“Diversity in the Media” panel

The panel “Diversity in the Media” explored the idea of how media can have a lack of diversity and how when there is diversity in the workplace or in journalism stories, a whole race of people can’t be classified as thinking the same, because of this it’s harder to reach a wider audience. The panel also talked about the idea of stories being one sided such as police brutality. There’s actually a website called Cop block that’s about police brutality, and like some of the panel members mentioned with social media it’s easier to be a “journalist” and with no gatekeeper of any kind it’s really not an accurate look at journalism, plus not everyone can be a good journalist. The panel also brought up the idea of going places and talking to people to get an accurate journalist look.

 

You can use social media for references, but you can’t relay on social media and you can’t get your stories directly from social media. One of the panel members Nic used to work at a gay pride magazine basically and he talked about the idea of how in the media LGBT people are portrayed more white than anything else.  He also said there’s so many different groups of people in the community, when they did the cover photo; someone was offended because their group wasn’t being represented. One thing that I found interesting was the idea of “diversity of thought.” I briefly mentioned this in the beginning, but it’s really the idea that people feel differently and how can you as a journalist represent all these views?

 

Everyone probably has a little bit of a basis, but you just have to forget that and you have to know a little bit of a variety of topics because you might have to cover them. Like Nic said he “even has to know a little bit about The Broncos, and I don’t like The Broncos.” The panel continued with the idea that you might get a negative feedback, one of the panel members has a talk show of some kind, and one day she was the host. She got a complaint as to why a black woman was hosting the show? She doesn’t want things get to her like that because she “can’t control the color of her skin, but if I get a complaint about something I can control like my hosting skills, that would bother me more.”

 

I personally feel like I learned quite a bit from this panel, the idea that you have to go out and find the story. You have to talk to multiple people maybe even some you don’t want to talk to, but that’s how you become a successful journalist. I also like the idea that having to reach the biggest possible number of people, and hearing all the differing opinions, that’s really how you grow as a journalist, you also grow from reading good and bad pieces of journalism. I learned a lot from this panel, I’m happy I went.

Advertisements

Spotlight from a New Media Perspective

The movie Spotlight is about a journalist team at The Boston Globe called “Spotlight” that consisted of Matt Carroll, Sacha Pfeiffer, Michael Rezendes, and Walter Robinson and how they uncovered that some priests had molested children. The idea of spotlight according to Robinson in a video released by the Globe “We find people who are victimized by society and by institution’s that are supposed to protect them.” The movie takes place in 2001 and 2002, technology was advanced enough, there was cell phones and computers obliviously. Social media however wasn’t around, and it makes me wonder if it would have been easier to find some of the victim’s now because of social media, not sure if that would have made a difference or not through. Cell phones were also more basic and now you can look up anything right on your phone. The movie makes good points along the way about ethics and how yes their journalists it’s their job, but they also want everyone to know the truth, The movie really captures your attention with this idea. In Boston, (or at least this part of Boston the movie takes place) The Catholic Church was a very big influence and was constantly trying to hide the truth. The fact that the records of the priests “miss deeds” were sealed is enough proof of that. It doesn’t seem right that multiple people knew about the records, and that it was perfectly legal to seal, than there’s the lawyers that represented the priests, settling with the victim’s for money that wasn’t near enough to cover their emotional scars.

I understand the idea of “just doing my job”, but when does that stop being an excuse to do nothing. That being said one of the lawyer’s does help move the process of writing the first article on this topic along. One thing that also should be mentioned is the two priests who admit to molesting children, one in some kind of treatment place and the other not really realizing what he did was wrong. I think the thing that makes this movie good is the idea of being human each of the four main characters wrote about this (yes for their job), but it’s more than that, they seem to really care that everyone involved be bought to justice. Pfeiffer stops going to church altogether because of the discoveries. Yes Robinson was originally sent a list of priests who had molested children and never followed up on the story, but in the movie he realized that was the wrong thing to do. By writing “more than 600 stories on this subject in a year.” they may have saved some future children from experiencing the same abuse. Pfeiffer said in a video interview “It become a daily beat, essentially.” By the films end many victims feel confortable enough to tell their stories and that’s really good. We also learn about the different places experiencing the same thing and how the “Spotlight” team helped uncover the truth there. By having the humanity element the movie soars and I think that was way it was received so well.

 

Why Comment Sections are a Good Thing Overall

The article “Why Some Publishers are killing their Comment Section” explores the idea that a comment section is more harmful than helpful. While it’s nice to be able to comment on something and express how you feel, a comment section almost always has some form of negative comments. After reading the article I understand why you would want to get rid of comments all together, but I think that’s a part of any social media, negative comments will always be there, but the positive usually outweighs the negative. Craig Newman the editor at The Chicago Sun-Times said. “I love the idea of people being able to interact. At the end of the day, we are a local news site,” “And for people to be able to have a community to talk to each other without having to get on Facebook or Twitter is a benefit and adds value to our content. We don’t know everything.”

Tauriq Moosa wrote the article “Comment sections are poison: handle with care or remove them.” She says the idea that it’s just the internet gives “no humanity to victims everyone is a blank emotionless internet user.” While this is true in a sense, I don’t think it’s completely true, you can see usernames in a comment section plus I’ve seen more positive comments than negative, so to get rid of something where people can commit their opinions to each other, just because of a few people who may say negative things isn’t a reasonable thing. In the article “Why Ditching Comment Sections Sucks for Science” the author Paige Brown Jarreau says “This doesn’t change the fact that having comments separated from the articles, news stories and blog posts they go with SUCKS when it comes to pointing out and correcting inaccuracies or bad science reporting.”

Pat Flynn a popular blogger said “A successful blog does not come without its readers, so I feel that the least we can do for them as bloggers is to allow them to have their voice be heard if they choose to speak.” The website Sky Sports.com had issues with their comment section, but instead of completely getting rid of it, they just changed it up a bit. “The new system will allow for greater engagement and interaction between Sky Sports users.” I think that’s the best idea because you’re still allowed to comment, without negative comments popping up.

Personally through it is still the internet, and trolls may still find a way in, I think you just have to not make attention to it and allow the comment section for the greater good. Yes I have seen instances where it may be considered bullying, but they were few and far between. The idea of completely getting rid of a comment section just because some people can’t handle it is also not a reasonable reason, I understand fixing it up a little so it’s less likely to happen, but completely getting rid of it isn’t a reasonable enough reason.

Q and A with an Army Expert.

397174_547851228563580_227646228_n         It was around 11 o clock in the morning the day was fairly warm. A large amount of people wondered around campus or sit at nearby tables. I barley dodged a skateboarder as I neared The Tivoli. A large group of people sat at the table closest to The Tivoli. That seemed to be the only table with a group over three people. Once inside The Tivoli I went straight for The Starbucks because I was meeting Gabe there. The Starbucks was huge, a light brown covered all the walls and lights overhead gave off a soft glow. Gabriel Kwong spent the last four years in The Army. Even though he’s not a student he used to go to Metro State and with my lack of transportation it seemed like the best idea.

I decided to interview him because I was interested in learning about his Army experience. Before he went to The Army he was a student at Michigan State University. The Starbucks was huge, a light brown covered all the walls and lights overhead gave off a soft glow. I continued looking for him and noticed him buying a coffee in the huge line full of students also buying coffee. I found a table and let him know where to find me. He found a seat opposite me and I started asking about his military experience.

Q What branch of the military were you in?

A. Army

Q. What was your experience like?

A. (thinks) it was good lots of challenges, but I got to go to Hawaii and see a lot of The U.S, I got out because it’s a tough job that demands 24/7 work sometimes.

Q. What do you think makes you an expert about The Army?

A. The more time in service the more proficient you are in The Army. If you can’t hack it you would get kicked out. (Laughs)

Q.What kind of jobs did you have in The Army?

A. I was a medic, but you do it all shoot, drive trucks, organize, basically everything.

Q.Do you wish you would have stayed longer?

A.No, I got out at the right time, like I said it was a tough job.

Q.What did you get out of being in The Army?

A.Discipline, better job skills, and work ethic.

Q.Do you think having those experiences now has improved your life?

A.Yes, because without The Army I would have struggled with finding my path and wouldn’t have learned the things I did in The Army

Q.What job was the best in The Army?

A.I liked being a medic, because that was what I was studying before I went into The Army in Michigan

Q.What job was the worst in The Army

A. (Thinks) probably shooting just because shooting at real people was kind of soul crushing.

I thanked him after I asked that last question feeling like I knew a little bit more about his experience in The Army and what made him an expert on the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyalsis of “The Giant Pool of Money.”

The podcast episode of the podcast “The Giant Pool of Money” is about the housing crisis and how the crisis on Wall Street and the banks made 500,000 dollar loans to people without jobs or income at all. The podcast goes on to talk to multiple people who have got these loans or fell on hard times during the housing crisis. Before I really get into this effective journalism “in practice, most of us settle on identifying journalistic quality by its absence or by its comparison to poor or average quality journalism.”  The podcast starts off with the location where the reporters Ira Glass and Adam Davidson are. This is an effective way to report because it sets up the scene and the audience is ready to hear more of it. They also start off by just talking to each other, ( I was a bit confused at this point because I thought Jim Finkel was a part of the podcast, but he’s actually a guest.)  Finkel does say regarding the housing crisis. “Honestly I know this sounds—I was really happy to see there were no major suicides, people weren’t jumping off bridges, there weren’t a lot of personal disasters.”

By just talking to each other and creating that calm environment the audience can follow along easier. The first person they interview is Richard, a marine who had recently bought a “new mortgage with an adjustable rate.” It had gone up more than 2,000 dollars a month.  He ended up felling behind on his payments. “It got to the point where—one point, my son had $7,000 in a CD. And I had to break it. And I mean that really hurt because I was saving that money for his college.

I mean, I put $2,000 back. But it’s like you can’t have a future. They put you in a situation where, after a while, you’re going to fail. It’s hard.” The way this is reported is effective because the audience feels bad for him and the other people they talk to, this creates a story you can really follow.  The interesting thing about this episode is they want to hear from both sides on the issue, which is why they interview both Richard and Finkel. Davidson says “Now it’s clear that these two groups are connected, Jim at his black tie dinner and Richard the marine.

The sub-prime crisis has connected them.” Even more interesting is in the next segment they actually talk to some of the people that created the economic disaster, like Mike Francis for example. As the podcast goes on its a little confusing still who’s who, it’s also a little harder to follow when they start talking about how the housing crisis started. For the most part it has effective reporting and the audience can probably follow the story, the step by step approach to the housing crisis is a little confusing and could probably have been more effective and who everyone is could be cleared up a little more also, otherwise overall effective reporting.

Response to the Podcast

The podcast we listened to in class is about the concepts selective exposure and the spiral of silence, it’s also about new media. The podcast does a good job at explaining what selective exposure and the spiral of silence is especially the spiral of silence. Selective exposure is when someone only listens to or watches a certain type of media that reinforces what they already like or believe. The spiral of silence is when the majority of a group of people feel one way, and if you feel differently you don’t voice your own opinion. I like how the podcast touched on the topic of the spiral of silence by explaining it’s actually a dangerous trend because if you don’t have the same opinion as the majority you may feel “attacked or ridiculed” so you’re afraid to voice your opinion. It also goes the other way because if no one verbally disagrees with the majority they may feel their opinion is always right.

The podcast had a good example with the video of the song telephone and how there are different opinions to the video, but before you form an opinion you should hear both sides and have all the information. I like how the podcast shows the concept of selective exposure with this because it’s showing how to become more informed people. I think this podcast overall explains how media is changing, it’s harder to have accurate information now, (there’s no gatekeeper on the internet) and the concepts of selective exposure and the spiral of silence are explained in an easy way and hopefully by being less selective and silent, people become more informed.

 

 

Day seven of seven, Wishbone Restaurant

abrown345_brown abrown345_brown Wishbone is more family focused restaurant that serves a variety of food, mostly chicken related meals. The food is really good, but can be filling and a little messy. The wait staff is friendly and makes sure your experience and food goes well and is good. The atmosphere has a southern theme going on which works for the kind of restaurant it is, (even through I’m not really sure exactly what kind of restaurant it is). The experience I had was good, it’s not the most exciting place, but they have good food and friendly and semi fast service. The meal I had was really good and was pieces of chicken with fries. Overall Wishbone is a family focused restaurant, it serves mostly chicken related meals, the food is really good, the wait staff is really good, and the atmosphere is good for what the restaurant is. Pretty much all the places I went to for this blog were really good, cool, and fun places. I’m happy I went to the bar’s and Restaurant’s I went to for this blog. I had a fun time with some of these places( mostly bars). I’m glad I checked out these different places and some of them I will be going to on more regular basis. Overall I didn’t have any negative experiences and mostly had a fun time. I’m glad I got to share this experience with some people and overall everywhere I went were really good, cool, and fun places.