Holy Cow!

I watched the "infamous interrogation" of Vice President George Bush and Dan Rather (that was referenced in class) on You Tube. Man! The only way I know to describe it is that it was crazy. Seriously; I was lauging while I was watching it becuase of how ridiculous it was. Both Bush and Rather were interrupting each other right and left throughout the interview. Rather was very persistent in talking about the "Iran-contra," and for me, it felt like he would just not give it up. He definitely did not appear very professional in the interview, and I think that he let his own emotions and biases hinder his performance in the interview. Ignoring if this information was indeed important for the public to know, it seemed to me that Rather sort of tricked Bush into being interviewed, becuase as said in the interview by Bush, Bush was supposed to have been speaking about his views on education.
I guess one thing I learned from this is how crucial it is to stay calm and in control when interviewing, even if you have differences with the person you are interviewing.

You should check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFE1f4-zRA

Tricky Business

Yesterday we talked in class (briefly) about people who provide false information for journalists. When is this ok to do? It is really difficult to say, and I have not had much experience dealing with this or evern heard very much on the subject. However, my gut instinct says that you probably can't point this out in print. I don't imagine it would be very good to call someone a liar in print.
I guess this would be where you do some digging and find out what the truth really is from other sourceS (plural, not just one), and use the ones that you know are truthful and fit together. In the process of digging, you might even find out that what you at first though was false is actually true. Digging is good! If you use sources that don't tell you the truth, it can come back to haunt you.

Who is a Journalist?

Often, journalists are viewed as nosey writers who are just trying to meet a deadline, and who have little concern for their subjects. Unfortunately, some journalists do embody this description. These types of writers let their own stress distort their perhaps better judgment. Ignoring this stereotype, journalists do cover significant occuring events in order to inform the public. Some topics are controversial, but a good journalist should in essence cover a topic if it will benefit the public. How do we know what will and will not benefit the public? That is difficult to say, and probably varies from person to person. Journalists also present information in order to keep the government in check.

Journalism is basically definted as reporting the news. This can be done in many forms, not just through the newspapers or major television stations. People (like me) can report news on websites with hardly any effort at all. In our day and age, anyone can be a part of journalism.