Rick Sanchez, a pretty outspoken newscaster on CNN, was fired for making comments on a radio show about Jon Stewart and saying that Jews run CNN. He's had a history of saying outrageous statements and might be one of the more controversial people on CNN. This goes to show that even when you're not working as a journalist, things you say can be held against you and cost you your job.
My worth a look for this week is looking at just how important blogs and social networking sites are in today's media . It is not only giving average citizens a way to be involved in their news but it is encouraging a younger population within which a large amount of people have strayed away from traditional journalism. I chose to focus on the recent tragedy with Tyler Clementi, the first year Rutgers University student who committed suicide after his roommate and another student posted a video of him online having sex with another student after he chose to identify as a Gay man.
The Rutgers student blog site: http://admissions.rutgers.edu/blogs/students/
From the student blog site they offer links for more and more information not only on this tragedy but resources that talk about the LGBTQA community and the dangers they face every day on college campuses.
A message from the President of Rutgers University: http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/statements/2010/statement-of-preside-20101001/
Information on the vigil being held tonight (Sunday October 3rd) and overall campus reaction: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=138798849499309
A Youtube link the Rutgers students wanted people to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
My worth a look for this week is a CNN article involving U.S. issuing travel/ terrorist alerts for U.S. citizens in Europe. The article gives some basic common sense precautions as to how to stay safe and away from terrorist activity if noted. The article goes on to describe why alerts have been given in the past but never clearly states why this alert was actually given. Instead, it relays information such that U.S. officials have received "possible" attacks across Europe and then goes into further detail on the State Department's "historically cautious" past because they don't want to be accused of not warning Americans. How about just wanting to do it because it's our right and your job? I didn't think the article did a very good job of explaining what attack information was given regarding Europe and therefore just tried to glorify the actions of the U.S. and the past things they've done to try to protect U.S. citizens.
As a sports fan and enthusiast, this really makes me sick.
This story was featured on the Poynter website about how ESPN.com is planning to add a blog and entire section to their website specifically devoted to the MIami Heat, bringing coverage and opinions on the team for the entire 2010-11 season. The goal is to highlight the core of superstars that the team boasts in LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh.
I think that ESPN is unfairly exploiting the Heat when we don't know for sure whether they'll be anything special. Reason shows that they will be, with the three superstars on the team, but I don't think any team should get this much attention over any other club. This is merely a PR stunt by the NBA in order to raise Heat awareness, and ultimately, money.
This article deals with the unveiling of MSNBC's new slogan, "Lean forward." I think it's an interesting look at how television news is very much focused on profit and viewership, especially with stations like FOX and CNN dominating televised news and media.
I found this article on MSN website and was grabbed by the headline. I read the story and felt that there was definitely not enough reporting done on the topic. The reporter only got the wife's account of what happened. He does mention that Mexican police are questioning her story, but never goes and talks to them and see why or what they are suspicious of. This woman could have very well killed or set up her husband and the reporter doesn't even go into any of the possible events that may have happened.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/rahm-emanuels-legacy_b_750610.html Lincoln Mitchell has a piece in the Huffington Post today which interestingly enough includes a statement about the press coverage of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Mitchell writes: “The toughness of Rahm Emanuel was always something of a myth embraced by a somewhat unquestioning media who happily mistook bluster and machismo for toughness and strength, and mistook a proclivity for colorful profanity for dedication and brilliance.” It seems pretty bad journalism to slam other journalists with your perceptions of them writing about their perceptions.
In this story, two college students are being charged for the invasion of privacy after filming another male student having encounter with another man and streaming it online. This is a very sensitive subject for the victim's family. It is also a challenge for the reporter to balance the story in terms of how to word information so it does not offend the family or the university. I think this reporter did a good job at stating what happened and what is going to happen to the students who were involved. To balance the story the reporter added comments from the family and from the university in remembrance of the student to take the focus off how he died and what caused it. This is very challenging for all reporters when covering a sensitive subject. Some reporters can handle and some can't. I've seen reporters who aren't sensitive enough and are too blunt about the subject.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1285828
ReplyDeleteRick Sanchez, a pretty outspoken newscaster on CNN, was fired for making comments on a radio show about Jon Stewart and saying that Jews run CNN. He's had a history of saying outrageous statements and might be one of the more controversial people on CNN. This goes to show that even when you're not working as a journalist, things you say can be held against you and cost you your job.
Samer Kalaf
My worth a look for this week is looking at just how important blogs and social networking sites are in today's media . It is not only giving average citizens a way to be involved in their news but it is encouraging a younger population within which a large amount of people have strayed away from traditional journalism.
ReplyDeleteI chose to focus on the recent tragedy with Tyler Clementi, the first year Rutgers University student who committed suicide after his roommate and another student posted a video of him online having sex with another student after he chose to identify as a Gay man.
The Rutgers student blog site: http://admissions.rutgers.edu/blogs/students/
From the student blog site they offer links for more and more information not only on this tragedy but resources that talk about the LGBTQA community and the dangers they face every day on college campuses.
A message from the President of Rutgers University:
http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/statements/2010/statement-of-preside-20101001/
Information on the vigil being held tonight (Sunday October 3rd) and overall campus reaction:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=138798849499309
A Youtube link the Rutgers students wanted people to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/03/europe.terror.advisory/index.html
ReplyDeleteMy worth a look for this week is a CNN article involving U.S. issuing travel/ terrorist alerts for U.S. citizens in Europe. The article gives some basic common sense precautions as to how to stay safe and away from terrorist activity if noted. The article goes on to describe why alerts have been given in the past but never clearly states why this alert was actually given. Instead, it relays information such that U.S. officials have received "possible" attacks across Europe and then goes into further detail on the State Department's "historically cautious" past because they don't want to be accused of not warning Americans. How about just wanting to do it because it's our right and your job? I didn't think the article did a very good job of explaining what attack information was given regarding Europe and therefore just tried to glorify the actions of the U.S. and the past things they've done to try to protect U.S. citizens.
http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/2010/10/espn-com-to-launch-“the-heat-index”-oct-11/
ReplyDeleteAs a sports fan and enthusiast, this really makes me sick.
This story was featured on the Poynter website about how ESPN.com is planning to add a blog and entire section to their website specifically devoted to the MIami Heat, bringing coverage and opinions on the team for the entire 2010-11 season. The goal is to highlight the core of superstars that the team boasts in LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh.
This is the first time ESPN has done anything like this for a specific team, and to be honest, I think it's a terrible idea. ESPN shouldn't be singling out teams to feature in a "what's happening with this team" type of exposé. I don't think the Heat even deserve it yet. They have yet to prove anything, even that they can play together. No one thought about doing this when the Celtics brought Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce together to form the original Big Three of the 2000-era.
I think that ESPN is unfairly exploiting the Heat when we don't know for sure whether they'll be anything special. Reason shows that they will be, with the three superstars on the team, but I don't think any team should get this much attention over any other club. This is merely a PR stunt by the NBA in order to raise Heat awareness, and ultimately, money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/media/05adco.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
ReplyDeleteThis article deals with the unveiling of MSNBC's new slogan, "Lean forward." I think it's an interesting look at how television news is very much focused on profit and viewership, especially with stations like FOX and CNN dominating televised news and media.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39515440
ReplyDeleteI found this article on MSN website and was grabbed by the headline. I read the story and felt that there was definitely not enough reporting done on the topic. The reporter only got the wife's account of what happened. He does mention that Mexican police are questioning her story, but never goes and talks to them and see why or what they are suspicious of. This woman could have very well killed or set up her husband and the reporter doesn't even go into any of the possible events that may have happened.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/rahm-emanuels-legacy_b_750610.html
ReplyDeleteLincoln Mitchell has a piece in the Huffington Post today which interestingly enough includes a statement about the press coverage of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Mitchell writes: “The toughness of Rahm Emanuel was always something of a myth embraced by a somewhat unquestioning media who happily mistook bluster and machismo for toughness and strength, and mistook a proclivity for colorful profanity for dedication and brilliance.”
It seems pretty bad journalism to slam other journalists with your perceptions of them writing about their perceptions.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/01/new.jersey.suicide.legal/index.html?hpt=T2
ReplyDeleteJustine Elliott
In this story, two college students are being charged for the invasion of privacy after filming another male student having encounter with another man and streaming it online. This is a very sensitive subject for the victim's family. It is also a challenge for the reporter to balance the story in terms of how to word information so it does not offend the family or the university. I think this reporter did a good job at stating what happened and what is going to happen to the students who were involved. To balance the story the reporter added comments from the family and from the university in remembrance of the student to take the focus off how he died and what caused it. This is very challenging for all reporters when covering a sensitive subject. Some reporters can handle and some can't. I've seen reporters who aren't sensitive enough and are too blunt about the subject.