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.