two types of journalists

When I was reading over my classmates' blogs I ran across something Marissa wrote about. In her blog she talked about the importance of still having professional journalists in the mist of citizen journalism. I agree with her completely. Anyone can be a citizen journalists by blogging or starting a website. But in reality they may not put forth all the energy into researching and writing that a journalists does with every article. Journalists have more access to better research methods and they are trained to find the news and know what to do with it. Professional journalists are still needed to help people filter through the bull on the internet and face the big issues.

reflection

One thing that is talked about in digital journalism and the internet is that we have more connectivity. While this is a better system than when we were limited by time space there is still some problems with all the connections. Sometimes wrong information gets out there and there is so much news out there. One website can site proof for one thing and the next site give proof that the thing was false. Though we are all connected by this new form we still have to filter through it alone.
That's why journalists need to step in and lead the masses. Cunningham mentions this idea in is article. If journalists do it right they can lead the nation to think of the issues and avoid the junk. They can lead the mass to want use the connectivity to rebel, seek change or take action to get what this country needs. With all this information out there journalists need to change their previous ways of just telling information. The masses are already doing that and its now up to journalists to lead the masses to work on the important things.

take a stand

I couldn't agree more with Brent Cunningham's "Take A Stand". While it is important to keep objective journalism that relates just straight facts in the mix I feel journalism should attempt to have an opinion and raise issues for the masses. In the economic crisis we are in today Americans are lost. Yes we all want it fix but are solutions being suggested, are we dissecting the solutions being presented enough. it is times like these where journalists need to step up and lead the masses to want to discuss these things. Educate them on the issues and lead them to make a choice. Journalists can't just give facts anymore. I see this especially in the case of the health care refrom. Facts aren't helping people with the matter. People are still confused and looking for an answer. Many people just I know of have even stopped reading about the reform in papers and such because they are tired of the plain facts. They know the facts but what do we do with them. It is time for journalists to raise issues to guide and lead peopple to take action.
Objective journalism wasn't always the only way in American history and it shouldn't continue to be so. In Journalism 313- American Journalism History, we are learning baout the times the newspapers helped shape America and it didn't always involve objectivity. Things like the American Revolution were started because journalists t brought up the issue of American freedom in their papers and encouraged people to fight for their freedom.
This kind of journalism is need if people want to pull together in a similiar matter and help save America from the disaster it is currently in.

imitate

In my articles I would like to think I can imitate Jeff Zillgitt. He's a sports writer for USA Today and he works only on their website. I've also had the pleasure of meeting him in person. To me his style of writing is simple but gets readers focused on what he is saying. Sports isn't just scores and games but rather he makes each article a story. The stories also have a way of telling the audience not only about what sports topic he is discussing but a little into his life as well. He makes it fascinating to read. When the audience reads they learn something about sports and something about a guy who loves sports. It brings a connection from the writer to the audience. For that article the audience can relate to him and his feelings about something ans in the end feel that way to. He could just talk about sports but you can tell he likes to have that connection with the audience just as much as sports.
While I probably won't ever do sports I want to accomplish what he does in his articles.

a public voice

I really like this article Agre wrote. The internet is all about finding a voice that people want to hear. People can be under the allusion that the internet allows everyone to speak and many will listen. But the fact is if you can't find an audience that likes the way you write and what you talking about they will go to another site. There are way more options for the audience now. They are not limited to just your postings so you have to make them interested.
To do so you have to develop a public voice. I like this idea, its a balance that is very sensitive. You have to find the right mix of your own beliefs and writing what the audience needs to see from you. In my opinion it's better than commercial voice because you get to think for yourself. Your ideas aren't affected by the advertisers and producers so you can say what you want to say. But it's also harder than merely private voice although it may sound like private voice. The main idea behind publicd voice is making a voice for the public. Only when you accomplish this can you begin to state your ideas.

youtube and digital journalism

After looking at some of the blogs of my classmates I noticed a couple of them mentioned youtube. It hit me like a bull's-eye, of course this is a prime example of digital journalism and where its heading. Up until now I've been discussing digital journalism as it applies to online newspapers and blogs, etc. But video journalism is definately a type of digital journalism. It has the characteristics like many-to-many, its unfiltered, and its audience controls. It also got me thinking that this is the way journalism could be moving digitally. Videos are becoming more and more popular than articles. Videos get the word out like television but it allows for more disussion with comment sections and the audience controls it instead of how tv execs control the tv.

assignments

hey everyone! I just got done with the assignments due tonight and I thought I'd comment on them. The html coding assignment was touch and go for me. At first I was overwhelmed, it was more complicated than I thought it was going to be. At least it sounded hard. But I found once I fiddled around with it I got the concept pretty good. It was actuallt fun to check out the finished result. I never knew what all that coding meant until this and always wondered what it meant. Now I know.

The second assignment about writing on wikipedia was fun to. I knew how to do it before but it was cool to be able to add my own information out into the universe. During this assignment I kept thinking that this is what digital journalism is all about. It had so many qualities to it. The information was unfiltered, there was citizen journalism, and it has a many-to-many approach.

real vs. fake news

Since this class started I've been thinking about the pros and cons of digital journalism. While I've focused mostly on the pros in my blogs I was thinking about the not so positive side and I thought I'd share my thoughts. The first thing I want to discuss is something I started thinking about in my Journ. 305 class. We discussed one day that the trouble with opinion pieces is that wrong information can get out there. I thought this was especially true with digital journalism where there are citizen journalists. People can take everything they read to heart. So if a blog or article states the wrong news then people believe what is being written even if its false or bias. With a newspaper the facts are checked and stories are monitored to prevent false information. The internet doesn't allow for that and people will find the wrong information out there and believe it.

Then I got to thinking about the stolen phone story we read. While that girl did something wrong her privacy was totally violated. A newspaper wouldn't be able to print stuff like her myspace page or home address. Especially since it would cause people to be able to harrass her. But on the internet, journalists don't have to stick to the ethic guidelines a paper would have.

Anyways just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject.

response

i was reading over other classmates blogs and i came across one that made me think and probably many other people too. Glenn discussed the idea that people like to collect newspaper clippings to remember an event and to keep as a keepsake. When Obama was elected president my brother bought 10 copies of the paper. The same went for when my sister had a baby. My parents bought a couple papers and still have the announcement of their grandson's birth. This is a glitch in the digital system. I still feel like when something important happens people are going to want an actual piece of evidence to remember the event. I don't know exactly what it means but it got me thinking about the route of digital and old form journalism. Are newspapers going to stick around just for this sole purpose or is the digital form going to find someway to cover people's needs for hard copy at certain times in their life.

news and information

I have to agree that with digital journalism news and information are becoming more meshed together. Take for an example the newspaper. With that we would just get the news or perhaps some little tidbit to help understand a story better. But information was left behind to cover the news story. Information was covered by something else. But with the internet journalism is changing. With news posted online there are various links to other information you can get on a subject they are discussing. News is not the alone product anymore of journalism. To be successful onine it seems journalists have to blend their stories with news and information.

citizen editor

I think a citizen editor is a good thing for a blog site. At first glance I thought a blog site and something like that didn't need an editor. But then I got to thinking about what Logan said about the citizen editor. Someone needs to be the one to start a topic to blog on and guide people through the different ideas being discussed. So I think a citizen editor is good for citizen journalism. Also the "editor" could help get the topics out there into the masses. In my opinion the citizen editor should be informal enough as to let people build the site freely with topics they want to discuss but also be formal enough to organize the site and blog topics.

thoughts on the lecture notes

i think the lecture notes was good at describing the journalism associated with the digital version. it mentions that the roles of the reader and writer have changed. Readers become citizen journalists. For the first time regular people are able to comment on news and write about news or their opinions on it. When reading the the phone story I saw the the companents of the digital news environment. This kind of digital journalism has more content then before. For example the idea of a missing cell phone led to other content being discussed like military police and racial questions. The story became unfiltered with news. Everything and manyhting became open to discussion.

readers becoming more than just readers

This week's reading, "It Takes a Village to Find a Phone," a great example of how digital journalism has readers become more than just readers. Their involvement in the story doesn't just stop the second they stop reading the post. The readers became activists, detectives, commentors, and participants to the story. They helped shape the ending of the story by the work they did.

While there were various reasons why they became so affected by the story that they had to participate in some way, the reason they were able to do that was from the digital format of the story. I got to thinking about what would have happened had it simply been a newspaper story. A reader may have been just as affected by it as on the internet. But the difference is that the most the reader would have probably done is write to the editor or Evan. Or perhaps discuss is with a friend, co-worker, or family member. But I think the interest would die down after that.

But with the system Evan set up people were able to fuel the fire. Discussion boards brought thousands and more people together instead of just a handful. They fueled each other with their online discussions and ability to track down new information through the internet. The ability to email the story to others helped others who had the ability to help the cause get involved. The internet gave people the freedom to post things they would not have probably written in to a newspaper about. They wouldn't tried to post pics off of Sasha's myspace or get into so many other related topics like the military or police duty.

Like mentioned in the reading, Evan created an army through his website. I don't believe it would have gone the same route had it just been in a newspaper.

Ann Arbor News

My opinion is that annarbor.com is an example of the hybrid form that Prof. Tracy wrote about. It has elements that use the internet technologies to improve the news given. It isn't just the paper version reproduced online. Something that stuck out for me was the other links given in a particular story. For example the article covered the Michigan vs Eastern game had some many other links inside the article. I could watch videos, chat about it, find other stories related to the game, get stuff on the big ten, etc. The article gave me much more options to find out more about the game. This struck me as a key point in the hybrid model mentioned in the reading. The articles on this site connect people to more information by using links to various topics and media forms.
Other things that I connected to the hybrid form was the way the reader could interact by leaving comments and live chatting. Also the site was constantly being updated around the clock. The article mentioned above was posted 5 hours ago an I even noticed another story posted at 3 am.
For these reasons I think annarbor.com was a good example of the hybrid form.

hey everyone! I just thought I should stop by again and tell you about myself. I'm a senior and will hopefully be graduating next semester. I'm a literature, language, and writing major with a minor in journalism. Though right now my job is being a waitress my goal is to one day work for a book publishing company. I'm 23 years old and live in Monroe. I'm the youngest out of 5, although my twin sister, Courtney, is only one minute older. I love reading and writing, hence my major and minor. I don't have a favorite genre or author. There is just too much good ones to choose from. My room pretty much looks like a library because of all the books.I'm also a pretty big music fan and again I couldn't tell you a favorite. It generally just depends on the mood I'm in. Other than that I'm pretty normal, I guess. I love spend the little free time I have with my family and friends, who I consider my 2nd family. Especially my nieces and nephews. well I suppose that's it but feel free to comment or ask questions if you want to know more about me.

reflection on the evolution of the newspaper

I found this reading to be interesting and insightful. Like most people interested in journalism I often wonder about the future of newspapers and the evolution of journalism. The thing that I found most interesting and enjoyed the most was the idea that journalism was taking a natural evolutionary step with the Internet. While some may argue that the Internet is ruining writing, journalism and our connectivity, I believe the opposite. More than ever we are connecting with people and sharing our thoughts. If people continue to use the Internet in a positive way than the Internet can only cause good things for journalism. Like the reading said I think journalism can evolve into something better as long as journalists can figure out how to use the Internet in the best way fitted for journalism. I believe the article was right when it said a hybrid format was the solution. While it hasn't had much success yet I believe that once journalists work the kinks out, newspapers and journalism has a real chance of surviving and thriving in a digital world.