An Unprecented News Report

So, I found this through the worlds greatest political satire blog, Wonkette, and I thought it was pretty funny.



I don't know how many of you are Grey's Anatomy fans, but I recall a similar video montage a few years ago highlighting the overuse of the word "seriously" on that TV show. Apparently we have similar concerns for our president!

Don't get me wrong, if there's something going on with the Obama administration, I want to hear about it. But, really. They counted how many times he used the word?

xoxo
DG

Media Credentials

Media credentials for bloggers?

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
- Alan Kay

Question: Should the Utah Legislature issue some kind of credential to citizen reporters?

If so, what privileges should a citizen media credential imply? What responsibilities would it imply? What would differentiate a "citizen journalist" from a random dude with a blog? Is the distinction important?

What policies should we have in place?

Utah has a thoughtful, fairly cohesive New Media community. Let's flesh out a proposal that 1) makes sense to Utah's citizen journalists and 2) is palatable to Utah lawmakers.

Or not. It's possible that any added freedom of movement would fail to mitigate the bureaucratic hassle of credentialing.

Is anyone interested in the discussion? Leave your thoughts here. Or Email me.

You know what they say, never bring a knife to a gun fight.
I've thought about this as the White House/Fox News war has finally entered an apparent armistice (with the exception of recently departed Anita). I've contemplated the wisdom of the White House in engaging Fox in a war they couldn't have hoped to truly win and couldn't end with anything less than a major bump in ratings for Fox and major loss of prestige for the White House and especially the President.
I will readily admit that Fox News cannot be called an impartial media outlet. I don't think that its actual news shows are as bad as some would say, but any station that airs Sean Hannity and his edited riots, Glenn Beck and his condescending lectures, or Bill O'Reilly and his outrageous no-spin zone as officially cast itself loose from any neutral moorings.
However, I don't think that Fox is any less legitimate source of news than MSNBC or CNN. If we're talking strict impartiality, at least Fox reported as many negative things about McCain as it did about the President (compared to the outrageously biased coverage of CNN and MSNBC). The bottom line is, although Fox is a conservative news program, it still is a news program. I may choose to shun it like the plague, but that's a personal preference, I'm also not going to read the New York Times over the Wall Street Journal, it's a matter of taste and presentation.
So let me say that I think the attacks of the White House by Dunn, Axelrod, and Emmanuel were terribly bad form and have done much by way of lowering the prestige of the President, which is a big deal. They unleash this offensive in which they expect the other media organizations to just jump in and join the frenzy, what were they expecting CNN and MSNBC to do? This was a manifestation of either terrible political calculating or gross hubris. Anita Dunn especially perturbs me. She said a lot of things that damned her, but forefront on the list would be her statement that Fox News should not be compared to CNN or MSNBC (as though they are the models of news purity) as a legitimate news organization and that the fact-checking of the Assistant Secretary of VA by Chris Wallace was a bad idea. These are things you just should not say. For one thing, CNN and MSNBC are not models of media chastity. Both have flaws and slants in their coverage, and ere long both shall become even more slanted one or multiple ways as media develops. For another, telling any news organization how to report is like asking for a kidney punch. It just looks bad.
This will end just as how we expect it to end. With Dunn's departure the White House can drop it, Fox News' ratings will continue to rise, and Beck and Hannity will gloat for a year about how they stuck it at the White House. It's all kind of infuriating really.

In response to Dunn's departure (and some barbs she let fly at a conference), a Fox News spokesman quickly corrected her more egregious errors of fact and then said, "We wish her well."

this means war!

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/fox-shuts-liberal-bloggers/

....

you must read this. you will laugh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/palin-i-did-katie-couric_n_357317.html

FAIL.

Sean Hannity uses Glenn Beck's protest footage.

how noble....

speaking of advocacy journalism....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29426.html

The Blame Game

I have yet to fully realize how politically correct we've become in this country. As the whole Ft. Hood debacle began and quickly concluded, we noted in class how timid the major media was about revealing Hasan's Muslim ties. Even days later, the mere affiliation was and still is reduced to an arbitrary detail buried deep within any news coverage.

I thought after the initial news coverage on Ft. Hood we'd begin to see stories about how the families and friends of the victims were affected by this enormous travesty-- possibly even something about gun control. Sunday afternoon I read this article featured in the New York Times. Instead, the article was on Muslims in the military, served up with a side-order of guilt. This article conjured up regret that I and probably every reader had when they naturally reacted to the idea that the gunmen was Muslim.

Aside from the guilt trip, the article left me asking, 'Is having ENLISTED soldiers fight a war they may find in contradiction with their nationality, religion, or basic ideals something we should be debating as citizens in this country?' Am I being 'primed' to believe that the Ft. Hood incident is America's fault?

Now there's a trashy news show!

"Conservatives caught wind of this 36-second clip of Sesame Street re-run — it originally aired during the Bush presidency and ran again last week — and they are not amused. Well, at least some of them don’t think it’s very funny.

If you can’t watch, let me break it down for you: Oscar the Grouch starts his own network called GNN (Grouchy News Network). Right here, I gotta say, that’s funny shit and not just for the toddler set. I’ve been laughing about it for at least 17 seconds. A female caller dials in to Oscar’s show and eventually claims that she’s going to start watching Pox News, “a trashy news show.”

This is Sesame Street, dudes. It needs to be kept innocent and clean and free of political agenda, especially considering that it is partially funded by American tax dollars. Let’s just allow our kids to focus on deaf Linda and her hot romance with Bob the shop keeper. Yes, I’ve realized that these characters are probably dead now, but I live in 1975 — it’s how I roll.

Whilst a Sesame Street spokesperson claimed that it was meant to be a “harmless parody,” PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler had this to say about the skit: ”I don’t know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn’t do it through the kids.

Whew. Now that we’ve got that resolved, I’d like to announce tomorrow’s Sesame Street guest: Michelle Obama. Yep, I’m serious."

Via EvilBeet

XOXO SER

Smell The Hope

Duh, this is why.

XOXO SER

And occasionally I blog.

I was going to write a lovely piece about crises coverage. It was going to be about Fort Hood and the gunmen who opened fire, killing several people and injuring even more. But thankfully, the Huffington Post and their open comment forum with each story changed my mind and I won't be writing about that. Mostly due to comments like this one:

KimberlyPennell: How did someone named Nidal Malik Hasan become an Army Major?? I feel so sorry for the families of those were killed or wounded.

The labels given to certain groups of people, and the ways media write about people is often ridiculed. Why make such a big deal about the way to describe those who are living in the country without residency, or writing about individuals who come from a diverse background?Perhaps it's the same reason we were able to spend almost an entire class lecture talking about the framing of race and ethnicity in stories, specifically dealing with Hurricane Katrina.

Is the media just being extra careful so as to not offend and isolate themselves? Very possible. Are they doing so to inundate the public and spread their personal views? Maybe. But in this situation would that be so bad?

Then we might not have women like Ms. Pennell wondering how/why a man with a "different" last name could be in the Army. You know, because that cool boy I went to high school with, who happened to be of Middle Eastern decent, doesn't deserve to serve in the Army because of his name.

Article source: huffingtonpost.com

XOXO, NB

For Dione

Mathphobia

“Go through some of the archives of any newspaper or TV station—even some of the most prestigious—and you can find astounding examples of bad math, inept comparisons, statistical tomfoolery.”
—James Ledbetter, journalist, editor & author,
in 1997 “College Issue,” Rolling Stone

(From Prof. Pease's Word on Journalism)

The Evolution of News

So recently, in an act of awesomeness, I drove away with my cell phone on top of my car. (This has a point, I swear, your honor.) After my phone was obviously ruined, I had to get a new phone. In exploring the new fancy applications that are available for this phone, I was particularly interested in the news applications.

I found that there are a plethora of available news sources that deliver up-to-date information right to your cell phone. I was especially drawn to the applications that were free, easy to use, and - frankly - pretty! Interesting interfaces overpowered my preference for the actual source of information.

We keep talking about how the news media must change and evolve as technology changes as well and this is an avenue I hadn't thought of. When I look up news on the internet or actually pick up a paper, I am more selective about what sources from which my news comes. But when there is a great difference in availability, my personal preference for the media outlet comes second.

So, that's what I was thinking lately. Yup.

Xoxo
DG

Motivations of a Journalists

For those of you who haven't had the privilege, journalism professor/department head Ted Pease hosts a daily blogspot called 'Today's Word in Journalism' that I'd recommend checking out. One of his posts was a reaction article written by Rolling Stone author, Matt Taibbi on a story that was recently featured in New York Magazine. As new forms of media such as blogs become more common, it's hard to decipher how emerging and traditional news evolve. Taibbi talks about how the blogger is really the only true form of journalism alive. "Maybe it’s time we all stopped drawing a big distinction between bloggers and mainstream journalists, because, let’s be honest, that distinction doesn’t really count for s*** anymore."

ominous news for news

here's an interesting article i found on politico about the downfall of traditional media, (ominous music playing)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28822.html#

Sure, Kenny

So, following up on Kenny's post that focuses on comedy and news, and partially (mostly) because I love love love Stephen Colbert, I present to you a video:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

What I love about this, among so many other things, is that it obviously mocks some of the more ridiculous aspects of the gay rights debate (I feel like everyone's arguments become ridiculous in this debate). But I think it highlights something else, too.

Personally, I think that the saucy, edgy, sexy (sexually oriented?) story about the gays fighting for their rights is very media-friendly. There is definitely an argument to be made about the momentum of the movement (I'm thinking of a certain proposition in California in particular) and its relation to the insane amounts of media support. What's not to love about the story? You can film crazy-eyed religious figures, spitting upon the damned souls whilst the flamboyant gay men kiss in front of them. You can't write scripts this saucy! And the human interest stories! You interview a religious figure (I don't know why I imagine a Southern accent here...) who recounts how it is devaluing the rights of her marriage and the tragic degradation of family. And then you interview a nice, modest gay couple who have been together for a decade and only want rights (marriage, visitation, insurance, etc), because one of them has cancer. Everyone knows that sex always sells, and there's nothing sexier than sex - except gay sex, apparently.

Thoughts?

comedy and news

so here's my problem. i'm a conservative guy, but i like to think that i'm not a mindless sheep who follows the shouts and calls of the demagogues on the ultimately doomed march of irrational thinking.
because of that i try to avoid watching fox news not only because of its strongly conservative stripe but also because it doesn't present itself in a way that i feel gives their ideology the credit it deserves. the conservative movement when pursued in a rational way is completely legitimate and deserves the attention of people who care about the workings of the world.
so i had heretofore tried to get my television media info from msnbc (which besides fox is the only network show we get)because although i knew it was more left-leaning i'd rather at least here someone disagree with me in a civil way than agree with me and invoke Christianity and traditional reactionary values in a very loud voice.
then i watched this video that prof.strickler had us watch on olbermann where he bashes my Church (never a good way to get on my good side) and then proceeds to lambast his opponents on fox. and he yells. and i wonder, "good hell, is this what it has come to?" bill o'reilly and keith olbermann are the exact same person, just with a slightly different speech. they use fear, anger, and division to inspire their watchers to attack the opposition without even thinking about the legitimacy of their positions. i hate how bill o'reilly says protesting is un-patriotic and i hate how olbermann says that all of our problems are a result of Christianity and the bush administration.
so imagine my joy when i came across these links where jon stewart and colbert proceed to throw it in the faces of those who represent everything i've come to hate about mass media. i post these links for your enjoyment (because they are hilarious) but also for musings and introspection.
colbert also poses an interesting hypothesis where he says that he's pretty sure kids are already somewhat informed or they wouldn't understand the humor that he and jon use. i'm not sure about that, but it's hopeful to contemplate.

jon stewart shreds crossfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

jon stewart on bill o'reilly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pK7sK0i4A&NR=1

stephen colbert on the o'reailly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QquTUR9nbC4&NR=1

For Kenny

XOXO SER

‘Reconstruction of American Journalism’

This article, "New financial models & university role proposed for ‘Reconstruction of American Journalism’" was extraordinarily interesting considering our current role as students at a public university.

Any thoughts? Does journalism need to be reconstructed to survive?

Also, I just loved this Twitter I saw today:

@aplusk RT @zaibatsu "For all of the media covering #balloonboy, I have 3 words for you = Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq."

XOXO SER

1st Amendment Was Never So Thrilling

About a month ago I was flipping through Redbox movies when I stumbled upon this great flick that I’d recommend checking out. At the time I watched this, my political science class was discussing specific rights the press enjoys, one of which comes into controversy and creates the premise of this movie. Should a journalist’s source be allowed immunity regardless of circumstances? Between the three exceptions dictated by the Supreme Court and the Constitution reading “Congress shall make no law… or abridge freedom of the press,” I’m still left scratching my head. This smart, dramatic thriller will get your blood pumping and provoke some thought. Best of all, it’s based on true events and if nothing else, you get to watch a great cast of A-class celebrities including Alan Alda from MASH.

Picture and information retrieved at http://www.nothingbutthetruthfilm.com/

Welcome!

This is a blog for Dr. Strickler's Mass Media and Politics class.

Blog on peeps.

- Sarah