: 'CLIMATE CHANGE IS SERIOUS'...
I think that the Huffington post is more republican/conservative because its main story was about Giuliani's wife. There are also postings near the top about republican candidates like John McCain and talked abouit positive outcomes of being in Iraq, which is generally a more conservative topic.
There is definitely a difference in criteria in choosing these headlines. Obviously there will be a bias in whichever the person in charge thinks is the most important. Huffington and Drudge both choose which is most important and put those on the top of their online publications.
One example of a headline that doesn't match up is one from the Huffington Post regarding positive change in Iraq. In reality, the headline doesn't say anything about that. I found another example from the Drudge Report. The link states that Hillary has set a record, however the actual website asks if it is a good or bad thing.
I think that these sites do have the power to influence the public. If someone does not like traditional media then they will definitely go to these sites. Also, these sites are popular because they are different and people might have more trust in average citizens than national media. People might also go to these sites because of their political leaning and their views on news in general.
Based on the headlines, it seems that the Drudge Report has a more democratic/liberal leaning because some of the main links talk about Democratic candidates, for example, Hillary sets record for any Dem during a single primary quarter... ,Clinton Backs Public Funds for Campaigns... and the main headline at the top deals with global warming, generally a democratic issue. SUPREME COURT RULES: 'CLIMATE CHANGE IS SERIOUS'...
I think that the Huffington post is more republican/conservative because its main story was about Giuliani's wife. There are also postings near the top about republican candidates like John McCain and talked abouit positive outcomes of being in Iraq, which is generally a more conservative topic.
There is definitely a difference in criteria in choosing these headlines. Obviously there will be a bias in whichever the person in charge thinks is the most important. Huffington and Drudge both choose which is most important and put those on the top of their online publications.
One example of a headline that doesn't match up is one from the Huffington Post regarding positive change in Iraq. In reality, the headline doesn't say anything about that. I found another example from the Drudge Report. The link states that Hillary has set a record, however the actual website asks if it is a good or bad thing.
I think that these sites do have the power to influence the public. If someone does not like traditional media then they will definitely go to these sites. Also, these sites are popular because they are different and people might have more trust in average citizens than national media. People might also go to these sites because of their political leaning and their views on news in general.
In Class exercise 3 26
In Class exercise
1.I found statistics for San Diego, California, which is where I was born. The population is over one million, so I need to take into account that there will probably be more crime there than in a smaller city, because of the higher population of people. There were 3,141 violent crimes in total, 36 murders, 159 forcible rapes, 987 robberies, 1,959 aggravated assaults, 22,479 property crimes, 3564 burglaries, 12,296 larceny thefts, 6,619 motor vehicle thefts, and 113 cases of arson. I found the car theft statistics interested because our car got stolen when we lived there in about 1993.
2.Troy Kelley received the most political donations under the house with over 237,000. He financed his own campaign. Christopher Marr received the most under the senate with 420,201. The Senate Democratic Committee raised the most for Marr. The NRA political victory fund was the most generous in Washington State. Most of the money went to the republican party, about 80%. Carl H Lindner was the largest insurance, with American financial and the total is 1,760,000. The largest beer/wine industry donator was BG Distribution partners. Rick Perry, a republican candidate, got the most money. Tom Craddick, another republican, also recieved a lot of money. The largest donor in the casino/gambling industry was Ohio Legacy Fund. They spent the most money on Issue 3.
3. I looked up my boyfriend, Matt Hoagland. Surprisingly, some of the hits I found on google.com were actually him. The hits about him included his membership in his fraternity, Delta Upsilon, and showed him being president. It also showed one of his quotes from the Daily Evergreen, and how he won one of the activities for the rec center in 2003. Other than that, I could not find much on him. I found multiple other Matt Hoaglands, most specifically a high school social studies teacher.
1.I found statistics for San Diego, California, which is where I was born. The population is over one million, so I need to take into account that there will probably be more crime there than in a smaller city, because of the higher population of people. There were 3,141 violent crimes in total, 36 murders, 159 forcible rapes, 987 robberies, 1,959 aggravated assaults, 22,479 property crimes, 3564 burglaries, 12,296 larceny thefts, 6,619 motor vehicle thefts, and 113 cases of arson. I found the car theft statistics interested because our car got stolen when we lived there in about 1993.
2.Troy Kelley received the most political donations under the house with over 237,000. He financed his own campaign. Christopher Marr received the most under the senate with 420,201. The Senate Democratic Committee raised the most for Marr. The NRA political victory fund was the most generous in Washington State. Most of the money went to the republican party, about 80%. Carl H Lindner was the largest insurance, with American financial and the total is 1,760,000. The largest beer/wine industry donator was BG Distribution partners. Rick Perry, a republican candidate, got the most money. Tom Craddick, another republican, also recieved a lot of money. The largest donor in the casino/gambling industry was Ohio Legacy Fund. They spent the most money on Issue 3.
3. I looked up my boyfriend, Matt Hoagland. Surprisingly, some of the hits I found on google.com were actually him. The hits about him included his membership in his fraternity, Delta Upsilon, and showed him being president. It also showed one of his quotes from the Daily Evergreen, and how he won one of the activities for the rec center in 2003. Other than that, I could not find much on him. I found multiple other Matt Hoaglands, most specifically a high school social studies teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)