News Media Critique .....

                    Jessica Chambers' Changes the World?

     Approximately 13 hours from this moment, Fox news took it upon themselves to feature an article on the murder of Jessica Chambers. Jessica who had been had burned alive back in 2014, a great tragedy for her loved ones along with the rest of her community. Recently due to frustration of a mistrial of  Quiton Tellis, her alleged murderer in 2017, one of her friend has decided to take part in a Oxygen docu-series called "Unspeakable Crime:The Killing of Jessica Chambers." This article was written by Christina Corbin and the Associated Press and featured in the crime category of the popular media network Fox News.

     Now while Jessica's murder was in fact incredibly gruesome and disturbing, it  doesn't require the  level of attention the authors given it by writing it and featuring it on Fox. This is a clear violation of the fourth yardstick of journalism ..... local relevance. Had the article been featured in Mississippi where Jessica is from it would have been completely understandable; however, it was featured on Fox a nationwide platform.

    Taking the time to feature this article in the place of many more newsworthy articles is a major miscalculation. That makes this article also a violation of newsworthiness. There is absolutely no visible impact at a national level, but rather it merely takes the place of more important news. Especially considering that the death was not even a recent one, it occurred 4 years ago back in 2018. It would have been better replaced by the rape problem in India that is channeling into a global wide discussion of the critical problem.

    Now there may be a deeper meaning within this news story that's being missed; however, regardless of that fact, the author of the article is still failing at the yardstick explanation. If this story does have a bigger context the author failed to properly address said bigger picture. It gave us the "what" but not the "so what" failing to explain to us readers what makes the story so important. If the writer had taken the time to further the topic and thoroughly describe the greater relevance, it may have held greater context to national readers as a whole.

         To read the full article go to here.

  

A response to Sam's thought provoking evaluation ........

                                Room For Dissent

         In a recent post by Sam Watkins on the room for dissent, he pointed out an faction of the element that I had not thought to connect. Everyone knows that as a species we typically fear being turned against. Nowadays, with so many news stories circulating the media, many of us feel such a strong pressure to prevent accusations of bias, that we fear providing dissent under the pretense that we "can't" because there a risk of being proved false. 

       

         "While it’s a supposed standard for journalists to both give room to criticize and criticize others - in this world of extreme partisanship, of facts and alternative facts, it still feels taboo to truly call someone or something wrong. In an effort to avoid bias, we’re often too afraid to admit when the other, or even our side has fouled. If that’s case… is there really any room for dissent at all? " he says. http://samshottakes.blogspot.com/

              

             The former statement is an immaculate one that I myself had no clue I was under the influence of. Have there not been times when I've questioned a story but hadn't risked calling it out until a braver individual completed the task? Imagine the amount of valuable input that may have been left unvoiced due to the fear of bias or inaccuracy.

             In answer of his question "is there really any room for dissent at all" my answer is yes or at least there should be. The fear of bias is just as the description implies ...... a fear. The fear of bias and inaccurate information has not removed the room for dissent. It's merely complicated it. Each and every one of us still has the unavoidable responsibility to make sure we're being provided with truthful, element abiding journalism. That mean we just have to work a little harder to verify it.

         This means, that to determine the reliability of a article, as citizens we must do the most we can and be sure to cross reference and check news for accurate facts without the fear of voicing  oubt. And as for the journalists out there, this only increases the need for active journalism digging deeper into every story rather than passively taking whatever information's coming at you.

    

             

A closer look at the personal effects of the printing press .......

                   The Story of Me

             The printing press. Some may say it's the greatest invention of all times and nearly every one can agree it's played a critical role in shaping the world as we know it today. In class, we discussed a variety of pros to the great invention such as higher literacy rates, accurate map making leading to colonization and empire, increased trade, revolutionary/religious/artistic ideas, and standardized language focusing primarily on it's major positive factors, but I feel it's important to also be aware of it's impact on you at a personal level. Not until Mr. Miller encouraged me to figure out how the printing press affected me did I truly comprehend the full extent of it's power.

           To start I analyzed basic traits about me. I'm 14 years old, female, and was born in Morocco. Then I built off deeper. My parents met in high school and I have two brothers (one older and one younger). Overall it's some pretty basic information that sets the stage for the story of my life; however, if you erase the printing press you also inevitably rewrite my story.

         Without the printing press, we discussed how there would not have been any revolutionary movements such as feminism or equal rights. This was one that I was relatively surprised by. While I understood that the printing press paved the path for for revolutionary ideas, I was thinking more revolutionary war and protestant reformation, not a subject that hit so close to home. If it weren't for the printing press, by the measly age of 14, I would have most likely already been married off with little to know schooling due to both my gender and social class. In fact, I wouldn't even be in this very country if not for the printing press. Regardless of whether the U.S came to be or not, communication between nations and transportation would be incredibly less advanced meaning I'd have no means of getting here. I would be a married "woman" off in Morocco watching after and raising children from within my home.

      That is, only if I exist at all. My parents both met in high school. A level of schooling not even the elite had. That means in this new reality there's an incredibly high chance that my parents would never have met and I wouldn't exist, or maybe my grandparents wouldn't have met and not even my parents would exist. This realization is what really drove the ball home for me. My very existence may rely on the creation of a little press years and years ago. Now say perhaps by some unbeknownst chance my parent do end up together, my family composition would be much different regardless. Due to lack of education my family would have doubtlessly belonged to the faction of the population engaged in farming. In a farm, the more children you have the greater your work force. That means that there's nearly a zero percent chance that I would have but two brothers. My parents would have continued having children until they had a amount of sons they found suitable. Of course, the girls such as me weren't useful for such things. We just brought in the dowry.

   It was really mind blowing to me how the creation of one measly invention, could change my entire life. I'd go from an teenage American Dupont Manual High Schooler to a married "woman" off in Morocco. It's almost terrifying how one little event has the capacity to branch off to cause both sensible and unforeseen impacts.

     

         

Is it really fake news ...

                                              You're Fake News

  " The FAKE news media (failing @nytimes, @NBSNews, @ABC, @CBC, @CNN)  is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people."- Donald Trump

         Fake News. What do we make of it? With the election of our most recent president Donald J. Trump it seems as if that term has been thrown about towards opposing viewpoints without any basis. You don't like my policy-FAKE NEWS. It's become a normal word and lost it's actual context, practically developing into a three year old's tantrum argument. For instance, the updating of the death tolls of Hurricane Maria were false. "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000..."-@realdonaldtrump. He's going against clear cut facts and saying the death toll was fake. That makes his statement the one that's fake news. But if so, why did many people believe him?

       Fake news by definition is the publication of false, inaccurate news under the claims that it's true. This means that the media outlets must be outright lying when compared to the hard facts. If that's what it is, then how come  it's spun so far from it's original definition? During our discussion of filters, one of the puzzle pieces finally clicked into place. The reason people so frequently "confuse" real news for fake news is due to the physiological filter. The physiological filter is a problem that distorts the decoding of a message because of your disagreement of it.Those who falsely claim fake news may actually be under the impression that it is "fake" just because it goes against their personal beliefs.

      So back to the reason many believed Trumps conspiracy that the new death tolls were faked. Simple, it's because they held strong regard for Trump and the values he put forward in his campaign. Due to their blind belief, they'll automatically go against anything that contradicts Trump. Physiologically, they personalize media to paint the image of all news that doesn't match their ideal painting as "fake news". Yes there are cases of actual fake news and the physiological filter is not the only cause for it: however, next time you read a article and disregard it as fake news, be sure to first consider how you may be over projecting your thoughts to avoid sub-conscience bias.

On today's printing press discussion .......

                   Life isn't All Black or White

         The creation of the wooden printing press by BI Sheng and later the metal printing press by Johannes Gutenberg has had countless affects on both the history of Europe and the journalism within.  With the creation of the printing press, it became much easier for news to be mass printed and distributed to the public. This in turn, made news updates easier, more complex, and consistent. These revelations forced me to ponder, what other advances have been in play to influence journalism as we know it today?  Why what else if not the introduction of the internet of course?
         
       With the use of basic analytical skills anyone can establish that the internet has been one of the leading causing of countless advancements in the journalism we're familiar with. Of these advancements, one of the most major is more accessible distribution of mass media. With the creation of the internet hypothetically in today's era everyone can have 24/7 access of news. Updates are made in real time, and you can get several sources for nearly every news stories in a range of perspectives, to dig out the cold hard truth. Rather than the previous give-take formation of the news, nowadays it's all an interconnected, interactive unit. All voices have the opportunity to be known and everyone has hypothetical accessibility without the need of a local news station and fee. Be that as it may, the digitization of media has also brought forth a number of repercussions.

     First and foremost, there's the slight complication of print media. Nowadays nearly everyone chooses to get their news off of online sources, putting many traditional media outlets at risk or even out of business. This is made even worse because older journalists often have trouble adapting to the ever changing systems of online media.  Not to mention, with the growing connectivity of "news" almost anyone can be a journalist. This can be both a blessing and a curse. On one side of the spectrum, it may give us more access and perspective ; however, it also makes it harder to distinguish fact from fiction. We're left with a huge pool of  often opinionated sources and a hard time digging through it.

    Overall, we're left with but one question- has the internet done more good or bad in terms of it's influence on journalism? Honestly, I believe that depends on how you view it. An opinion question if you will. In my opinion I believe the answer is both. Personally, I can't generalize the internet as either good or bad. Life isn't all black and white and neither is this case. Regardless of what we believe, the internet is taking over the media world, and whether you believe it's for the better or the worse, all we can do is overcome, adapt, and as journalists (or audience) keep up our fight for truthful, readily available news.
     
        

       

Almost .. but not quite Tyler.

             In response to Tyler's post on Relevant Matters, Newsworthiness-News Media Critique (Instructionmanual18.blogspot.com), he's almost gotten it down but I believe he seems to have overlooked what I see to be a major point. Tyler made some excellent points on news organizations failing to feature relevant, newsworthy news. He rightly thought to question the usage of an article on a white, female cop in Texas that murdered a black neighbor in his own home due to it's coverage on supposedly national media sources such as Fox and CNN. "There's really no reason why Fox News needs to cover a fatal police shooting in Dallas, Texas."he says.

           

            To further elaborate he made claims on how a story such as the one above should be covered on a local level due to a lack of influence on people around the country. It broke some of the basic rules of journalism we discussed in class. It wasn't gripping and it wasn't relevant, yet it was featured on articles at a national level regardless.

             However, he looked over the deeper meaning of the story. In class we also discussed how some stories thought seemingly irrelevant (people being shot in our country is in no way new news) can actually act of fuel for larger national and sometimes international controversial issues. At an outside look, oh look a man was shot in Texas, the story looks insignificant, but the context is what brought it forward. A WHITE, female COP in Texas shot a BLACK man in his own home on the claim that she believed she was in her own apartment and he was an intruder. Is police brutality and racism not a national topic? It is and that is what makes this case an important contributor to the ongoing controversy. Sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture.

Who's the watchee of the Watchdogs?

  "Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable."-Finley Peter Dunne
         
              A no brainier in journalism, is it not? Within the first week of journalism, of any journalism class, the students will always be introduced to the former concept. Those in power need to be watched like a hawk and those under them must be protected from them. Lord knows we can't believe everything that comes out of Trumps mouth. However, this invoked me to ponder further. How does one determine who to watch? Who is befitting this watchdog treatment?
         
            If you took the time to fully ponder the enormity of this concept could you not say that the answer is but a subjective one. One may say we have to watch religious institutions, another government, maybe non profit organizations, and health agencies. Who is most befitting of the watchdog treatment? I believe that to answer this question you must first gain a deeper meaning of the concept of power. Could you not say that it is the Journalist that actually hold some of the greatest influence? If a single journalist has the power to bring down a king could you not say the journalist holds the higher power? To gain proper comprehension, I must first bring forth yet another discussion.                                   
         
         Nowadays, people aren't really reading for what they need to hear, but rather what they want to hear. This means that if the majority of the public wants to hear about how great Trump is than the news media will watch for any of Trumps success's and become watchdog critiques to all his opposition. Yes, they are technically watchdogs, but it is a contorted version of the critical role. If the majority of the population suddenly became liberal, if it means having more viewers, than don't be surprised if the media suddenly becomes incredibly liberal friendly. The idea of "watchdogs" has practically become a subject to majority rule. If the ones we rely on to be watchdogs are biased themselves than what can be done."To comprehend the solution to this dilemma I had to make yet another connection.
           
            The ten yardsticks of journalism. "Room for dissent" and "public forum". Even "analyze". In the end the answer lies not only with the journalists themselves but the audience at whole. I believe regardless of how we wish it was so, it is not only journalist who must verify their information but us who must verify our journalists. It is true that everyone can be a journalist today, and while some may view this a mere complication, in reality, though being hard waters to navigate, it also gives more perspective. A lot of the time the bias of the media is merely a reflection of the bias within us- the public. Though my message may come off as three different points spider webbing beyond control, that itself is the message I'm trying to convey. In the end, what I've concluded is that all the factions of journalism are interconnected. In answer of my original question who is the watchdog and who must be watched? Who really has the most power? Is it the government, journalists themselves, or the very root- the public? Simple, it's all of the above. We must all be watchdogs to both ourselves and each other. That is the only way to truly present a proper balance.