It's Finals Week!

The semester is over, but I've had a great time blogging so I think I'll keep it up. Have a great finals week and Happy Holidays!!


This is what you call having too much time during finals week:

And since I am obsessed with this dance, I thought I'd post it:

Don't mess with a college student during finals...

First watch this:

 Breaking news: Finals are stressful.

Okay, so that's not breaking news...but it is funny how that is not really being taken into consideration by the people who filmed or posted this video.

While some people are making fun of the girl in the video for having somewhat of a freakout in the CSUN library. I can see where she was coming from. During finals I have noticed that many students are somewhat on the edge. We all - or at least most of us - are stressed out. Some finals are worth a significant amount of our grades. The real problem I see here is that people weren't being considerate of another student. I know that breathing loudly isn't something that should be freaked out about, but the girl in the video seemed like she was annoyed about people talking loudly as she was trying to study. When you're in the library to study you expect silence, or else you would've gone to a place like Starbucks. I know I have had my moments when I want to go up to someone in the library to tell them to shut up.

Finals are a time when college students are at risk for breaking down. Just earlier this week Virginia Tech had a shooting. I'm not saying this is connected to finals, but it very well could be. People are more stressed out. Students start pulling all-nighters, loading up on caffeine, and in some cases some partake in illegal activities to help them. I know people who have done drugs and taken medication such as Adderall or Ritalin to help them concentrate or stay awake. This really concerns me. It is a common practice in college now. I think the use of drugs like this and people freaking out should be taken into consideration when planning finals. Finals being worth so much of a student's grade may be easy for the professor but it is harming students in ways that sometimes are not reflected in grades. That honors student you think is the perfect student? Well yeah, they could be on a steady diet of Adderall and Starbucks. This is just one of the problems college students are facing.

Video on Ritalin and Adderall use:

On another note, I also think it is wrong to film someone and post it online without their consent. I'm sure the girl in the CSUN video doesn't appreciate it.

The Face of Beauty

Many in our society claim that they appreciate natural beauty, but the truth is that many don't know what it really is. People who look good with makeup on are beautiful, people who look good without makeup are also beautiful....but I admire most those who are willing to admit their insecurities. Earlier I was just online looking to pass some time before class when I came across an article about a video posted by a teen model. The video shows her without makeup, covered in severe acne. She then shows how she applies her foundation to give the look of flawless skin. This girl is a model. It says a lot about her character that she is brave enough to be in the field she is in with her skin like that and posting videos exposing it. Most models now are airbrushed and shown at the peak of perfection, but she is brave and is showing how she really looks.

We need positive role models in our society. She is a young person with a good attitude...and that is something we need more of. People tend to lose focus on what is good in the world...and not to be overly critical, but I do think that is because of the news people are exposed to. Most of everything is negative. People focus on what disaster has happened, court cases, and drama. People focus on getting degrees, higher education, more pay, and more benefits from our government. But we need to stop and think about the simple things in life. We need to really try to be positive and not all gloom and doom. This might just be a makeup tutorial, but the bigger picture is what it says about her (Cassandra Bankson) personality and character. We need more positive people. We need more good news. Especially at a time where people are so bombarded with news from all angles...it is a good thing to have just a dash of something else in there.

Her makeup tutorial:

Good Morning America clip:

Review of Happy Feet 2

I took my brother to watch Happy Feet 2 today. I thought it was going to be a painful experience, but it was actually a really good movie. While I don't want to give any spoilers away...there are themes in this movie that are somewhat adult. When I say adult I do not mean explicit in any way. But they will make you reflect on things that children probably don't think about. One is global warming. I went to the movie hoping to cheer my brother up, it's been a rough week for my family....but I ended up coming out a bit sad. A movie can be really happy and cute (with amazing visuals) but when you reflect on the bigger picture....it can mean something entirely different. There are scenes with ice crashing down, harsh snow, and the emergence of green land in places that were once covered in ice. There are images of oil spills, ships, melting ice, and polar bears.

When I look to learn something I usually look for a book, a class, a news article, something that seems adult....but in most cases messages stick to a person more when they come in a lighter format. Movies usually have messages that are either obvious or barely there...but this movie's message was omnipresent without it being directly mentioned a single time. I think media is something that could be very important in classrooms. If used more, and more properly...it could lead to students really grasping ideas a lot more easily.

Finding entertainment on the web

There are trends in what people think is fun to look at online. I remember when Fmylife could flood my facebook newsfeed. Everybody was reading it and most people thought it was funny. Then came Texts from Last Night. Now, I see things people find on reddit. My point is, the internet is no stranger to fads. With technology there is always something new out there. But, why do some websites become significantly more popular than others?

My theory is that we all want to feel better about ourselves. So reading FML and Texts from Last Night gives us that feeling that we are not the only one out there with our moments. Also, I think it's one of the reasons people watch reality shows. If you think about it, the reason it is so entertaining is because people act so ridiculously that anyone would be happy they weren't in that position. Aside from that, they are plain funny. Websites that cater to that part of everyone's personality...the part of us that likes to poke fun at people (and probably won't directly to a person) usually are successful. This is why people like comedy, satire, and commentators. This is why shows like Chelsea Lately, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report are successful.

It may be sad that people like stupid....but it's what many people (at least my age) flock to.

Bennett....please stop texting

A blog on tumblr went viral recently....yes, it was Texts from Bennett. This blog claims to be 100% real. The blog consists of screen shots of text conversations the blogger has with his 17-year-old cousin. The blogger describes his cousin Bennett as a "white boy that thinks he's a crip." While the texts are funny because of how stupid they are....it's hard to believe that they are actually true. Interestingly enough, the blogger was recently outed. It is "Mac Lethal" (David Sheldon) the rapping pancake guy.

He was outed by none other than his dad! His dad said that the Bennett blog is true, it's inspired by a friend of the blogger....but the texts are not real. The blogger constructs the jokes and puts them into text format. So, this guy is creative. I don't understand why people are mad that they are not real text messages. They are funny nonetheless...and it doesn't take a genius to realize that they are fake. It's cool that this guy's video went viral on its own...and so did the blog. The connection wasn't made until after both were popular.

So...don't believe everything you see on the internet. While many things are there for entertainment, some people do get confused with what is real and what is not. In the age of photoshop and other ways to manipulate things with technology it is best to proceed with caution....but you can laugh at things like this:

Passion for the Arts

While this may not exactly be journalism related, I think it is really important that people realize how important the arts are to our culture and society. Art comes in many forms, but these programs are at risk of being lost in schools. Also, as a tutor and a former coach, I noticed that more parents are focusing on the academic success of their children and on having them participate in sports, but many forget that in order to be a well-rounded individual it is essential to have experience with an art.

Many might not know this about me, but I was a dancer from the age of 3 until the end of my senior year of high school when I had an accident and hurt my knee. After refusing surgery, I was left with an acceptance to a university as a dance major....and an injury that would prevent me from doing so. So...I don't think it's okay for someone to be only interested in an art. People need to have a variety of things they are interested in....I was planning on being a double major, so I still had political science there for me.

My point is that people should really try to find a way to be well-rounded individuals. Be interested in a subject in school, play sports, take up an art, do something that makes you happy. I believe that that leads to success...it makes for someone who has experience in a variety of things and often is a social person. Journalism is an art. While the writing may not be considered creative writing because it is not fiction, it is a craft. It takes skill to put together an article in a way that will capture the reader, imagination to think of a good feature, and an artistic eye to balance the pages. I see many individuals in my journalism class and on the school paper that truly can be considered artists.

While the most of us had arts programs in school when we were younger, kids one day might not. Budget cuts don't only impact college students, but students of all ages. Check out the Department of Education's website for more information on this tragic massacre of American culture.




My inspiration for this blog post was this song below. I used it in my last dance audition almost 2 years ago and I just found it on my old iPod. I hope you enjoy it :)

In honor of ethics

Journalists carry a monstrous burden of responsibility. People expect them not only to be credible and fair, but to be ethical. Ethics vary among people. They are not a matter of legality, but a matter of personal opinion. What one may find unethical, others would think is okay. So this is where they are open to criticism. When I hear about ethics in journalism, I usually only think of the United States, but it is an issue in other countries as well. Especially those with less regulations than what we have. In Nigeria, the Prophet Primate Babatunde Elijah Ayodele has asked journalists to shun sensationalism and adhere to journalistic ethics. Ayodele has said, "The ethic of the profession demands that you meet those you want to scandalize to verify your facts and get their own side of the story before publication. Papers are not there to scandalize achievers but to mirror the society. Journalism is not just to sit down and browse on the net and cook up stories, I refer to such people as ghost journalists, journalists should be able to confirm what they hear and verify the facts before publishing." Making sure you have an accurate story is more important than having a story that is so out there that it will sell. You are not writing fiction or a tabloid. For journalism to be respected it is essential for people to consider what they are reading to be credible. If they know it's not and they read it just for entertainment, the publication now has a bad reputation. 

Ayodele's comments were a reaction to stories about him being poor and asking for money. The stories took to extremes on this lie. They could have ruined the man's reputation. When a journalist does this they should be subject to legal action. In the United States they could get sued for libel or slander, but not all countries do this. But what about when ethics are further challenged? Are there more severe consequences? Should there be? When something is so greatly affected by perception and individual beliefs on morality, it is hard to make legislation that would regulate it. 

I thought this was interesting....

Journalism Scholarships

It's the time of year when many if not all students are stressing out about college applications. Another thing to add to the stress is wondering about how they are going to pay for scholarships. Fortunately, there are scholarships available to transfer students who are pursuing journalism as their major. Of course, in order to receive a scholarship it is important for the student to be in good academic standing and it helps if they have a portfolio of what they've written available. Some scholarships will ask for writing samples.

Here are some of the scholarships available:

One scholarship available is from the Inter-American Press Association. They give an annual $20,000 award to support journalists between the ages of 21 and 35 who wish to study in and report from a foreign country for one year. US journalists will spend a year studying and reporting in Latin America and the Caribbean. The deadline to apply for this scholarship is December 31st.

The William B. Ruggles National Right to Work Journalism Scholarship is a $2,000 scholarship that is given to a journalism major who "demonstrates the potential for successful completion of the educational requirements for the degree, and an understanding of voluntarism and the problems of compulsory unionism".  The deadline to submit an application for this scholarship is December 31st.

And last but not least...Google, the Online News Association, and the Associated Press have announced that they will be offering a $20,000 scholarship to six journalism students for the 2012-2013 school year. In their press release they stated, "The program is targeted to individual students creating innovative projects that further the ideals of digital journalism. A key goal is to promote geographic, gender and ethnic diversity, with an emphasis on rural and urban areas." The requirements listed on the website are as follows:

• Be a U.S. citizen
• Be a minimum of 18 years of age
• Be currently enrolled full time at an accredited U.S. post-secondary institution pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree. (College graduates returning to school are eligible to apply and must provide an acceptance letter from graduate institution.)
• Have at least one year of full-time undergraduate or graduate study remaining
• Have minimum grade point average of 3.0
• Be at least a college sophomore at time of application
• Be available for in-person or remote interviews with selection committee if selected as a finalist

 The deadline to submit applications is January 27th 2012.

In order to be taken seriously as a journalist it is important to be trained properly and have the skills necessary to look professional. Getting a degree is essential. There are many ways to get a degree without ending up with a massive amount of debt. Some scholarships require essays, some just ask you to fill out an application. Don't give up. Everyone can go to school.



You can find many more scholarships here and here.


And some relief for those of us who will have to take out student loans...

Wikileaks wins award in Australia

Wikileaks was awarded a Walkley Award for its "outstanding contribution to journalism." When presenting the award to WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, the Walkley Trustees said, "WikiLeaks applied new technology to penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup. Its revelations, from the way the war on terror was being waged, to diplomatic bastardry, high-level horse-trading and the interference in the domestic affairs of nations, have had an undeniable impact."
Assange claims that Australian journalists are strong and fight back with the truth. While he did make many significant documents public, he also created chaos.
The WikiLeaks website claims its purpose is "to bring important news and information to the public. One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth." While bringing the truth is important to journalism, there are better ways to make the truth available. Journalists are respected. If leaking documents and private files means exposing the truth, then the means of accessing the information is much like stealing....and that is not respectable. The ends do not justify the means.

Personally, I have a low opinion of Wikileaks. What is your opinion?

Should newspapers endorse political candidates?

Newt Gingrich was endorsed by The Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire's largest newspaper. While many did not think he would be a strong contender for President, it has been shown that endorsement from that newspaper has led to an increase of about 11 percent in the vote (from the poll taken before the endorsement). Endorsement may not be the only factor in this, but it is very possible that it influences people. People trust the newspaper they read. If they believe that a candidate is trustworthy and competent because a newspaper tells them that that person is the best for that election...then it is likely that they will sway more towards that candidate.

It may not seem like a big deal, but I don't think newspapers should endorse candidates. Newspapers need to remain unbiased and report the news simply as it is. While editorials allow opinion, this can get tricky when they endorse a candidate. Any news reported after that editorial runs will be subject to the bias the readers will then have. If anything, newspapers should publish profiles of all the candidates with both pros and cons about their platforms, but not full-on endorse a candidate. It isn't fair and it seems like a weird loop-hole. News stations give candidates equal air time....so shouldn't newspapers be just as fair?

Feminist Rant

The more I have been thinking about how female journalists are perceived as the sexy weather girl...the more I get angry. That's not right. Unfortunately, our society reinforces that stereotype by telling girls that they should write about "girly" things like clothes, relationships, and beauty. With it being Thanksgiving weekend, I spent some quality time with my DVD player and my DVR. Two of the movies I watched had a theme similar to what I am writing about. One, called "Beauty and the Briefcase" and the other called "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days".....you can already tell where this is going.

The first movie is about a girl who wants to be a journalist for Cosmopolitan. She gets assigned an article, but she'll have to work undercover at a firm in New York City. She has to find her perfect guy and date lots of the guys at the office. Perfect, right? No. In the end, she ends up writing her article about how she found the perfect guy for her and he wasn't anything that was on her list. What is sad about this movie is that the focus of a female journalist is makeup and sex and men. I understand that the publication she was writing for was Cosmopolitan, but by showing this....girls think that it is the dream job for a female journalist. Well, when I think "serious journalist" I do not think "Cosmo".

The second movie starred Kate Hudson as a girl who was stuck at a typical "girly" magazine, but wanted to write more serious articles. She gets assigned an article about "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days". Essentially, she has to make the guy fall for her.....and then drive him crazy so he breaks up with her. This doesn't exactly happen and she considers leaving for a more serious job and to get away from the guy she now has feelings for. She ends up staying. While I do not have as much to say about this one, I think it's important that she showed how upset she was that she wanted to write more serious pieces and all she was getting was fluff.

A movie that was also on this weekend was "The Devil Wears Prada." This movie is about a girl who gets a job as an assistant at a fashion magazine when she really wants to be a serious writer. After losing everything that was really important to her she walks away and ends up getting a job at a serious newspaper. What I enjoyed about this movie was that they showed the negative side of being in the "feminine" part of journalism. It is not all what people think it is.

It is important for women to realize that they can be journalists and can have fun at their jobs. They don't need to work at a women's magazine if they don't want to. Also, they can start anywhere and end up being a serious journalist. It all ends up being about a woman taking herself seriously and not succumbing to gender stereotypes.

The life of a journalist can be fun

Tom Wicker, one of the Times most distinguished journalists, passed away today after suffering from a heart attack. He was 85 years old.

In his time as a journalist he covered the White House, wrote 20 books, and even covered the assassination of JFK. He was able to report on the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and give his opinion on American involvement in Southeast Asia. He was even put on the president's enemies list over his opinion on the Watergate Scandal. Now, that's what you call having an interesting life.
Tom Wicker showed that although people think journalists simply report the news, there is so much more. He was able to give his opinion and encourage people to "engage in civil disobedience" in order to get their points across. Journalism isn't a monotonous career filled with endless stories about city council meetings, new laws, and the latest technology. While it is up to the journalist to embrace the other aspects, many New York Times journalists do.

An example of this is Nicholas Kristof. Lately i've been trying to figure out how my major, my interests, and journalism fit together. After reading several of Kristof's articles, I finally realized that it is important for me to be able to view issues from a journalist's point of view if I am going to be successful in law or politics. While they do have a stand, a view, they know when to report without a bias and they know to look at the whole truth. The information does not get manipulated to suit their opinion. They just know how to defend it when the time comes. Being involved in politics or law or even journalism...well, it doesn't have to be a bore. Maybe my life won't be so dull afterall.


And here's a video clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart....I would love to have that job.

Click Here for Video

Fox News Fails

If you're watching Fox News...you might just be wasting your time. A recent study found that adults who don't watch the news performed better than those who watched Fox News on a series of questions. The people who did the best were those who listened to NPR, watched the news on Sunday mornings, and yes even those who watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The phone survey was given to 612 adults in New Jersey.
Fox has a reputation for being less than reliable and pretty much a joke. Most people I know don't watch it. I watch The Daily Show every night and while he does not go too in-depth on topics, at least people retain information and the information is correct. If a satirical show on a comedy TV station can be more informative than a real news show....then that's bad. Fox needs to step up and start becoming more serious. Also, people need to start paying attention to what's going on in the world around them. The results of this survey showed faults with a news station, but it was also a reflection of American society now. We are living in a time when people don't really pay attention to the news or what is going on globally. People are too concerned with trivial things. Maybe a show like The Daily Show, that keeps viewers interested by not being so serious would be a better format for news...but would opinion get in the way of hard news? That would be a never-ending debate.



And now for a funny Fox News Fail...

Want to be a news anchor? Get a makeover.

I have never understood the male obsession with female TV news anchors. But, even without understanding it, I do understand why sometimes people who are less qualified for that position get the job. When you are on the radio, it does not matter how you look. When you are writing, no one is staring at you. But on TV, appearance does matter. While it may be a cheap way to get viewers, having attractive news anchors works. They also may get hired due to the way the human brain works. People perceive someone who is more attractive and symmetrical as being smarter and having better social skills. This has been known as the "halo effect". Beauty can influence whether someone will get hired and it can influence how much they are paid. On TV, it is necessary to capture the audience and keep viewers watching. This will have an effect on ratings and how much people are paid. So while hiring the better looking person may not seem ethical, it can be beneficial.
When it comes down to how much someone is paid. Those who have above-average looks usually are paid more. This is called the "beauty premium" and it is especially true in professions where someone needs to keep the "client", or audience in this case, interested. They can earn around 5% more than their colleagues. The below-average looking people are subject to the "plainness penalty" and can be paid around 9% less than their more attractive colleagues. Age, weight, height, and how symmetrical and appealing to the eye people are can really influence their luck in the work force. When it comes to TV journalism, it is very obvious.






And now...a clip about my favorite tv show about a girl trying to make it in the world of journalism...and she got a makeover...go figure!

Journalism then and now

In class we learn of the different types of news writing and the different jobs available. We also learn about beats and how journalists are assigned jobs. Watching the below video, it is easily noticed that not much has changed except for technology. But some aspects have changed a lot.
Now, women are involved in all aspects of journalism. That wasn't the case years ago. I was watching the clip below from HuffPost Media's "A Look Back" series and it left me feeling very proud to be a feminist. It pretty much said that women were only involved in the society pages and wrote stuff about cooking, beauty, and keeping house. It also said that women find it difficult competing with men in general reporting jobs....well could this be because of how much they are already oppressed? If someone isn't taken seriously and they need a job, chances are that they will take the job that they can get. So instead of encouraging women to go for their goals in journalism, it claims that if a woman wants to be successful in journalism she should aim for the special women's departments. I am glad we are no longer in that time. If I were to pursue journalism there is no way I'd want to write a column on how to set the table.

Clinton on the news

Many know news reporters by watching the news. Some people have a favorite journalist because of the articles they read in publications. But when a station needs viewers, sometimes a celebrity reporter is added to the payroll.
Chelsea Clinton, the girl who evaded reporters, is now one of them. She has no journalism experience and is famous due to her political parents. For someone who truly has worked towards their goal of being a journalist and has not had the advantages she has had, this would be really unfair. I'm simply a viewer. As a viewer I think it's unfair, but at the same time I see how she will pull in viewers and even though she comes from a famous family, she shouldn't be barred from the profession.I do strongly believe that only those who are best fit for the profession should be working in it, but just because someone comes from a privileged upbringing does not mean that they are not fit. The real issue at hand is that journalists are losing jobs to celebrities because stations want more money. This is wrong. If this trend continues, news sources will lose the credibility that people trust them for.
I hope she does well and if people don't like her on the air, well then change the channel. It's as simple as that. 

"Journalism License and registration please."

You are on your way to report on something and all of a sudden you get stopped by the police. Only registered journalists can be in that area. In a country built on a foundation of freedom, is this right? Is it right for police to ask journalists to have a permit to report in certain areas? While to some this idea seems ridiculous, some journalists and organizations are actually okay with the idea of journalists having to have some sort of license or registration. This is due largely to civilian reporters. Access to websites and social media have made it possible for anyone to be a reporter. News can be posted online instantaneously by anyone, meaning that the rush to be the first to post is more intense than ever. My personal opinion is that while people might read something on a social media site, they usually want to check with a credible source to make sure that what they are reading is true. Real journalists will never become a thing of the past as long as they remain trustworthy and accurate. As far as licensing goes, it could lead to a reduction of the freedom the press currently has. It might also lead to more rules about who can post news online. But if done correctly it could be like other professions that require licensing. In order for the journalist to have access to more sources and to be seen as more official, licensing could take place. Considering licensing is being used as an excuse to keep people out though, it probably won't happen. 

SOPA = censorship?

The Stop Online Piracy Act is a bill that was introduced to the House of Representatives last month. The purpose of the bill is mainly to protect Intellectual Property online. People fear that without enforcement, the US copyright system will become obsolete and that many jobs will be lost. Personally, I am really interested in this because Intellectual Property Law is what I hope to go into.....but on the other end, it is necessary to question what measures will be taken in order to enforce the bill.
  This bill would end up censoring the internet. The Attorney-General would be allowed to create a blacklist of websites which Americans would not be allowed to access. Now, the last time I heard people not being able to access certain websites was when I was reading about China and Egypt (before the revolts)....that is not the US I know. The blocking would be done by the same system used by those countries and if the United States does it, chances are more countries will follow. What this would mean for journalism is that any site that has self-expression on it would be blocked. So social media such as blogs, and facebook, and twitter would be things of the past. These are used as ways to reach audiences now in the world of journalism. And if these sites get blocked, then the avenues for news would be print or maybe a really self-censored website. News writing would suffer. Goodbye Opinion pages! Some websites would not even allow you to upload images or video due to the fear of being blocked. This would be a step backwards for innovation of thought and technology. Unfortunately, due to a lot of support in government (thanks to some "helpful" nudging by corporations) this bill could be passed. Our careers could be in danger, so it's time to speak up.

Sworn to Secrecy....or so you think

Keeping a source anonymous and confidential is often necessary in journalism, especially if you want that source to still trust you. But sometimes a third party gets in the way. An example of this happened not so long ago in Britain when London's police force demanded to know the sources for The Guardian Newspaper's articles on Britain's phone-hacking scandal. When public interest is the issue we must question who is right in the situation. While I do think that it is important that people respect anonymity and confidentiality in journalism, we must also consider that in some legal cases it is in the public's interest for the sources to be known. Knowing who the source is can make a story more credible because people are taking responsibility for what they say, without a name printed in the article all you can do is go off how credible the journalist is. In Britain's case, what angered many is that the London police referred to the Official Secrets Act (associated with espionage) as a way to get around protection of sources in Journalism. They used the Police and Criminal Evidence Act against The Guardian Newspaper. Charges were dropped. But we still should think about what the pros and cons are of confidentiality in journalism....and to what extent that confidentiality should be allowed. Any thoughts?

First is usually not always best...

While I have other blogs saved that I need to upload I was reading an article today and I felt this was really important. It has been widely known that Amanda Knox was released upon her acquittal from the Italian prison she had been held in for nearly 4 years. Yet, while many people see her as an innocent victim, many still see her as a vicious sex-crazed killer. This is largely due to the media. In the rush to be the first to get a story published, often information may be misinterpreted and can even change the context of the story. In Amanda Knox's case, many were posting about her being guilty (of what many believed was murder) when in fact she was only guilty of slander. This is when you must take into account how credible the source is. Twitter is a fantastic way to find things out quickly, but it can also lead to rumors and scandals. Now, anybody can post online and claim to be a journalist, but if even professional news sources make mistakes in the effort to be the first to publish...you can only imagine the damage someone with less training can do. Now that everything is digital, the rush to be first is more intense than ever. But journalism should be based on accuracy...not popularity and process.
When it comes to legal cases such as Amanda Knox's, an article can cause the public to "convict" someone of a crime before the trial is even finished...and when juries are involved that can be really dangerous. The media needs to be more careful because while they need readers and viewers, those readers and viewers also rely on them to tell the truth. Anyone can be affected by false news.

ABC News: The 'She-Devil' of Perugia

Guess who's back?!

Hello! I'm back at it again. I am looking forward to another semester of blogging, but this time instead of blogging about just the media in general I will be looking at it from the other side - not as just a member of the audience but as a member of the media. I have a bunch of ideas lined up. I'm looking forward to posting them :)

Limewire: Didn't you learn from Napster?

Limewire has been shut down due to copyright infringement. The program was a file-sharing service where people could search music and download it for free. Limewire was the "victim" of a permanent injunction not so long ago. The case is that Limewire encouraged copyright infringement and caused damage to many artists. Although many people using it thought it would never end, it did. What I find interesting is the people's idea of cost and worth. Buying a song on amazon or iTunes costs about $1...that's not that much. Then you have to factor in how many times you'll listen to it and how much you like the song. A dollar is not much at all if you think about it that way. People pay $1 for a soda they will drink ONCE and never have that experience again (unless you buy another soda). By getting the music for free, you're cheating the artist and everyone else who put work into the music. A lawsuit for copyright infringement will cost you a lot more than the money you would have spent had you bought the music online. What trend do you think is next for music downloading?

Manners Please!

Some people don't know how to act properly. Unfortunately, this carries over to the internet. Facebook is the prime example of this. Many people don't know what is appropriate online and what should be kept private. Boundaries can be crossed easily when someone violates the rules of online etiquette. Posting inappropriate pictures, making explicit comments, and starting rumors are all things that at the moment seem somewhat harmless, but they can come back to hurt you later on. Actions have consequences, even online actions. What I find funny about facebook is how relationships can come to be defined by what goes on on facebook. If a couple is having problems they can put their relationship status as "it's complicated"....does the world really need to know that? Also, if pictures of you and an ex are still online, your partner might read into it and get mad. Facebook ends up having more control over the relationship than you. Naturally we are nosey people, so many do have a tendency to snoop people's profiles and see what they've been up to. I'm not saying this is right and I'm not saying this is wrong....but if you don't want people to see something, don't post it! It's put there to be viewed so people can't really get mad at someone for commenting about their facebooks. For cheerleading we were held to the standard that if there was anything inappropriate on our pages, we could risk discipline and/or being removed from the team. People would get in trouble for not going to practice and then posting on facebook that they're doing something else. Making some information public is not a good idea. I have friends that have pictures of themselves on facebook that I know they will regret someday, but right now we're in college....so anything goes I guess. People need Internet Etiquette lessons....hmmm sounds like a good course...

When movies go too far...

Films have long been used as an outlet for entertainment purposes. Some are informational, and these are known as documentaries. But, some documentaries take it too far and exploit a situation just for publicity. The Cannes Film Festival screened a movie called "Unlawful Killing' about the death of Princess Diana and those who were involved in the car accident in the Paris Tunnel. The film reportedly has a picture of Diana the moment before she died. This image is so graphic that it has never been shown before. Also, the film is not allowed to play in Great Britain because of the contract the royals have with the media. This would be seriously devastating for public opinion of the family. Diana was loved internationally and many people still feel the pain of her death. I was 5 years old when it happened and I remember being sad...I liked fairytales and princesses were not supposed to die. What the film aims to uncover is a conspiracy by the british monarchy and many people in the media and society to kill the People's Princess. I truly feel bad for Prince William, Prince Harry, and their loved ones. I think this film will be more devastating than relieving.

Slander vs. Libel ...when do you have the right?

It may not be right to negatively affect someone or something's reputation. but at times it is wise to consider the situation the person was in when they committed slander or libel. Is it really right to seek a law suit for everything? I don't think so. In the case with Amanda Knox and her family, they are being accused of slander against the Italian police. Amanda said she was treated badly during the interrogation and her mom repeated the story to a journalist. The ironic thing is that before Amanda was even convicted of the murder, the media in Italy had already had her pinned as a cold-blooded killer. Now isn't that wrong? In the Court of Public Opinion, this could be greatly significant. This will affect her for the rest of her life. In this case, did the media cross the line or did the Knox family? I would have to say that the media's articles about her being a murderer and cold-hearted were more wrong than Amanda claiming that she was treated wrongly. Her case is still on-going and although there is a movie and books out now, people still do not know the truth. If they hear the bad stories first, chances are that even when the truth comes out they will already have a skewed opinion.

This one hits close to home...

I was watching the movie "You Again" last night and there was this part where she is giving a speech on how what is important is not the actual situation but how the situation is viewed - perception. Recently there was a pipeline explosion in San Bruno, my hometown. The explosion lead to a fire and the deaths of people from the community. One of the crazier parts of this experience was having to deal with how PG&E seemed like they were trying to come across as better than they were and were putting on public acts of sympathy. What had actually caused it was inattention to detail and negligence. It amazes me that PR can turn a negative situation into something much less just by how they react. Not necessarily what they do or what the truth is, but how they react to what happens. So while people in my community were receiving help from others in the community and from the Red Cross, PG&E was probably desperately trying to save it's reputation. What comes first? Business or People?

To be fair, PG&E did help some people....but like the saying goes Once you put a nail in a fence, when you take it out there will still be a hole.

We live on the Internet

I believe that someone is not defined by what they are or are not, but more by what they consider home or by their routine. Now many people are interacting less personally, often opting to text or talk online rather than actually spend time together. The internet allows us to do pretty much anything from one place. We can watch TV, play games, shop, order food, talk to people from all over the world, gossip, and discover music and news. This is reflected in advertising now. While most people will skip over a commercial on the TV or change the radio station when one comes on, on the internet they are hard to avoid. Ads are in the sidebars, popups, logos, short video commercials on youtube before the video (sorry....a bit bitter about those) and through special offers in flashing lights on pages. Yet, while we may find them annoying the chances that we'll listen to these more than ones on other mediums is high. What does this say about society? Are we so anti-social and internet based that we now can no longer be influenced unless it's through some sneaky web tactic? Only time will tell....I wonder...what comes after the internet?

You can run....but you can't hide.

One of the main things I value is my privacy. What is scary is the thought that privacy is almost non-existent now. Chances are if you have a smart phone, it is very easy to track where you are via the phone's GPS. Newer iPhones and iPads have technology that time stamp the location of their owners. The records can be found, unencrypted, on the owners personal computer. Feels like big brother is watching you right? This information can be made public. Imagine, something is keeping tabs on you. It could even be used against you in the workplace, your personal life, or even in court. The real question we must keep in mind is whether technology is moving too fast for us to keep up with it and when is enough enough? As privacy policies change rapidly, confusing the readers so they'll just accept them, we are being lured into a trap where nothing we do is ever private. Anything we say or do on the web is public and never goes away. The internet is not pencil, it's permanent ink on indestructible paper. It is the cockroach of species. Once it's online, it's done. We may believe we are anonymous online, but that's never the case.

Schemin' Apple(s)

Apple is facing a federal class-action lawsuit claiming that it is complicit in a scheme to get kids to buy things within apps (such as level-ups and game credits). These level ups and game credits are being promoted in games that are promoted to kids as being free. The reason this is so successful is because of how addictive the games are and how currency that can be bought with real money can help you advance in the game rather quickly. The Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into the matter. Apple has started to add warnings to games about in-app charges, but that's only half the battle. Parents need to control what their kids are doing online. They can't wait until the charges show up on a credit card bill to know what their kids have been up to. In this case I believe that Apple should not be held accountable. Many other companies use the "game credits" and "level-ups" tactics to try to get people to spend money on their games. It is simply a matter of parents controlling their children and not allowing them access to a credit card when they're online.

Other websites can be addictive as well. Personal experience....I was addicted to Ebay for a while. When I turned sixteen my parents gave me my own card with access to some of my accounts. I took this as an opportunity to do a bit of online shopping. It got to the point where I had spent a large amount of money on seemingly worthless items. Was it ebay's fault? NO. It was mine. I did not use my card properly and my parents had given me too much freedom with it before I was ready. That's why I believe Apple is not to blame. You can't always put the blame on a big corporation for something that is your fault as a parent.

Au Revoir Google Video!

Google has just announced that it is shutting down Google Video. Personally, I think this should have been done a long time ago. Google owns Youtube and Youtube is the largest video service on the web. This has been a long time coming since Google Video stopped accepting uploads in May 2009. Now users are being told that they should save their video content or move it to Youtube. While this will be centralizing videos on the web to be mainly held on one site, it is not decreasing competition considering that Google owns youtube. Perhaps this is part of one of Google's plans. I think Youtube will be receiving some steep investments soon. We already are faced with commercials when we want to watch a video. Maybe we'll see another way for youtube to make money emerge.

On a different note, what is your opinion of online video sites where anyone can post? Are they safe?

Anyone can write a children's book these days...no really...Anyone.

     I think my mom is beautiful. I think my grandmother is beautiful. I appreciate it when women age gracefully. Yet, there's a whole industry out there for people that are trying to reverse the clock. I understand how celebrities getting work done will encourage people to go under the knife but there is a point when advocating plastic surgery is unacceptable. Michael Salzhauer, MD, a Florida plastic surgeon, wrote a book called My Beautiful Mommy about a mom and her young daughter. The mother is going in for surgery (nose job, tummy tuck, and a breast augmentation) and she explains that she will look different but prettier. I'm concerned about how this will affect a young child's self esteem and way of thinking. At young ages, children are very susceptible to ideas. If they are being shown at such a young age that plastic surgery makes you prettier then when they are older they will feel inadequate and want surgery themselves. Imagine that girl waking up one day, looking in the mirror, and seeing her mom's pre-surgery "ugly" nose. Of course she's not going to want it!
    The media is really influential on children, but a lot of children aren't exposed to plastic surgery and a lot of other social tragedies while watching cartoons or children's programming. A lot of them have their parents read to them, thus giving the parents the control over what books are read. This book is giving them what TV shows won't. It is advocating something that can become dangerous behavior. There's a reason cartoon-like animals aren't allowed to advocate cigarettes anymore, because that directly affected children. A children's book is even more direct. We have to consider the fact that the author of the book is a plastic surgeon...and he loves getting paid.

Capture the Babe? I don't think so.

Women have fought to be respected by men. Many aspects of the media constantly put them down. Magazines make women feel like objects, music videos make women simply sexual beings, movies portray them as weaker than men, and songs are just plain offensive. So it doesn't surprise me that videogames follow the trend. Duke Nukem Forever is a videogame where players can play in "Capture the Babe" mode where the player has to abduct women and slap them. Yes, slap them. Women are portrayed as strippers and prostitutes, the main character in the game even gets implied oral from twins dressed up as school girls. How DISGUSTING. While this game has received an M rating, it is not enough of a barrier to keep children from purchasing it.
Games with violence have shown aggressive behavior amongst it's players. This game can possibly increase feelings of male superiority over women and increase violence against them. It is not uncommon that violent crimes against a person aren't over anger but done as a show of power. This is encouraging men to violently show their "power" over women. It is degrading. Where do we draw the line on what is acceptable? If a war game receives an M rating, should this receive something more severe? Where do we draw the line between what is implied sexual content and what is some form of pornography?
I am currently too annoyed to keep writing. This is ridiculous.

The World is Your Stage

Many years ago it took knowing someone to become famous. Now people can take that into their own account via social networking sites and other mediums that allow for us to distribute content to millions of people just by posting it online. While this allows for more talent to be discovered, this also allows for some pretty crazy stuff to be posted online. Sometimes these posts don't necessarily help the person's fame, in fact they give them a horrible reputation. This is something two California Girls learned recently.

A UCLA student posted an anti-Asian rant online not so long ago. This rant went viral and ended up in the student receiving death threats and many hateful comments. Being a political science student with any aspirations of someday becoming a politician (and relying on votes) she wasn't very smart in posting a racist rant. Although racism isn't completely gone from our country, it is frowned upon and when someone targets one group so hatefully it is seen as something horrible. Once something is posted online, it doesn't go away easily. This will follow her for the rest of her life. At her age she should've known better.

Now, the song that's been called the Worst Song Ever and the Worst Music Video Ever: Rebecca Black's "Friday." That song was so bad that it went viral. Unfortunately, it resulted in cyber-bullying towards the singer and many spoofs. Her talent as a singer was even questioned. What will people do to become famous? Was this a joke just to get publicity? I hope so. But I do think that the Social Media enabled people to bully a 13 year old girl. This type of fame wasn't the good kind. She's a joke now.

Social Media sites allow anyone to post and anyone can be heard. It's a freedom that we should not take lightly. Whatever is online is there for pretty much forever. It's a stage that never goes away, where your "performance" can be viewed over and over again. Watch out fellow cast-mates!

                                                               UCLA RANT

                                                            

                                                              FRIDAY SPOOF

Social Networking affecting Business

Have you ever heard of someone getting fired over something they posted on Facebook? Or an athlete getting a fee for a Twitter post? Well, it's not uncommon. In fact, I even have friends that have deactivated their Facebook accounts while they were in an interview process for a job or admission to a program. One friend even deactivated it while he was pledging a very strict fraternity at Dartmouth. Social networking sites provide people a way to communicate with others as well as post details about their daily lives. Some people post more frequently and more detail than they should. Where does the line between our personal lives and professional lives fade?
    Several days ago Chrysler ended it's relationship with New Media Strategies, a social media agency, over a tweet one of it's employees posted from Chrysler's Twitter account. Although it was meant to be posted to the employee's personal Twitter account, it was accidentally posted onto Chrysler's. This negative and explicit tweet made the company look bad. Although it was an accident, the employee was still careless and was fired for a post he made while he was at work. If he had just kept his frustration to himself, he might still have a job.
     We are all asked to be professional at work, if our personal lives are being tracked all over the internet when will we ever shed the overly professional exterior? Or will casual and relaxed become the new norm? How will Social Networking change professional relationships? I think the solution will be in leaving "something to the imagination" and knowing what's appropriate to post and what's not. After all, why do we NEED to let everyone know what we're doing, thinking, eating, feeling, buying, etc? Protect your own privacy and watch out what you post.

Disney Movie FLOPS?

Disney has been known to make some really good films for children, so it was a big surprise when their newly released "Mars Needs Moms" flopped. Could this mean that the reigning company for child entertainment was losing it's touch? Or were there just mistakes along the way? It is not uncommon in Hollywood for a film to be unsuccessful. We have grown so accustomed to films that we now expect great quality and innovation. We want the next great thing. So why is it that when an animated film tries something more new it flops?
   There are some theories as to why this film failed. One being the style of animation. Instead of using Pixar-style animation, making the cartoon characters very detailed but not extremely lifelike, they went with the Zemeckis technique. This requires the actors to be hooked up to a uniform with body sensors to pick up movement. While this animation may make a movie seem more realistic, is realism really what people want from a fictional cartoon?
     Another reason for the flop might be the plot itself. Children don't want to watch a movie about losing their moms. They don't want to think that their moms will be abducted by aliens. Children are easily convinced and can feel like this is real pretty easily. So, are film makers becoming careless? Should they consider their target audience more when choosing to produce a film? I think so. While the movie provides a new concept, it's not appealing to children. This was evident in the millions Disney lost on the release of this film. They need something new, what will be the next Toy Story, Monsters Inc, or Finding Nemo? Those were good, Show me what ya got Disney....not calling you out or anything.

They got to me....

Before reading, Watch this.

 

    Take a funny stereotype, an old song, and a comedic approach to a drink....and you have a good commercial. I am sad to say that I have fallen victim to this commercial. Yes, I actually bought a Sun Drop. Why? The commercial was funny. But at least the soda was good. This was clearly a commercial, but the focus wasn't explicitly on the product, it was more on the girl drinking it. And I think this actually made it more effective. It was approachable. I felt like I could relate. On a hot day, who doesn't want a cold drink? And who doesn't want to party during the summer. The commercial shows a fun atmosphere and that is what people want. Sometimes it's not even about showing the product that much, it's about being memorable. This was certainly memorable. I think I might even see some people dressed as her for Halloween. Some of my friends dressed like Flo from the Progressive commercials last summer. No matter what people may argue, this type of exposure will drive sales.

    Some popular ways for brands to get stuck in people's minds are by putting them in TV shows, movies, and even songs. Recently, B.O. B. got paid by Adidas just for saying "Kick it like Adidas" in his song 'Magic'. In 'Spiderman' he hits a can of Dr.Pepper when he discovers his webs. And on "The Nanny" they did a whole episode on Elizabeth Taylor's 'Black Pearls'. This is what I call sneaky advertising. The brand is put towards the people in an approachable way so that people are off-guard when exposed to it. Even magazines try to conceal the difference between what is an ad and what isn't. Seventeen magazine often has beauty tips and sometimes right next to them you'll see an ad for a skin care product, make-up, or a hair product in a similar format to the tips. Some ads even include tips. This makes people feel like if they want to look like the models in these editorial spreads, they need to use that brand. But the truth is that those models probably have used the product once in their lives. In the end, ads are made to be memorable and made to make people want to do something or buy something even if they don't need it. When money talks, the whole industry changes in order to get a piece of that. Where would we be if brands didn't exist and there was no competition? Impossible to think of, huh?

 

Going Digital

  I can't remember the last time I rented a movie from a store. Ever since I got Netflix, all I do is watch what comes in the mail or what's available on Instant. I even see more of my friends just stream movies and TV shows on Netflix. But do people really cancel their cable or other TV service and replace it with Netflix? What do they do when they have to wait to watch a new movie that Netflix doesn't have yet?      Comcast found these loopholes in Netflix's service. Comcast believes they can compete with Netflix because they offer newer content and people already subscribe to Comcast for other services. So it's convenient. Netflix offers a large library of old TV shows and movies as well as newly released content. Netflix has been increasing it's subscription fee and switching more licensing over to Instant, observing the trend that people are more likely to watch movies streamed Instantly than wait to receive something through the mail.
    Video stores have closed and we are seeing companies buckle under the pressure that this new competitor has placed on them. How will the film industry react if less people are actually buying the movies? Time will be the only way to tell. I doubt it'll be a long time before we can watch newly released movies for a fee through the production company's website. All I'm asking is: what's next?

Pushier than a Car Salesman?

     Earlier today I was cleaning my car and remembering how upset I was when I got it. It's a good car, but it wasn't the car I wanted. I wanted a Volvo and my parents had bought me a Toyota. Then I thought about why I wanted a Volvo...and honestly it wasn't because of design or function. It was because Edward Cullen drove one in the Twilight series. I instantly felt like I fell into the pool of crazy Twi-hards. Did I really want a car just because a fictional vampire dream man drove one?
     I thought I was reading a series for a cool story and a better past-time than watching TV but I was actually being exposed to product placement. His Volvo was constantly mentioned and made to sound like it was the cool and sophisticated car to drive. The gorgeous fashionista sister drove a BMW and Emmett, the rugged outdoor type drove a Jeep. While the author could have described the cars without naming the brands or even left the cars out (leaving them out would not have affected the story at all), she mentioned them many times. And it worked. This worries me. Where can we be safe from advertising? Is this constant flow of information some way of brainwashing people slowly? And why are brands so important to us?
    I looked through some other books I liked to read when I was a bit younger. I came across The Clique series. They mentioned Seven jeans and Keds plenty of times. I had been exposed to this stuff for years. Here I was thinking that the media didn't affect me much and I had actually been fed ads by some of my favorite books. Now I know why I find it so refreshing to read a book like The Sound and The Fury, no ads! Just like I can skip commercials on TV because of my DVR, I wish I could do that with books. It cheapens the content. But how can I know that a book I pick up will be free from this?

What do you think of brands being placed in teen books?

    

A world run by commercialism: Ads Galore

     We as a society don't even notice how many ads are fed to us on a daily basis. If you listen to the radio in the morning or watch tv, it is guaranteed you were exposed to an ad. Even newspapers are loaded with them. So it is a rare occurrence when someone will voluntarily watch commercials. The Super Bowl is that exception. Advertisers know that millions of people will be watching so they will spend millions on those ads. Super Bowl ads are also often very funny and tend to appeal more to people.
     One ad that really caught my attention was Best Buy's ad with Justin Bieber and the Osbournes. It makes fun at how fast technology moves. With Ozzy styled in Tron-like clothing getting more and more confused as the Gs kept increasing (3G to 4G, etc) Justin Bieber gets switched in (much like Best Buy can upgrade your older stuff for the newer version). They end the commercial comedically by the Osbournes asking what a "Bieber" is and a man (Bieber in disguise) saying "kinda looks like a girl." By feeding into what many people feel and say, they made an ad that was an instant hit. Kids loved Bieber, Parents loved Ozzy, and everyone thought that making fun of how older people "can't keep up with technology" was funny.
    Ads are getting more and more creative now. It's hard to get people's attention so they're becoming more aggressive. Tell me what you think :)

Tina Brown & the new Newsweek

     The magazine industry has been in a decline. While society frets about new technology and innovation, whole industries struggle to survive in our new digital jungle. An example of this is Newsweek. Newsweek recently merged with the Daily Beast in an effort to keep itself alive. With magazines often losing more money than they make it was important that Tina Brown, the editor-in-chief of Newsweek, cut costs. By going green and embracing some aspects of technology, she now uses e-mails (sent from her blackberry) instead of loads of faxes and prints. This even allows for her to cut shipping costs and messengers.Staff has been cut and writers will be paid per article and not be put on contract.
     The struggle to survive also means that in order to compete she will have to deliver fresh, new content. This is evident in the use of space and quality of the new magazine. It is said that it now includes "hot" columns, greater quality glossy paper, and more use of white space. Advertisers find this look to be more energetic and stylish. (Which is a VERY good sign for Newsweek!) A magazine with no advertising will die. By appealing to the advertisers, she is opening up more possibilities for this re-designed magazine.
Not only is the re-design of the magazine catching attention, but this new money-smart and somewhat frugal Tina Brown is. She has been known for notorious spending and loss of money for her magazines (hello, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker). Now she is quite changed, not only were her magazines in trouble, but her career was. Her legend was. I will certainly be interested to see if she can save this sinking ship.
    My look into the magazine industry may have been given to me by watching Ugly Betty, but I know this will be a struggle. But, this industry will not die without a fight. What do you think?

Honeycomb: Sweet Competition for Apple

      For a while now Apple has ruled over the technology kingdom. With it's infamous iPhone, iMacs being used in schools and MacBooks being the most popular computer among students, it is hard to see where other companies can compete. Google has decided to challenge Apple's iPad. Powered by Android technology, it too has a lot of cool apps. It has a 3D visual rendering system, updated video and music capabilities, as well as a home screen that allows widgets. Widgets provide real-time information that are convenient for the users (they don't have to open an app to know what's going on). The notifications aren't as distracting as the ones the iPad has, which makes the Honeycomb more user-friendly.
     Will Android technology beat Apple? Google has been a strong competitor and Apple has been slow to release the next big thing. Maybe it's just our society's blase attitude. We are never impressed unless something is truly innovative. Personally, I will not be purchasing an iPad or a Honeycomb. There will be always be something newer and more cutting edge, so it seems like a waste of money to me. Laptops serve the same purpose as these tablets. Need I remind us all of the netbook craze? They're just smaller laptops with less memory space...and internet can be reached from other devices. Mindless waste of money? I think so. Our society encourages competition, after all one company making all our gadgets just would not be right. So I leave you with this: Who's the new king in our technology kingdom?