Increase the wealth

In the "U.S. lags behind in broadband infrastructure" article, writers John Irons and Ian Townson discuss the need for the U.S. to catch up in broadband efficiency.

An interesting part of this article is the paragraph that says expanding broadband can benefit the U.S. in ways outside of the Internet:

Expanding broadband infrastructure in the United States would not simply improve the speed of connections for entertainment purposes, but it will also bring a wealth of knowledge to more citizens in more areas. With greater reach, the United States could see improvements in education, health care, and first-responder capabilities as communications become faster, more efficient, and more effective.

This idea that the Internet can bring more piece to the U.S. is interesting. Online education and learning tools can download faster and use bigger — more interactive — files if there is a larger broadband connection. Emergency responders can transmit calls via the Internet and arrive at accident sites quicker.

The possibilities are endless with bigger, badder broadband. Would having more space to play give journalists more room for investigation?

A blogger's code of ethics

It is pretty obvious the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics wasn't written for online media — especially bloggers. But some rules can limit bloggers if they followed them.

Refuse gifts, favors, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

But not being recognized as a "real" member of the press, bloggers are essentially forced to accept favors, free travel and special treatment when it comes to getting into a closed event. Granted, citizen journalists ignore this ruling often, even when it's unnecessary.

My question to SPJ is, when will there be an online code of ethics?

Overseas tabloids and all that jazz

In the Guardian article "Why Kerry should sue the sun," issues of transparency were apparent. The story goes back and forth between the Drudge Report and the Times of London "libeling" John Kerry.

The Drudge Report, claiming 15 million readers, alleged that a young "intern" had a "mystery relationship" with Kerry and that several major US news organizations were already investigating. But none published a word, though political society in Washington and New York was instantly consumed with gossip.

A little transparency would have been helpful here. Disclosing sources is a hot-button issue, especially in gossip stories. Recently, at The Ithacan, we published a story using unnamed stories. Later we discussed the rules of using anonymous sources:

Procedures for using anonymous sources:

1. Attempt to convince the source to speak on the record. If that fails,

2. Attempt to confirm the information with sources willing to be named and with documents. If these aren’t available,

3. Confirm the information with multiple independent sources, even if those sources, too, will only speak on condition of anonymity.

4. Provide an explanation of why the source was granted anonymity.

5. Allow anyone discussed in the story the opportunity to fully respond to statements made about them.

I think when dealing with a public figure, disclosing sources is absolutely necessary.

Transparency is the new objectivity

After reading "Transparency is the new objectivity," different questions popped into my head. In my Journalism Ethics class last semester, we talked often about transparency with citizen journalists. The biggest issue was being able to identify the reporter/writer and how to contact them. This article talked about many ways to be transparent, mostly about writers disclosing their own biases. But after looking over all of these suggestions, I wondered, are there levels of transparency? Do larger stories need more information to prove objectivity? Does that include name, title, contact, resources and links? Could some blogs just out right say their bias and that be the end of it? How much is necessary, sufficient or superfluous?

'Failed' writer breaks onto the scene

In the summer of 2008, the LA Times published a series of articles covering a specific event that portrayed Obama in a negative light. Aside from the remarks that this writer uncovered, her ability to make headlines left the media in awe.

Mayhill Fowler was an everyday American just writing about whatever she thought was important. The day she quoted Obama saying "bitter" small-town Americans "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" she opened a door for citizen journalists all over.

The most amazing part of the story is that Fowler never considered herself to be a journalist.

With the immediacy of blogging and news gathering it is a smart statement to make saying everything is on the record. In one of the LA Times' articles, Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor, said:

We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear. You have to assume that everything is on the record. There is no getting around that anymore.

This applies to my generation even more because we have to deal with Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. We cannot take away our online footprints, so saying certain things in our status and tweets will stay with us forever.

Nothing is off the record.

Movies on the small screen

In the article "Wanna share ear buds?" published in the LA Times Nov. 20, 2007, David Sarno discusses the ever-changing forms of media — specifically the film industry. The first full-length feature film to go straight from production to iTune's was "Purple Violets," directed by Edward Burns. Burns decided to skip the movie-theater stage because "releasing a film online eliminates costs associated with printing and distribution, while also making the film available everywhere." Burns' film can be viewed on laptops, desktops and even iPods.

This story signifies to me that even other forms of media outside of journalism know they need to adjust the way they present their work and the way they make their products available to the masses. Just like journalists took to blogging to get information out there quicker, now the film industry is picking up on the same tip. 

What's next with the media?

Stewart compares 'apples to oranges'

Last night on The Daily Show, John Stewart poked fun at the on going battle of The Presidency versus Fox News. When Mark Finkelstein came to our class the other day to discuss conservative, independent news, he touched on the subject, as well.

Huffington Post published a small blurb about the Daily Show skit citing a quote from White House Communication Director, Anita Dunn. Dunn said:

It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self-serving on their part.

Finkelstein said though he could argue that CNN is somewhat bias, he feels as though discrediting a news source is unethical and unprofessional.

I agree. The President has every right not to watch Fox News, but to allow his team to make public statements encouraging citizens to stay away from a particular news station is petty.

Hopefully, this feud will end before someone gets hurt.

Everyone's got a blog

I found this interesting packaging blog. It contains a lot of student showcases where readers rate packaging ideas and displays. In today's world just about everything and everyone has a blog. I think it shows the success of the Web in creating free space for people to express their minds. And, truthfully, blogging doesn't just belong to journalists.

Ithaca Student Gets Friendly with Locals

Student journalist Aaron Edwards, a sophomore at Ithaca College, designed his own blog "Townie Talk" to create a forum for locals on social issues such as the global climate change and the Olympics. It's pretty impressive. He takes his own photos and edits his own video. Check it out here.

The Finkel-meister

Mark Finkelstein, a conservative blogger, works on three different media outlets. His blogging career started when he began writing snippets for NewsBusters. He tried to branch out and make his own blog called FinkelBlog in hopes of achieving Internet fame. The hits on his personal blog were not as common as NewBusters', however. Now, Finkelstein tag-teams both blog sites to share his conservative views. He also has his own Public Access show called Right Angle.

One question facing bloggers is this: If it is all about the hits, does that mean the editors and publishers have control over the bloggers ambitions to post? When Finkelstein began receiving more hits on NewsBusters he pretty much abandoned his personal site temporarily. Can a true blogger take a few months off, even if he or she is multitasking for other groups? Or is that all in the nature of blogging?