As with most, this is my opinion on things. I could be horrendously wrong. Just pat me on the head and pay me no mind.
MP3 players, Podcasting and Journalism
With the advent of iPods and other such devices, it's obvious people are spending a lot more time walking and driving around with personalized audio content. I've ended up wandering around to the wrong part of campus a few times because I was intently listening to a song on my MP3 player.
People have had the opportunity to listen to audio while mobile for a while now, but it was limited in its length and, in some cases, quality. Tapes were great but couldn't store a lot of information. CDs were good, but even today Discman's and the like don't have the best "anti-skip" technology. MP3 players really broke the barrier with their sizeable hard drives and digital content.
TV shows like Battlestar Galactica (remember, I'm a Sci Fi freak, so this is the example you're getting) have taken the public's enjoyment and reliance on MP3s to expand its interaction with the show. Ron Moore has made Podcasts available for separate episodes that function similar to a DVD's Director Commentary. Instead of just watching the show, a viewer can hear humorous stories about the filming of a particular scene or discover what the director particularly hoped to emphasize about a character. It brings the public closer to an in-depth experience about the show.
What works for TV shows could very easily work for journalism. I, for one, sometimes dread the drive (and walk) to class because I'm trapped with either news stories I do not want to hear any more about (Michael Jackson trial) or CDs that I really don't want to begin hating because I've over-played them.
Enter opportunity. News sites like CNN could make extensive and in-depth coverage of events into an MP3, which is relatively easy to download depending on a person's connection speed. If I wanted to learn about the history of the Terri Schiavo case from beginning to end, CNN could make a compilation of audio clips and reports in MP3 format. The progression of a news event could be analyzed by those who reported on it. In essence it could become an audio version of CNN Presents, which generally takes the longer view on the stories it covers.
I'll admit I'm shaky on how this would work, but it might be possible to have a program set up to sync a MP3 player with a news site at specific times, downloading the latest news reports before a person leaves for/from work. Instant recent newscast available for the drive.
As far as MP3 players that record audio, there you have a simple way of selecting and uploading soundbytes from an interview to the web to go with a reporter's written story. Instead of just reading the text quote, it could be a link to it as well. There are some things people say that are just too unbelievable when it's only words on a page. Hearing them actually say it can be gold.
Mobile Video Players and Journalism
Really, this is just an extension of what I've already said, but with video. Along with the idea that you could download a video of a particular news segment, there's the thought of delivering extra content for people to watch. Too often people struggle with the context of a statement made in an interview (The Connie Chung/Gingrich parents example comes to mind). Digitizing and making available for download the entire video of an interview could allow people to make up their own minds about an interview. Journalists are in the habit of cutting and splicing to provide the "most important" information to the public. I would say a growing number of people want ALL the information, not just some. Yes, it might be about their particular hobby subject, but it's a way to supplement an existing newscast.
I might come back to this with more ideas, but for right now I'll stop here.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Deep Throat Revealed - My Reaction
It's most likely a generation gap issue, but I'm not at all plugged in to the high emotional content of this story. Those who've referred to Felt as a sneak or a traitor come off as laughable to me, while the cynics over the Felt family motives are simply annoying. It seems as though everyone's taken their positions to the extreme end far too fast in an effort to get out a sound-byte.
What so many of the people trying to tear down Felt conveniently forget to mention, from my perspective, is that the Nixon administration really was doing something wrong. I'm sure there were power games going on beyond the fact that Felt was confirming information for Woodward and Bernstein. It's politics. Felt was not a hero and he was not a traitor to the Nixon administration either. It's not something you can white-hat/black-hat. He was a whistle-blower in a way, yes, but Woodward has made the point that much of the time Felt was confirming info that the journalists had gotten elsewhere, not masterminding it.
I think the fact that his identity was concealed for so long helped create this problem, however. Several articles have dwelled on the fact that the mystery made it possible for Deep Throat's cult status to grow, possibly beyond any reasonable estimation of his actual importance in the scheme of the story. The mystery-man became the story instead of the facts, so now that there's a clear target a lot of people are taking a shot. Or twenty.
I feel the Post is more than justified in having kept Deep Throat's identity concealed. If the only way a paper could write a story is to list everyone they talked to, nobody would risk talking to the paper for fear of the consequences. Papers have not only a duty to the public at large, they have a duty to protect those who bring them the information that will serve the public at large. One of the biggest things we've learned here is that there must be trust between a reporter and a source as well as a reporter and the reading public.
What so many of the people trying to tear down Felt conveniently forget to mention, from my perspective, is that the Nixon administration really was doing something wrong. I'm sure there were power games going on beyond the fact that Felt was confirming information for Woodward and Bernstein. It's politics. Felt was not a hero and he was not a traitor to the Nixon administration either. It's not something you can white-hat/black-hat. He was a whistle-blower in a way, yes, but Woodward has made the point that much of the time Felt was confirming info that the journalists had gotten elsewhere, not masterminding it.
I think the fact that his identity was concealed for so long helped create this problem, however. Several articles have dwelled on the fact that the mystery made it possible for Deep Throat's cult status to grow, possibly beyond any reasonable estimation of his actual importance in the scheme of the story. The mystery-man became the story instead of the facts, so now that there's a clear target a lot of people are taking a shot. Or twenty.
I feel the Post is more than justified in having kept Deep Throat's identity concealed. If the only way a paper could write a story is to list everyone they talked to, nobody would risk talking to the paper for fear of the consequences. Papers have not only a duty to the public at large, they have a duty to protect those who bring them the information that will serve the public at large. One of the biggest things we've learned here is that there must be trust between a reporter and a source as well as a reporter and the reading public.
Deep Throat Revealed - Continued
Something I found interesting is MSNBC's Bloggerman Keith Olbermann's point that, while many news sources, personalities, and critics are treating this as a final chapter in the story, it might not be. Olbermann said, "Deep Throat could not have acted alone." Chances for further investigation could lead to a whole new round of mystery figures.
Punditguy.com's blog brings up the fact that Felt had been passed over for promotion to the FBI's top slot, saying "[...]in the end, it was an act of revenge, pure and simple. Felt had a vendetta against the president, and he got back at him by spoon feeding information to Woodward, knowing it would fatally damage Nixon."
Punditguy.com's blog brings up the fact that Felt had been passed over for promotion to the FBI's top slot, saying "[...]in the end, it was an act of revenge, pure and simple. Felt had a vendetta against the president, and he got back at him by spoon feeding information to Woodward, knowing it would fatally damage Nixon."
Deep Throat Revealed - Part One
With the identity of Deep Throat revealed, everyone in the political world seems to have developed an opinion on his actions. There are those that hail him as a hero, a whistle-blower of sorts on the Nixon administration, while others find his actions to be criminal.
Pat Buchanan called him a snake on MSNBC's Hardball. (Transcript)
Buchanan said, "Yes, I think he's sneaky. And I think he's dishonorable in what he did."
On the same program Tom Brokaw discussed the journalistic aspects of the case, saying that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had reinvented investigative journalism when other journalists were "fat, dumb and happy in the press room."
The Washington Post blogs have been active with discussion of the motivation behind the family coming out with the information now. Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara called the family's motives "self-serving." Mark Felt's daughter Joan did admit to discussing how they could use money from revealing his identity to help the family.
Pat Buchanan called him a snake on MSNBC's Hardball. (Transcript)
Buchanan said, "Yes, I think he's sneaky. And I think he's dishonorable in what he did."
On the same program Tom Brokaw discussed the journalistic aspects of the case, saying that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had reinvented investigative journalism when other journalists were "fat, dumb and happy in the press room."
The Washington Post blogs have been active with discussion of the motivation behind the family coming out with the information now. Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara called the family's motives "self-serving." Mark Felt's daughter Joan did admit to discussing how they could use money from revealing his identity to help the family.
Friday, June 03, 2005
SMU Daily Data "Improvement" Idea
I have a rather biased opinion on what should go on the Daily Data site since I was in class last semester working on some of it. I guess biased is the wrong word. It's more that I'm suffering from restricted vision. I know there's already a lot of stuff on the site.
I was walking down the halls of the building today and noticed the displays of assignments from students in the Photojournalism classes. Some of the pictures are very impressive, and I think it would be cool to see some of that work up on a Web site. It could serve as both a Web exposure for SMU, showing what students in classes are doing, as well as being a help to the students who created those pictures. Sort of a photo resume source.
I don't even think it would have to be limited to Journalism students here at U. Lee. There have to be art courses that would be interested in having some product exposure for their exceptional students.
I was walking down the halls of the building today and noticed the displays of assignments from students in the Photojournalism classes. Some of the pictures are very impressive, and I think it would be cool to see some of that work up on a Web site. It could serve as both a Web exposure for SMU, showing what students in classes are doing, as well as being a help to the students who created those pictures. Sort of a photo resume source.
I don't even think it would have to be limited to Journalism students here at U. Lee. There have to be art courses that would be interested in having some product exposure for their exceptional students.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
First Blog Assignment - May 26
According to Wikipedia, on May 26, 1972, the United States and Soviet Union signed the anti-ballistic missle (ABM) treaty. The treaty was signed by President Nixon and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev.
The treaty was intended to limit arms proliferation, after advancements in long-range missles such as the MIRV brought the Soviet Union into parity with the United States. The financial cost of an ABM, which could take down only one warhead per ABM, compared to a multi-warhead missle like the MIRV would have been staggering. The treaty was intended to limit both offensive systems as well as defensive systems.
Though ABM treaties had been proposed as early as 1967, but earlier proposals were rejected. The ABM treaty was signed in Moscow, and then ratified by the senate in August 1972.
The treaty was intended to limit arms proliferation, after advancements in long-range missles such as the MIRV brought the Soviet Union into parity with the United States. The financial cost of an ABM, which could take down only one warhead per ABM, compared to a multi-warhead missle like the MIRV would have been staggering. The treaty was intended to limit both offensive systems as well as defensive systems.
Though ABM treaties had been proposed as early as 1967, but earlier proposals were rejected. The ABM treaty was signed in Moscow, and then ratified by the senate in August 1972.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Weblogs and the Mainstream Media
I'm one of those who absolutely loves the utility of weblogs. My own personal weblog is a way of communicating my opinion and feeling about something to friends, family, and the world at large. However, I'm also very conscious of the fact that whatever goes into my weblog is something I've put there for my own reasons. It's something that is my opinion. It's not my journalistic tool. I am personally under no obligation (except perhaps a personal ethical one) to vet the information in it. Though I forget it at times, neither is anyone else under that obligation. Blogs are personal soapboxes and everyone has their axes to grind.
I don't believe all webloggers have nefarious ulterior motives all the time, but it's somewhat shocking to me that some weblogs have been catapulted from "personal squawkbox" to "respected journalistic outlet." To use the example of The Drudge Report ... many many times I have heard of a story on the Drudge site causing a stir and therefore getting news coverage. More often than not it's coverage that I find hurts "my side" on certain political issues. I had absolutely no idea that The Drudge Report was a weblog until my teacher mentioned it in class. That actually made the extreme right-leaning tendencies of the site far more understandable. It was bothersome to me that a "news site" could be so obviously biased, but news channels like Fox News already seemed to bend that "Fair and Balanced" idea anyway.
These days it seems like news organizations keep a careful watch on certain weblogs. They've become a source of possible stories, if not the front line in getting stories wholecloth. The problem I see coming with this trend is that sometimes respectable news sources might skimp on their own work or ethics. The fact that webloggers aren't really held to the same standards and practices of "real" journalists may mean that they can engage in less-than-savory tactics to get their story. Once a "story" is out there actual news stations could take the 'blog information and just run with it from there. It blurs the line.
I think that, in all, weblogging can be a positive force in the reporting of the news (and the policing of the accuracy of those news reports). It can provide a widely available countering voice to the "juggernaut" of the media companies. However, if the public operates under the assumption that one "can't trust everything you see on the news" then they should also keep that in mind about the news 'blogs.
I don't believe all webloggers have nefarious ulterior motives all the time, but it's somewhat shocking to me that some weblogs have been catapulted from "personal squawkbox" to "respected journalistic outlet." To use the example of The Drudge Report ... many many times I have heard of a story on the Drudge site causing a stir and therefore getting news coverage. More often than not it's coverage that I find hurts "my side" on certain political issues. I had absolutely no idea that The Drudge Report was a weblog until my teacher mentioned it in class. That actually made the extreme right-leaning tendencies of the site far more understandable. It was bothersome to me that a "news site" could be so obviously biased, but news channels like Fox News already seemed to bend that "Fair and Balanced" idea anyway.
These days it seems like news organizations keep a careful watch on certain weblogs. They've become a source of possible stories, if not the front line in getting stories wholecloth. The problem I see coming with this trend is that sometimes respectable news sources might skimp on their own work or ethics. The fact that webloggers aren't really held to the same standards and practices of "real" journalists may mean that they can engage in less-than-savory tactics to get their story. Once a "story" is out there actual news stations could take the 'blog information and just run with it from there. It blurs the line.
I think that, in all, weblogging can be a positive force in the reporting of the news (and the policing of the accuracy of those news reports). It can provide a widely available countering voice to the "juggernaut" of the media companies. However, if the public operates under the assumption that one "can't trust everything you see on the news" then they should also keep that in mind about the news 'blogs.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Dan Rather/CBS/National Guard Scandal
On September 8, 2004 CBS News' 60 Minutes Wednesday program ran a story about President Bush's National Guard service and the possibility that there was a cover-up of Bush's less than stellar performance record. Brought to light were documents allegedly written by a commander in the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. CBS had obtained these documents through retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett.
The validity of the documents, as well as their source, was almost immediately questioned by a variety of critics and CBS News was forced on the defensive. Conservative webloggers and supporters of President Bush brought out their own experts to prove that the documents could only be forgeries. CBS President Andrew Heyward ordered Senior Vice President Betsy West to review the authenticity of the documents in question, but the lag time between that order and the actual review led to days of CBS supporting their story. When CBS finally came out apologizing for the segment the damage to their credibility was immense.
After an independent panel report, which stated that CBS News rushed the piece on the air and failed to properly vet the sources, four CBS News employees have lost their positions. 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy and Senior Vice President Betsy West were asked to resign while the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, was fired. News Anchor Dan Rather is also stepping down as anchor, although he will continue as a correspondent for CBS News.
This whole situation actually made my sick to my stomach while it was happening. The presidential race was already in the later stages of total mud-slinging and I could barely watch any of the coverage. Most of the stories were very questionable anyway, as one candidate's side released a rumor or unsubstantiated fact designed to damage the credibility of another side.
What made me angry the most about the CBS situation was the attitude of the other news networks. They rather openly looked down upon CBS for falling to the level of partisan politics instead of being impartial and objective. Whenever they reported on the story there was a sense of superiority, an implication that they would never do such a thing themselves. I found this absolutely infuriating - especially from networks like Fox - because every network is politically tainted.
Instead of the story revolving around the fact that CBS News' journalistic vetting process had a break-down the story became about Dan Rather and his "liberal vendetta" against the president. I recall from another story that part of the problem in this situation was that Dan Rather was only lightly involved in the preparation of the story. Rather had been off doing other stories and had left it in the hands of the other people. So many people focused on Rather when in my eyes it was his support team that failed him. I'm not saying blame can't land on him, but making him the totem of disdain was another example of the over-simplification of facts in an election year.
As a journalism student this situation severely shook my faith in my own ability to survive in the field. It made me nervous about the idea that facts and information I might try my hardest to confirm could still turn out wrong. There also seemed to be a couple cases of sources saying one thing and then, after the story ran, changing their statements. Even though CBS News' story ended up being wrong, the situation made me fear the thought that I could do a completely true story and still end up fired because my story brought about such public outrage.
The validity of the documents, as well as their source, was almost immediately questioned by a variety of critics and CBS News was forced on the defensive. Conservative webloggers and supporters of President Bush brought out their own experts to prove that the documents could only be forgeries. CBS President Andrew Heyward ordered Senior Vice President Betsy West to review the authenticity of the documents in question, but the lag time between that order and the actual review led to days of CBS supporting their story. When CBS finally came out apologizing for the segment the damage to their credibility was immense.
After an independent panel report, which stated that CBS News rushed the piece on the air and failed to properly vet the sources, four CBS News employees have lost their positions. 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy and Senior Vice President Betsy West were asked to resign while the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, was fired. News Anchor Dan Rather is also stepping down as anchor, although he will continue as a correspondent for CBS News.
This whole situation actually made my sick to my stomach while it was happening. The presidential race was already in the later stages of total mud-slinging and I could barely watch any of the coverage. Most of the stories were very questionable anyway, as one candidate's side released a rumor or unsubstantiated fact designed to damage the credibility of another side.
What made me angry the most about the CBS situation was the attitude of the other news networks. They rather openly looked down upon CBS for falling to the level of partisan politics instead of being impartial and objective. Whenever they reported on the story there was a sense of superiority, an implication that they would never do such a thing themselves. I found this absolutely infuriating - especially from networks like Fox - because every network is politically tainted.
Instead of the story revolving around the fact that CBS News' journalistic vetting process had a break-down the story became about Dan Rather and his "liberal vendetta" against the president. I recall from another story that part of the problem in this situation was that Dan Rather was only lightly involved in the preparation of the story. Rather had been off doing other stories and had left it in the hands of the other people. So many people focused on Rather when in my eyes it was his support team that failed him. I'm not saying blame can't land on him, but making him the totem of disdain was another example of the over-simplification of facts in an election year.
As a journalism student this situation severely shook my faith in my own ability to survive in the field. It made me nervous about the idea that facts and information I might try my hardest to confirm could still turn out wrong. There also seemed to be a couple cases of sources saying one thing and then, after the story ran, changing their statements. Even though CBS News' story ended up being wrong, the situation made me fear the thought that I could do a completely true story and still end up fired because my story brought about such public outrage.
Primary Journal Site Down.
My primary/personal journal site is down at the moment... has been for over a day. They're citing power loss (both primary and backup) at the storage provider, and the updates aren't all that promising that the site will be back. Feels weird to be "out of contact" with my journal and all the friendslist.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
