Ethics.

I feel as thought there is so much to keep in mind when talking about ethics in journalism. My own personal opinions on the subject vary. I know that this is something that is supposed to keep journalism fair and moral. However, I often feel like it sometimes has the opposite effect.

There were a few parts of the reading that particularly caught my attention. I found the section on deceit interesting. If someone who is not a journalist were to read this section and read the words "lie", "misrepresent", and "steal", their initial reaction would probably be something along the lines of, "no, of course it is never okay to do these things." In fact, that was even my reaction the first time i read through the section. However, upon my second read, I realized that these are things that journalists have to seriously consider, and the dilemma of where to bend the rules is something that, as journalists, we are probably bound to face. The important thing to remember is that it's all about circumstance. What is the situation? What is bending the rules will help to reveal some major corruption in government or a corporation? What is it will help reveal information that will help a vast majority of people? In my opinion, you have to seriously look at the outcome. Is it worth it?

The second thing in the reading that grabbed my attention was the section about friendships. Personally, this is something that never even crossed my mind. I always just figured that establishing a rapport with your sources could only result positively. You gain someone's trust, and they help you out. But, in our field, it's a little more loaded than that.

Finally, I was particularly interested about the subject of paying sources. Personally, this is just something that makes me pessimistic. I don't think that it is ever okay to pay a source for information. That just takes journalism and makes it into something it isn't. For me, journalism is about informing the public; sharing knowledge. It's not about who can pay the most to get the best story.

I found the online readings very interesting and very uplifting. In my opinion, online journalism has a lot to offer. It can take many different forms of journalism and combine them into one, making a story more interesting, more accessible, and more complete. For, me, personally, online journalism is something that is very intriguing. As I mentioned in my blog about broadcast journalism, I am also a photographer, and am very interested in the concept of using compelling images as journalism. However, online journalism is something that can combine words, video and photography to create a more rounded story.

Chapter 19

Chapter 19 addressed how to write for Television and Radio. Personally, I'm not really a broadcast person. At all. I feel that print is just more effective and more complete. Each broadcast story only gets about 2 minutes each. How can you truly include all of the information that needs to be included in 2 minutes?

The main difference I saw between writing for print and writing for television and radio was that, with tv and radio, the writing needs to stay short, concise, and conversational. I am generally bad at that. I really do enjoy writing, long, detailed pieces, and I have a slight problem with being "wordy" more often than not. So, all in all, I am fairly certain that television and radio writing is not in my future.

I do have mixed feelings about broadcast, simply because I tend to question how stories are chosen for broadcast. Our book says that stories have to meet certain criteria, one of which is timeliness. Television and radio have the advantage over print of not having certain deadlines and print dates; they can cover things as soon as they happen, and present the stories to the public as soon as they happen. However, the broadcast stories are much more condensed and less complete.

However, there is one aspect of broadcast journalism that I am partial to. The visual aspect is certainly enticing for me, being a photographer. Photo journalism is something that I find very interesting and it is extremely effective. The long and short of it is, images make a stronger impression and can sometimes get across a point better than any words. For example, the photographs of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina that were posted online got more attention than any newspaper articles. The same is true with the coverage of 9/11. The images spoke louder than words, and broadcast not only has the ability to combine words and images, but it also has the ability to use video.

This being said, I still think I'll stick to still photography.

Investigative Reporting

Investigative reporting seems like something that would be so much work. The text basically lays out how one would go about writing an investigative report.

I feel like after Journalism Research we each got our own little taste of what investigative reporting is like, and I can say from my own personal experience, the text doesn't lie; it is not an easy thing to do. You need to be organized, know where / how to get the correct sources, and be persistent.

According the book, you need to have "courage" in order to be an investigative reporter. Investigative reporting is one of those things where you need certain information in order to make some stories work. You need to be persistent and willing to bother people, basically.

I want to say that, one day, this is the kind of journalism I want to do. However, I'm hesitant, because what aspiring journalist doesn't want to cover the "important", hard-hitting, investigative stories? The fact of the matter is, I feel like investigative reporting is something that you need to work your way up to. A "pay your dues" sort of thing.

For me, investigative reporting is basically the epitome of journalism. To be able to investigate scandals and inform people of corrupt government I feel would be extremely rewarding.

Oh, Stephen Colbert

So, Colbert recently announced that he was planning to run for President in his home state of South Carolina. However, the Democratic party in South Carolina has just denied his bid. Apparently, officials feel that he is making a mockery of the election and is "really trying to use South Carolina Democrats as suckers so he can further a comedy routine,"

Personally, I have mixed feelings on the subject.

On one hand, I do feel that the whole, Colbert running for president thing was a bit extreme. I mean, honestly, I love the man, I love his comedy, I feel that he is very intelligent, BUT he is also a comedian. An entertainer. He has even said, openly, that his campaign is a joke. That he is not a real politician. It really is a comedy routine. Not to mention, the second he decided to run, the support he began to receive was immense. It seemed as though more people were paying attention to Stephen Colbert than the real candidates. It just makes me look at our society and question some things. Why do we respond more to things such as entertainment and celebrities than the real issues of the other candidates?

Then again, our generation is the largest group that does not vote. Joke or no joke, Colbert was definitely getting the attention of younger voters. The fact of the matter is, we are the group that needs to be voting right now, and we don't. Nor do we follow politics the way we should. At least this was one way to get people involved and interested. Also, the fact that someone can just be denied the right to run for president certainly unnerves me slightly. What makes one person more capable? And who truly has the right to make that decision?