In the New York Times, there was an articl e about a new option for journalists who have been laid off.
The "TypePad Journalist Bailout Program" has begun to offer journalists who are recently out of employment space at their blogging location.
Although this might not be the ideal source of income, the top 20-30 bloggers receive some revenue among other benefits.
This just shows one path that can now be taken... The world of journalism continues to adapt to the current situation
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
...Seriously??
In the Kansas City Star There was an article about the KC Mayor (Mark Funkhouser), who says that he can't work without his wife. Indeed, his wife shows up in his office during his work hours to give him advice and help him schedule appointments among other things. The city council has said that no longer can "elected officials" have relatives volunteer for them regularly. Some people might have succumbed after this decision was made, but Funkhouser is filing a lawsuit.
One person referenced in the article said that he found the whole situation a little weird. Later on in the article, a contrasting view was shown:
"'It's a classic love story,' says Garry Cushinberry, a bank vice president who sat at the mayor's table at an awards dinner Nov. 14. 'He's risking his political career for the woman he loves. You have to respect that.'"
Even me, being the sucker for a good romance story that I am, definitely do not find this story touching in the least. I tend to side with the first opinion shown, and also the city council. It's nice to love your wife, but... seriously? Do you have to be with her 24/7? At work? And not only that, but to insist that you can only do your best if your wife is present? It just seems to me that though it may be desirable to be with your spouse, being separated from him/her sometimes is something you just do, becuase that's the way it works. Heck, I got used to leaving my mom to go to kindergarten... But hey, maybe I was just mature for my age.
One person referenced in the article said that he found the whole situation a little weird. Later on in the article, a contrasting view was shown:
"'It's a classic love story,' says Garry Cushinberry, a bank vice president who sat at the mayor's table at an awards dinner Nov. 14. 'He's risking his political career for the woman he loves. You have to respect that.'"
Even me, being the sucker for a good romance story that I am, definitely do not find this story touching in the least. I tend to side with the first opinion shown, and also the city council. It's nice to love your wife, but... seriously? Do you have to be with her 24/7? At work? And not only that, but to insist that you can only do your best if your wife is present? It just seems to me that though it may be desirable to be with your spouse, being separated from him/her sometimes is something you just do, becuase that's the way it works. Heck, I got used to leaving my mom to go to kindergarten... But hey, maybe I was just mature for my age.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Futuristic Journalism Arising Today
“'Information is now a public service as much as it’s a commodity,” he said. “It should be thought of the same way as education, health care. It’s one of the things you need to operate a civil society, and the market isn’t doing it very well.'”
This statement came from an article today in the New York Times. There is no doubt that the newspaper industry is declining.
Different web news organizations have developed recently, which receive no profit for their service. There has been some talk about using advertising revenue to pay these journalists, but it is doubtful whether money from advertising would be able to to support an entire news staff.
Web sites such as VoiceofSanDiego.org provide good, investigative journalism, and provide a peek as to what might happen to journalism in the future. Some other web sites similar to this have popped up in various big cities across the U.S., and more are expected to follow.
This statement came from an article today in the New York Times. There is no doubt that the newspaper industry is declining.
Different web news organizations have developed recently, which receive no profit for their service. There has been some talk about using advertising revenue to pay these journalists, but it is doubtful whether money from advertising would be able to to support an entire news staff.
Web sites such as VoiceofSanDiego.org provide good, investigative journalism, and provide a peek as to what might happen to journalism in the future. Some other web sites similar to this have popped up in various big cities across the U.S., and more are expected to follow.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Journalists are responsible for their own fate. True? Or not?
I recently read an article about journalists who have lost their jobs, and the fate of jounalism.
This article states that "media futurist" Jeff Jarvis blames journalists for their own fates, and also "denies them the right to consider themselves victims".
This statement might have some truth to it, but quite honestly, it's a little harsh. No matter what caliber of a jounalist you are, staff cuts are still being made. There are still only so many spots in the job available to be occupied.
Yes, being good at what you do does increase your chances of keeping your job, but think about it. If all journalists were on the level as far as quality goes, many of those would still lose jobs because of the direction that the news business is headed. This notion has lead me to think that journalists who lose their jobs are not solely responsible for their fates. It is up to them to find another path to follow as far as work goes, but being cut from a newsroom staff is, unfortunately, not always unavoidable.
I do agree with Jarvis on one thing though; it is up to journalists to preserve journalism practices. I don't think journalism itself will be a problem to preserve.
This article states that "media futurist" Jeff Jarvis blames journalists for their own fates, and also "denies them the right to consider themselves victims".
This statement might have some truth to it, but quite honestly, it's a little harsh. No matter what caliber of a jounalist you are, staff cuts are still being made. There are still only so many spots in the job available to be occupied.
Yes, being good at what you do does increase your chances of keeping your job, but think about it. If all journalists were on the level as far as quality goes, many of those would still lose jobs because of the direction that the news business is headed. This notion has lead me to think that journalists who lose their jobs are not solely responsible for their fates. It is up to them to find another path to follow as far as work goes, but being cut from a newsroom staff is, unfortunately, not always unavoidable.
I do agree with Jarvis on one thing though; it is up to journalists to preserve journalism practices. I don't think journalism itself will be a problem to preserve.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Wiki Wiki (Fast) News
In the New York Times today, there was an article that described Wikipedia as a source for breaking news. There is no doubt that Wikipedia is updated quickly and efficiently, but is it necessarily a better source for news than a website for a newspaper company?
Wikipedia was updated every time new information was gathered about the McCain/Obama election. However, it is possible for people (who are not recent new users of Wkipedia) to update information freely.
The article said that eventually the internet will overtake print and television as far as media coverage goes. However, with credibility being an issue with Wikipedia for instance, is this such a good thing? I read a quote earlier (I don't remember who said it) that said journalism has to deliberate which to satisfy, the urge to be the first with the story, or getting the facts right.
If the world continues to turn to Wikipedia, or sources like it, where the news can basically be changed by whoever, without an employer of some kind to hold them accountable to telling the truth, what will happen to the news? Will people trust it blindly, or not trust it at all? Will news businesses go out of business?
I am holding on to the hope that people will always need news organizations to collect and distribute the news. Maybe news corporations will just have to keep on adapting and become more and more internet oriented. So... here's hoping.
Wikipedia was updated every time new information was gathered about the McCain/Obama election. However, it is possible for people (who are not recent new users of Wkipedia) to update information freely.
The article said that eventually the internet will overtake print and television as far as media coverage goes. However, with credibility being an issue with Wikipedia for instance, is this such a good thing? I read a quote earlier (I don't remember who said it) that said journalism has to deliberate which to satisfy, the urge to be the first with the story, or getting the facts right.
If the world continues to turn to Wikipedia, or sources like it, where the news can basically be changed by whoever, without an employer of some kind to hold them accountable to telling the truth, what will happen to the news? Will people trust it blindly, or not trust it at all? Will news businesses go out of business?
I am holding on to the hope that people will always need news organizations to collect and distribute the news. Maybe news corporations will just have to keep on adapting and become more and more internet oriented. So... here's hoping.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Might We Have Had a Different President?
After I finished the reading for today, I had one of those moments when you think of something that would be perfect to blog about. Those moments... absolutely priceless. Anyway, the section of the reading that caught my attention talked about our beloved Ralph Nader.
The section read, "Why, he asked, when he was raising real issues, did he get no coverage while Al Gore and George W. Bush, the Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee of American politics, were covered every time they blew their noses?"
This shows that the media truly has an agenda setting role. The media has not told us what to think about Nader, but by failing to give him much coverage, they have encouraged us to think about other candidates instead (Obama and McCain), who they thought would have the best shot at winning the election.
However, might the election have turned out differently if Nader had received more press coverage? After all, there were quite a few swing states in the final stages of the election. I know that I don't know much at all about Nader's stand on the issues. My guess is that a lot of other people don't, either. Maybe that right there is the reason that Nader has not had much success in the past.
If the media had given Nader the coverage he wanted, would he have gotten more support from American citizens? Is the lack of attention given to Nader the reason he has not gotten a large portion of the votes in the past? Could the election have turned out differently than it did?
Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything, but you never know.
The section read, "Why, he asked, when he was raising real issues, did he get no coverage while Al Gore and George W. Bush, the Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee of American politics, were covered every time they blew their noses?"
This shows that the media truly has an agenda setting role. The media has not told us what to think about Nader, but by failing to give him much coverage, they have encouraged us to think about other candidates instead (Obama and McCain), who they thought would have the best shot at winning the election.
However, might the election have turned out differently if Nader had received more press coverage? After all, there were quite a few swing states in the final stages of the election. I know that I don't know much at all about Nader's stand on the issues. My guess is that a lot of other people don't, either. Maybe that right there is the reason that Nader has not had much success in the past.
If the media had given Nader the coverage he wanted, would he have gotten more support from American citizens? Is the lack of attention given to Nader the reason he has not gotten a large portion of the votes in the past? Could the election have turned out differently than it did?
Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything, but you never know.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day
The media has been all over this election for the past couple of months. While journalists might not have come right out and said it, Obama was definitely made out to be a favorite for this election. Because of the way the election has been covered thus far, the election coverage tonight surprised me somewhat.
News reporters were hesitant (from what I saw) to call the election too early. I kept hearing the phrases like, "It's to early to call," throughout the night. I even heard this referring to some states, which quite frankly, were fit to be claimed by Obama. However, the media seemed to be cautious in stating who would win the election before it actually happened, which was a smart move.
Although, I didn't realize that the election was very close at all until they showed the popular vote at the end. Obama won by a landslide with the electoral votes. Even though it was evident that Obama would win overall by the electoral votes, I think the media did a good job of illustrating and informing the public that the election was closer than most people thought it would be. Kudos to the media.
News reporters were hesitant (from what I saw) to call the election too early. I kept hearing the phrases like, "It's to early to call," throughout the night. I even heard this referring to some states, which quite frankly, were fit to be claimed by Obama. However, the media seemed to be cautious in stating who would win the election before it actually happened, which was a smart move.
Although, I didn't realize that the election was very close at all until they showed the popular vote at the end. Obama won by a landslide with the electoral votes. Even though it was evident that Obama would win overall by the electoral votes, I think the media did a good job of illustrating and informing the public that the election was closer than most people thought it would be. Kudos to the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
