I do not think it was right for the NPR to fire Juan Williams. Juan Williams was a reporter who was having a discussion with Bill O’ Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor, giving his honest opinion on how he feels towards a certain situation.
Even of Fox News, when Williams spoke about the NPR firing him, he stated that unfortunately, it was an honest experience, and when he sees a Muslim dressed in their garb, he gets nervous, and that of course he would have that initial moment of fear because of what happened on 911. It’s something that many people can relate to because of the tragic impact this incident had on our country and many people would feel being in the same situation as he was. He was not being a bigot; he was explaining his personal feelings towards a specific situation. As someone who defended bigotry, he was stating that it is just a reality, and something that cannot be ignored.
I think that there are fine lines between journalism and being a commentator. Williams was not reporting at this time, and the fact that he was being fired for giving his opinion on a certain situation was too harsh. I’m not sure what the details of his contract are, but to me, I find it hard to believe that he breached the terms of it. It would have been a different situation if he was reporting hard news at the time, because, it wouldn’t be considered true, ethical reporting, it would be his biased opinion towards a situation, and if that was the case, then he should have been examined. For commenting on this specific experience, I find that it was a harsh choice for the NPR to do, and should have been examined more carefully. Where is the line drawn between journalism and commentary? It seems like the rules have changed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Journalism and NPR- by Hasime Ukperaj
Journalism and NPR
NPR's action to fire news analyst, Juan Williams was not justified correctly. Williams should not have been fired for the phrase he spoke of on the Bill O'Reilly Factor regarding being afraid of Muslims. Although his statement was moronic and should not have been maded public at all, a better justification for his actions would have been to sit down and talk to the vice president of NPR.
A news analyst is objective, they should analyzing the issue being brought before them and should not inject their personal views. The analyst has the responsibility to interpret the news and examine the different sides. A news commentator on the other hand is responsible for using his personal opinion in order to get other sides swayed in.
The rules have changed today in terms of the way different journalists handle themselves in different situations. The code of ethics limits journalists from refraining from use of public opinion, this however could be argued. In many instances there are various journalists that express public opinions on other shows than theirs, yet they do not get punished or fired for their actions. We need to take a closer look at why instances such as Williams' case are often forgoed by others.
written by Hasime Ukperaj
NPR's action to fire news analyst, Juan Williams was not justified correctly. Williams should not have been fired for the phrase he spoke of on the Bill O'Reilly Factor regarding being afraid of Muslims. Although his statement was moronic and should not have been maded public at all, a better justification for his actions would have been to sit down and talk to the vice president of NPR.
A news analyst is objective, they should analyzing the issue being brought before them and should not inject their personal views. The analyst has the responsibility to interpret the news and examine the different sides. A news commentator on the other hand is responsible for using his personal opinion in order to get other sides swayed in.
The rules have changed today in terms of the way different journalists handle themselves in different situations. The code of ethics limits journalists from refraining from use of public opinion, this however could be argued. In many instances there are various journalists that express public opinions on other shows than theirs, yet they do not get punished or fired for their actions. We need to take a closer look at why instances such as Williams' case are often forgoed by others.
written by Hasime Ukperaj
Journalism Today- C.Ferrante comments on NPR's decision to fire Juan Williams
I don’t believe NPR’s action to fire Juan Williams is justified. Juan Williams wasn’t acting as a journalist; he wasn’t reporting on a specific news story instead he was having an open discussion with television host Bill O’Reilly. After watching the video of Juan Williams on the O’Reilly Factor I did not feel that what Williams said was from a bigoted or unethical place. Instead, Williams was describing how he felt and later in the conversation even defended that Muslims shouldn’t be condemned to such stereotypes. Williams was acting as a commentator, he was simply expressing his opinion and feeling. NPR claims that he violated their “standards as well as values” but, he wasn’t acting as an NPR journalist- he was simply being himself –candid, blunt, and to the point.
I think the lines of journalism have been blurred. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate between a news journalist and a commentator because; most news organizations are not objective and many sway to one side or another when reporting the news. Even in the case of a news analyst and a news commentator it can be confusing to differentiate between the two. A news analyst is supposed to gather, examine, and then report on facts about a news story whereas, a commentator is suppose to give their opinions about the facts. But, it seems to be more common that the two have blended into one. I think news organizations need to make more of an effort to distinguish what is a news “entertainment” program and what is a hard news program.
written by Christina Ferrante
I think the lines of journalism have been blurred. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate between a news journalist and a commentator because; most news organizations are not objective and many sway to one side or another when reporting the news. Even in the case of a news analyst and a news commentator it can be confusing to differentiate between the two. A news analyst is supposed to gather, examine, and then report on facts about a news story whereas, a commentator is suppose to give their opinions about the facts. But, it seems to be more common that the two have blended into one. I think news organizations need to make more of an effort to distinguish what is a news “entertainment” program and what is a hard news program.
written by Christina Ferrante
Journalism vs. Entertainment
In modern media, questions of journalistic ethics can be bent or even ignored. Professional journalists have an obligation to provide objective coverage of a story to their readers free from bias AND personal opinion. The roles of journalist and performing artist are conflated in modern media. Such shows as “The Colbert Report” or “The O’Reilly Factor” both manipulate news headlines to make different statements about the news, not report the news itself. In effect, these “commentators” are artists, not journalists. The realm of artistic expression does not have any of the restrictions that new reporting does, and therefore, relieves the hosts of any ethical issues. The case of Juan Williams is not surprising, then; nor will it be the last. When a journalist, or a professional news analyst, appears to provide commentary on a headline, they are still under the role of ‘journalist,’ and must conform to ethical journalist standards. When a journalist appears on a purely entertainment show, they are recognized by the public watching that show as a journalist, despite their role reversal or practical function as a commentator in a “relaxed” setting. The public will hold journalists to an unfair standard, even on a program which may not have any standards at all.
The case revolving around Juan Williams is tragic, not because he was fired, but because it demonstrates that our society treats entertainers and journalists the same way. If his statements were taken in context, they would not have caused the controversy they had. As our class discussion revealed, there is little malice behind his statement. Loose lips sink ships, and unfortunately the boat went down for Juan Williams. NPR, whatever their reasoning behind his dismissal had been, fairly represented both aspects of his dismissal on their program, and The O’Reilly Factor provided a telling foil to NPR’s journalistic reporting on the event itself. Was it fair for NPR to fire him based on his statement the way they did? Was it wise for Williams, as a journalist, to appear on The O’Reilly Factor at all? Both of these questions have the same answer.
As a copy editor, I recognize that print material is a very different medium than the spoken word, and can therefore be manipulated to avoid unintentional mistakes such as Williams’. It is the responsibility of a copy editor to ensure that these crossed wires of journalism and entertainment are not represented in the (ideally) objective reporting of facts.
The case revolving around Juan Williams is tragic, not because he was fired, but because it demonstrates that our society treats entertainers and journalists the same way. If his statements were taken in context, they would not have caused the controversy they had. As our class discussion revealed, there is little malice behind his statement. Loose lips sink ships, and unfortunately the boat went down for Juan Williams. NPR, whatever their reasoning behind his dismissal had been, fairly represented both aspects of his dismissal on their program, and The O’Reilly Factor provided a telling foil to NPR’s journalistic reporting on the event itself. Was it fair for NPR to fire him based on his statement the way they did? Was it wise for Williams, as a journalist, to appear on The O’Reilly Factor at all? Both of these questions have the same answer.
As a copy editor, I recognize that print material is a very different medium than the spoken word, and can therefore be manipulated to avoid unintentional mistakes such as Williams’. It is the responsibility of a copy editor to ensure that these crossed wires of journalism and entertainment are not represented in the (ideally) objective reporting of facts.
Juan Williams
Is NPR's action to fire Williams justified? What is the difference between a news analyst and a news commentator? As copy-editor, your role is to identify and revise language that expresses bias.
How have the rules changed in journalism today? What is the conflict in the case mentioned above. What would you have done as the commentator? What would you have done as NPR in this case?
In order to completely for an opinion on whether or not Juan Williams firing was justified, you would have to review his contract and see if he breached any terms of that contract. However, based solely on his comments, it was not grounds to fire him. Williams strictly stated his own opinion and his comments were not connected to any news story or anyone else’s opinion. Williams only stated how he felt and did so in an educated manner without using offensive or crude terms.
A news analyst, such as Williams, is an individual that reports the news and has to do so accurately and objectively. A news commentator on the other hand, is someone that commentates on the news and has the ability to state their opinion on a certain topic since they are not the ones that are actually breaking the story. A news commentator is an individual that is solely employed to express their own feelings and allow others to express their feelings in an open forum.
Journalism is constantly changing. The conflict between Williams and NPR would not have happened in past years when there was not the abundance of news channels that there are now. Television is also changing the way journalism works and the avenues in which it is reported.
I believe that NPR had an ulterior behind the Williams firing. The rash comments that Don Imus made regarding the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team were far worse than Williams’s opinion on Muslims. If I was in NPR’s position I would have spoken directly with Williams instead of terminating him through email without giving him a chance to defend himself.
How have the rules changed in journalism today? What is the conflict in the case mentioned above. What would you have done as the commentator? What would you have done as NPR in this case?
In order to completely for an opinion on whether or not Juan Williams firing was justified, you would have to review his contract and see if he breached any terms of that contract. However, based solely on his comments, it was not grounds to fire him. Williams strictly stated his own opinion and his comments were not connected to any news story or anyone else’s opinion. Williams only stated how he felt and did so in an educated manner without using offensive or crude terms.
A news analyst, such as Williams, is an individual that reports the news and has to do so accurately and objectively. A news commentator on the other hand, is someone that commentates on the news and has the ability to state their opinion on a certain topic since they are not the ones that are actually breaking the story. A news commentator is an individual that is solely employed to express their own feelings and allow others to express their feelings in an open forum.
Journalism is constantly changing. The conflict between Williams and NPR would not have happened in past years when there was not the abundance of news channels that there are now. Television is also changing the way journalism works and the avenues in which it is reported.
I believe that NPR had an ulterior behind the Williams firing. The rash comments that Don Imus made regarding the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team were far worse than Williams’s opinion on Muslims. If I was in NPR’s position I would have spoken directly with Williams instead of terminating him through email without giving him a chance to defend himself.
Juan Williams Scandal reaction
Journalism today is constantly evolving. New forms of media have opened new doors and with it, new sets of challenges. Among the challenges is the changing landscape of ethics and objectivity.
The primary role of a journalist is to cover a story without showing bias or prejudice. Personal opinion, unless in an individual's column, is definitely frowned upon. The question, though, is what happens when a reporter crosses lines and acts as a commentator? Should they be held to the same standard as written journalists are? Should they be given more lee-way to express their own opinion? These are just some of the many points to consider.
In the case of Juan Williams, I believe he was unjustly fired. While he expressed his own opinion that he would feel nervous if he saw Muslims in traditional garb on a plane he was flying on, he did not say that all people should feel that way. He also did not indicate that those views were those of NPR. I can see how this may reflect negatively on NPR and cause some outcry, however, I do not believe they were just in their actions. If I were him, I would have done the same thing, though it is important to chose one's words wisely.
If I was NPR, I would have contacted Williams immediately following the comment to discuss it with him. I would not have waited 36 hours as O'Rielly indicated on his show. Being that Williams is a respected writer and, at the time, member of their staff, I would have treated with more courtesy and professionalism. If in fact there was a large out cry, I would have sat him down and issued him an ultimatum: Either apologize, resign, or be fired. This action could have allowed everyone to "save face" and the incident would have been over with instead of becoming bigger then it needed to be. NPR could have also issued a press release regarding the statement, after its discussion with Williams, as a disclaimer to what was said. There are many ways they could have went about this, but I believe they chose the wrong one.
The primary role of a journalist is to cover a story without showing bias or prejudice. Personal opinion, unless in an individual's column, is definitely frowned upon. The question, though, is what happens when a reporter crosses lines and acts as a commentator? Should they be held to the same standard as written journalists are? Should they be given more lee-way to express their own opinion? These are just some of the many points to consider.
In the case of Juan Williams, I believe he was unjustly fired. While he expressed his own opinion that he would feel nervous if he saw Muslims in traditional garb on a plane he was flying on, he did not say that all people should feel that way. He also did not indicate that those views were those of NPR. I can see how this may reflect negatively on NPR and cause some outcry, however, I do not believe they were just in their actions. If I were him, I would have done the same thing, though it is important to chose one's words wisely.
If I was NPR, I would have contacted Williams immediately following the comment to discuss it with him. I would not have waited 36 hours as O'Rielly indicated on his show. Being that Williams is a respected writer and, at the time, member of their staff, I would have treated with more courtesy and professionalism. If in fact there was a large out cry, I would have sat him down and issued him an ultimatum: Either apologize, resign, or be fired. This action could have allowed everyone to "save face" and the incident would have been over with instead of becoming bigger then it needed to be. NPR could have also issued a press release regarding the statement, after its discussion with Williams, as a disclaimer to what was said. There are many ways they could have went about this, but I believe they chose the wrong one.
Juan Williams
Based solely off the evidence that has been released I would not have fired Juan Williams for his comments made on Fox News. However, if my organization was liberal leaning I can see the conflict of interest NPR raises. I believe a short suspension and a public apology to anyone offended would have sufficed as fair punishment but firing is a little extreme. I do not listen to NPR that often -- so this may have already been a story -- but I think this was a perfect opportunity to expose an untapped topic that many Americans feel strongly about. Having Juan explain his position a little more and going out and doing a report on the topic would have been a nice follow up to the public apology.
I believe an analyst is somebody who delivers the facts, all of them, that provide two or maybe three sides to the story and let the viewer draw their own conclusion. A commentator has chosen one of those sides and now gives some facts but more inferences and opinions of why they feel that way. An analyst should never be proven wrong, a commentator can. That is the difference.
The rules have changed today because we are living in an ultra-sensitive politically correct era. I can't explain how the past used to be but presently any public speaker needs to think out every response they say, especially on topics that are known to raise emotions. The problem is now-a-days everything can can be clipped and edited for a biased person to make a point. Someone on television needs to choose their words carefully in order to avoid public ridicule.
As the commentator I would have not brought up this topic at all, I would have provided another example or just reworded the point in a different way.
I believe an analyst is somebody who delivers the facts, all of them, that provide two or maybe three sides to the story and let the viewer draw their own conclusion. A commentator has chosen one of those sides and now gives some facts but more inferences and opinions of why they feel that way. An analyst should never be proven wrong, a commentator can. That is the difference.
The rules have changed today because we are living in an ultra-sensitive politically correct era. I can't explain how the past used to be but presently any public speaker needs to think out every response they say, especially on topics that are known to raise emotions. The problem is now-a-days everything can can be clipped and edited for a biased person to make a point. Someone on television needs to choose their words carefully in order to avoid public ridicule.
As the commentator I would have not brought up this topic at all, I would have provided another example or just reworded the point in a different way.
Journalism Today
I think the rules of journalism have changed today in the sense that what journalists can and cannot say, at the riskof sounding either offensive or politically incorrect. Despite the current mood of the country being anti-Muslim, one cannot report their own opinions as news because it is simply not objective. what Williams did was inexcusable: he forgot himself and stated his personal opinion on national television, causing an immediate backlash.
Williams (and O'Reilly) seem to believe that there is a difference between a feeling and an opinion, when they are essentially the same thing. To say "I feel" or "I think" is in no way fact, so despite William's constant protest of innocence, he is very much guilty of giving his opinion where it did not belong. If I were in his shoes, I would go on camera and give an apology to all those he offended. He claims he's not a bigot because of all the books he wrote on the civil rights movement, but the plight of black people and of Muslims are two very different situations. If I were the CEO of NPR, I still would have terminated his contract--I think they have acted accordingly in this case.
Williams (and O'Reilly) seem to believe that there is a difference between a feeling and an opinion, when they are essentially the same thing. To say "I feel" or "I think" is in no way fact, so despite William's constant protest of innocence, he is very much guilty of giving his opinion where it did not belong. If I were in his shoes, I would go on camera and give an apology to all those he offended. He claims he's not a bigot because of all the books he wrote on the civil rights movement, but the plight of black people and of Muslims are two very different situations. If I were the CEO of NPR, I still would have terminated his contract--I think they have acted accordingly in this case.
NPR Controversy: Juan Williams and Vivian Schiller
The newest controversy in journalism lately is the recent firing of Juan Williams, Senior News Analyst of NPR. Apparently, he was fired due to remarks he made as a guest on O'Reilly Factor on FOX News regarding being "nervous" around Muslims when at an airport. This got the NPR station flooded with viewer complaints all the way up to the President of the station and 36 hours from when he guested on FOX News, he was fired via email. Personally, I don't think this should have happened, or at least in this manner. Likewise, I think Williams could have dealt with the situation better. For both Williams and the president of NPR, Vivian Schiller, they could have handled this situation a bit differently.
If I was Juan Williams, I would probably have not stated such a rough opinion on the air, even if it wasn't on NPR airwaves. This kind of stuff has a way of getting back to you if people are upset about it enough. In this case, there was plenty of people upset at him. The president of NPR saw this as a negative light on her radio station and saw it fit to fire him as a way to show him what he had done was ultimately an unintelligent thing to do. He should have thought his statement through before he said it on national TV. On an interview with O'Reilly in the aftermath of this scandal, Williams stated that this wasn't his own opinion, but a "feeling." I don't think you can really justify saying it's a "feeling" when it obviously came off as his own opinion. Regardless of what he meant, it came out on FOX News to many other people as an insult to the Muslim community. Maybe next time he'll think before he speaks, if only to save his own job.
Now on the flip side, if I were Vivian Schiller, I would absolutely do something different than the way she handled this. For one, to fire one of the biggest personalities over such a small statement, regardless of the public backlash, is ridiculous. Secondly, to fire him via email and never have a chance for Williams to speak on his own behalf or defend his actions seems very unprofessional. To not even speak with the man and just fire him based on either talking with FOX News (whom NPR might not want to affiliate themselves with) or based on people's reactions (which would easily go away a few days later) was not the way to handle this at all. Maybe if she were to talk with him one-on-one, this whole situation would work out differently.
If I was Juan Williams, I would probably have not stated such a rough opinion on the air, even if it wasn't on NPR airwaves. This kind of stuff has a way of getting back to you if people are upset about it enough. In this case, there was plenty of people upset at him. The president of NPR saw this as a negative light on her radio station and saw it fit to fire him as a way to show him what he had done was ultimately an unintelligent thing to do. He should have thought his statement through before he said it on national TV. On an interview with O'Reilly in the aftermath of this scandal, Williams stated that this wasn't his own opinion, but a "feeling." I don't think you can really justify saying it's a "feeling" when it obviously came off as his own opinion. Regardless of what he meant, it came out on FOX News to many other people as an insult to the Muslim community. Maybe next time he'll think before he speaks, if only to save his own job.
Now on the flip side, if I were Vivian Schiller, I would absolutely do something different than the way she handled this. For one, to fire one of the biggest personalities over such a small statement, regardless of the public backlash, is ridiculous. Secondly, to fire him via email and never have a chance for Williams to speak on his own behalf or defend his actions seems very unprofessional. To not even speak with the man and just fire him based on either talking with FOX News (whom NPR might not want to affiliate themselves with) or based on people's reactions (which would easily go away a few days later) was not the way to handle this at all. Maybe if she were to talk with him one-on-one, this whole situation would work out differently.
Journalism Now
When you sit back and compare journalism, ten to twenty years ago, to today you notice just how much it has actually changed. Journalists in general are more to the point and straight to the facts trying to get the news across in a timely yet, in a manner that comes across as unbiased and factual.
When it comes to Juan Williams, when he visited the O'Reilly Factor he was caught up in the commentary aspect of news reporting, and it showed. O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he spits out facts that he sees as true, and will try and sway your viewpoint on the matter into his side, to make him look more favorable.
The conflict in this matter is that an analyst, someone who just lays out factual evidence without showing any biased entered the O'Reilly factor and got sucked in as a commentator, and expressed his opinion, something that NPR is not about. Williams, quite frankly got caught up in the discussion, and while he probably didn't mean to share his opinion did, and in the end it cost him his job with NPR. Do I feel the firing is fair? No, sometimes these accidents happen, but do I feel Williams could of controlled himself better and been a little less biased, or worded his opinions differently to make it seem less biased.? Of course.
When it comes to Juan Williams, when he visited the O'Reilly Factor he was caught up in the commentary aspect of news reporting, and it showed. O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he spits out facts that he sees as true, and will try and sway your viewpoint on the matter into his side, to make him look more favorable.
The conflict in this matter is that an analyst, someone who just lays out factual evidence without showing any biased entered the O'Reilly factor and got sucked in as a commentator, and expressed his opinion, something that NPR is not about. Williams, quite frankly got caught up in the discussion, and while he probably didn't mean to share his opinion did, and in the end it cost him his job with NPR. Do I feel the firing is fair? No, sometimes these accidents happen, but do I feel Williams could of controlled himself better and been a little less biased, or worded his opinions differently to make it seem less biased.? Of course.
Ethics
The rules of journalism today have changed just as society has. Technology has allowed for it to have taken this course. More people can and do apply their input into circumstances that take place on a daily basis. The conflict mentioned is that Juan Williams made a statement which did not suit well with the company he worked for; the comment made went against their rules is their argument. As the commentator I would have stood my ground and would attempt to getting a clear understanding of what exactly led to my removal. Due to the fact that he has not received a proper explanation and he did work for the company for 10 years. As NPR I would've probably have had him issue an apology even though I don't think his statement was as radical as the actions taken by NPR. Many journalists today continue to apply their perspective somehow and if it causes a dilemmas as this story has, they are asked to apologize. And the medium through which the journalists is providing their story make sure to separate themselves from the personal view of the journalists.
NPR and Juan Williams being fired.
I think that what he said definitely hurt his chances to work over at NPR, especially nowadays when everyone is scared to voice their own opinions due to backlash and people are afraid of what will happen if they do voice it and get in trouble. While NPR had every right to fire Juan Williams, how they proceeded to fire him could be seen as cowardly. He spoke to Bill O Riley and then a few days later via email, he gets fired. They wouldn't even let him in the building to let him speak to whoever fired him. I think they could have handled his firing in a better way by having a meeting with him and discussing on what he did wrong, maybe not fire him but give him a warning of sorts. Now I know people complained, but eventually it will die down and someone else will say something similar if not something worse and the public will turn their outrage to that person. NPR definitely overreacted and if they had someone in the shadows who back them via with money or sponsorship, then they had their pockets in mind rather then their own employees. The conflict here is that Mr. Williams expressed his own opinion about being on an airplane and seeing Muslims in garb and being nervous in the possibility that they would blow up the plane. In a pre-9/11 world as well as with the recently foiled attempts of the car bomber, people started to complain about what he said as well as congratulate him as well. Very blurred lines are being crossed here, it would be very interesting to see how this all unfolds. I would have probably not said anything at all, or if i absolutely had to, express it in a way that shows that it's not my own opinion its that of everyone else.
NPR Reaction
I fell like the rules of journalism have definitely changed in today's world. Society today is far more open to people of mixed and different cultures. Although many members of these cultures take offense when they feel as though they are being discriminated against. While these cultures should not be discriminated against, because we live in a more accepting society it is a much larger issue when the line is crossed. Although, the tension of political correctness will never ease or get better if everyone is afraid to make statements on it. In the case of Juan Williams I believe he should have thought out what he said much better. He made a great point about political correctness, but his point was lost because he then voiced an unpopular opinion about Muslims. Had I been in Mr. Williams' shoes I would make a public statement clarifying what I had meant to say, and also offer an apology to those who were offended. Unless there is a statement in his contract with NPR about voicing his opinion on other station I do not believe they had grounds to fire him. He was not representing NPR when he made his comment, therefore who are they to censor him.
Reaction to NPR's firing of Juan Williams
The rules of journalism have greatly changed in today's society in the fact that news room's are becoming less objective and are posing opinion as fact. Many people consider what political commentators say as fact rather than recognizing their opinions as opinion as opposed to fact.
This idea was perfectly demonstrated in the recent Juan Williams case. Williams, a news analyst for NPR as well as commentator on Fox News was fired after saying derogatory remarks about muslims. NPR decided to let williams go, since Williams failed to be objective. The real conflict here is that Williams as a journalist failed to acknowledge his duties as a journalist which are outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Williams not only failed to avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation,disability, physical appearance or social status, but most importantly he failed to distinguish the point of being able to distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
If I was a commentator, I would have not said what Williams said. I believe that everyone has a right to an opinion, but a journalist is always on the job even when they are not in the newsroom or professional setting. You have the obligation to your readers to report the facts, not opinion. In that case, I believe that NPR had total justification to fire Williams under the notion that he failed to be objective as a journalist when he was speaking with Fox news. However, I would have not sent him an e-mail letting him know about this position, this was very tactless. Instead, I would have talked to him in person about the issue.
This idea was perfectly demonstrated in the recent Juan Williams case. Williams, a news analyst for NPR as well as commentator on Fox News was fired after saying derogatory remarks about muslims. NPR decided to let williams go, since Williams failed to be objective. The real conflict here is that Williams as a journalist failed to acknowledge his duties as a journalist which are outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Williams not only failed to avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation,disability, physical appearance or social status, but most importantly he failed to distinguish the point of being able to distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
If I was a commentator, I would have not said what Williams said. I believe that everyone has a right to an opinion, but a journalist is always on the job even when they are not in the newsroom or professional setting. You have the obligation to your readers to report the facts, not opinion. In that case, I believe that NPR had total justification to fire Williams under the notion that he failed to be objective as a journalist when he was speaking with Fox news. However, I would have not sent him an e-mail letting him know about this position, this was very tactless. Instead, I would have talked to him in person about the issue.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Newspaper Crisis
The presentation brought to light a lot of crucial issues that newspapers and journalism as a whole face. The internet is really infringing on the newspapers as much of the information presented in the newspapers can be posted directly online. Since the internet can be accessed more frequently, newspapers face the crisis of becoming obsolete. Another benefit of the internet is that stories do not have to wait to be published every morning they can be posted online immediately after they are complete. If the newspaper industry does not find a way to adapt they are surly going to be out of business within the coming years. One sign of the adaptation, is that many newspapers are now having an online website where they can publish stories as well as print them in the papers. This is a very good step since they can take advantage of having their name already known in
The other problem that faces the journalism world is the simple question: Who are Journalists? Blogging websites allow everyone to relay the news in some shape or form. So what constitutes one working for a paper a journalists and someone blogging not? The answer is that much like with everything else there are professionals and there are amateurs. There still is a need in this world for professional journalists as much of the news is still produced first by newsrooms and professional journalists. They are then read by the bloggers and reported second hand. Time is the great changer of everything. In order to lengthen life of newspapers and journalists they must adapt as does everything else. If they do not they will be ruled obsolete.
The other problem that faces the journalism world is the simple question: Who are Journalists? Blogging websites allow everyone to relay the news in some shape or form. So what constitutes one working for a paper a journalists and someone blogging not? The answer is that much like with everything else there are professionals and there are amateurs. There still is a need in this world for professional journalists as much of the news is still produced first by newsrooms and professional journalists. They are then read by the bloggers and reported second hand. Time is the great changer of everything. In order to lengthen life of newspapers and journalists they must adapt as does everything else. If they do not they will be ruled obsolete.
Future of Journalism.
Today's video presentation discussed the future of Journalism and where it's heading. I have a feeling that no matter how modernized we get, people will still want to get their news from newspapers. However, with everything going online, newspaper companies are struggling and may even be adapting towards the internet and gaining readers from there. Many people don't have a computer or even access to one, so having something in their hands to read may be beneficial to them. We are constantly changing and like the speaker said, many newspapers are slowly dying or have died out due to the lack of money or interest. With the internet and blogs going strong, news style and what is allowed to be considered news will always change. Technology is still new to some people, so they may not quite yet understand what is allowed and what is not. Down the road there may be rules on what is allowable, but now, depending on the subject, people are able to gather their information and write their very own opinions.
Education as the Impetus for Future News Media
Specifically in Leonard Downie Jr.’s speech, I am interested in the idea that education will be a motivating factor for what direction news media moves in. As he discusses in his speech, universities have a responsibility to educate and support student movements in news writing and reporting. The students learning there are the future of the industry, and the future of how we, as a nation, receive our news. More important than the funding for the news is the quality of the news, he describes, and I find it fascinating that the direction that news must take in this age of the information revolution will be determined by the consumers of that news. By educating young Americans and college students about how to thoroughly absorb news writing, they force the hand of the industry to report the news professionally. As far as the developments of new technology for news reporting goes, I feel that it is out of the reporting offices’ hands. The technology will come to them, and they must be receptive of it. No longer will competition be the focus of print media vs. online in the development of news reporting- there is no contest which way the public leans. But, the fact that the consumers indirectly decide is inspiring. Beginning with educational support and ending with compelling news reporting, the medium of this reporting will determine itself.
Future of Journalism
The future of journalism will be interesting to see develop. As a current journalism student, it is both an exciting and scary time. The old, established model is giving way to a new, developing one. The emergence of online news sites, social media, bloggers, and citizen journalists all have and will continue to play a role in this ever-changing pattern.
After watching the video, I was impressed with his pedigree and insight to the world of journalism. This man has seen it all and experienced every thing there is to experience as a journalist, including trying to navigate this uncertain time. I thought it was interesting to see how he was disappointed in his alma matter, Ohio State, for pushing more of the PR and advertising side of writing and not doing more for journalism. Along those lines, I thought it was interesting to see him commend schools such as Columbia, ASU, and Stanford for their innovative approach to the field.
Personally, I am a little nervous about what lies ahead as a journalism major. As I move closer to graduation in May, I am not sure what will happen to me after that as many news sites are cutting back staff and using "citizen journalists" for their free, or relatively cheap, clippings cost-wise. Quite honestly, I am scared and have thought about if I should try and take some courses in other fields to help broaden my prospects. It is certainly an interesting, yet unpredictable time for journalists.
After watching the video, I was impressed with his pedigree and insight to the world of journalism. This man has seen it all and experienced every thing there is to experience as a journalist, including trying to navigate this uncertain time. I thought it was interesting to see how he was disappointed in his alma matter, Ohio State, for pushing more of the PR and advertising side of writing and not doing more for journalism. Along those lines, I thought it was interesting to see him commend schools such as Columbia, ASU, and Stanford for their innovative approach to the field.
Personally, I am a little nervous about what lies ahead as a journalism major. As I move closer to graduation in May, I am not sure what will happen to me after that as many news sites are cutting back staff and using "citizen journalists" for their free, or relatively cheap, clippings cost-wise. Quite honestly, I am scared and have thought about if I should try and take some courses in other fields to help broaden my prospects. It is certainly an interesting, yet unpredictable time for journalists.
Future of Newspapers
Journalists in the future are going to have to learn and adapt if they want to survive in the new online media. Now with everyone capable of blogging and reporting in some form it is even more essential to sharpen your skills as a reporter. Finding stories that are not only interesting but insightful will have to be the regular standard of work for all of us if we want to keep readers coming back to read more.
I feel as if someone in the near future is going to have to discover how we can profit off of online stories. There has been a slow progression with YouTube videos and online TV shows showing advertisements between clips to make money. The only problem is if people have to pay for articles online, they may just go elsewhere where they can get the same information for free.
Until there is some sort of precedent set I believe you will see the continuing decline of newspapers, not the extinction, but a much lesser form than we grow up with
I feel as if someone in the near future is going to have to discover how we can profit off of online stories. There has been a slow progression with YouTube videos and online TV shows showing advertisements between clips to make money. The only problem is if people have to pay for articles online, they may just go elsewhere where they can get the same information for free.
Until there is some sort of precedent set I believe you will see the continuing decline of newspapers, not the extinction, but a much lesser form than we grow up with
After listening to Downie's speech, I think that he has made an excellent point. As more and more of our news becomes instantly accessable through social media, people are slowly losing interest in print media. And not only that, the the fact that more money and less news in coming into play with print, we need to find a way to put an end to that.
The way our world is turning--that is to say, away from tangible media and towards online media shows the decline and even eventual (albeit VERY eventual) death of print news. More and more aspiring journalists who want to get into the business are now required to know not merely how to write a proper article, but how to write for online news sources. The Digital Age is here to stay, and the only way to survive as a journalist in these times is to go with the flow
The way our world is turning--that is to say, away from tangible media and towards online media shows the decline and even eventual (albeit VERY eventual) death of print news. More and more aspiring journalists who want to get into the business are now required to know not merely how to write a proper article, but how to write for online news sources. The Digital Age is here to stay, and the only way to survive as a journalist in these times is to go with the flow
The Future of Journalism
Leonard Downie, Jr. brought up many interesting facts about the possibilities of future journalism. I share his opinion on many of these issues, namely the ongoing progression of blogging, and interactive journalism being a threat to professional journalism. With the boom of the internet and digital media, it is questionable how many of these news companies will make a profit, being that mostly all of this information is free to the mass public. Downie did provide some interesting details of possibilities on how non- digital news can be payed for, although I am not certain what the outcome will be.
It is difficult being a college student, studying journalism, and not knowing what the future will hold after graduation. If this profession truly is dying, it's sad to think of all the people out there jobless, basically waiting for a break. With the gaining popularity of blogging both indivually and with certain news sites, it is a great start up tool to get experience. As for making it a career, well I guess that is what Leonard Downie and many others are trying to tackle. It's hard to say where the future of journalism is going.
It is difficult being a college student, studying journalism, and not knowing what the future will hold after graduation. If this profession truly is dying, it's sad to think of all the people out there jobless, basically waiting for a break. With the gaining popularity of blogging both indivually and with certain news sites, it is a great start up tool to get experience. As for making it a career, well I guess that is what Leonard Downie and many others are trying to tackle. It's hard to say where the future of journalism is going.
Reflections on Stanford University Video
I think that Mr. Downie had very good insight into the future of journalism as its future is a very complicated thing. It is no surprise, that like other things in the world, social networking, shopping, every thing is going digital. So is journalism. Yes, more and more people are getting their news from online sources such as the New York times website for big news or Perez hilton for celebrity gossip, but I have to agree with Downie's thought that online news sites will not completely erase print sources.
Many readers, older ones in particular still want a tangible piece of paper that they can read and hold in their hands, as reading the news off of computer screens often weakens eyes. Readers like these still make a big number. I was very surprised when Downie said that more people read the newspaper then watch the nightly news. I found this interesting because you would think in the technology heavy age of information that we are living in today, more people older and younger readers alike would be adapting to the new ways of getting information online. But perhaps, there still is hope for print journalism.
Mr. Downie also entertains the idea of what would happen if the news world completely went digital. He believes that online newspapers should have some kind of fee for readership to still make revenue for the paper. I believe that if newspapers were to go completely digital this might be a good idea. Newspapers are still going to have to find a way to make money and if this is a solution, I think its a pretty good one.
I am not to sure to be honest where the future of journalism is going. I agree with Downie's point that print newspapers won't go anywhere soon, but as more and more things are being converted to the online world, the future of journalism still is very unclear.
Many readers, older ones in particular still want a tangible piece of paper that they can read and hold in their hands, as reading the news off of computer screens often weakens eyes. Readers like these still make a big number. I was very surprised when Downie said that more people read the newspaper then watch the nightly news. I found this interesting because you would think in the technology heavy age of information that we are living in today, more people older and younger readers alike would be adapting to the new ways of getting information online. But perhaps, there still is hope for print journalism.
Mr. Downie also entertains the idea of what would happen if the news world completely went digital. He believes that online newspapers should have some kind of fee for readership to still make revenue for the paper. I believe that if newspapers were to go completely digital this might be a good idea. Newspapers are still going to have to find a way to make money and if this is a solution, I think its a pretty good one.
I am not to sure to be honest where the future of journalism is going. I agree with Downie's point that print newspapers won't go anywhere soon, but as more and more things are being converted to the online world, the future of journalism still is very unclear.
future of print media
As a journalism major, the future of print media is very interesting to me because it will have a direct impact on the future of my life. As someone who hopes to join the news world it is my hope that print media is able to make a come back of sorts. The main obstacle in this fight is the internet. The internet has made news readily available and free from a variety of sources. If a news organization starts to charge its online readers, the readers will likely look elsewhere for their news. Print media needs to find a way to bring in a profit so they can expand their news services and make their news a more sought after product. This profit may come from either selling more physical copies of their papers, or maybe by charging more money for their online advertisements. It may also be reasonable for small news companies to join together into one to form a larger operation and gain more funding and expand their reader base.
Another way for news papers to build credibility and a larger following with readers is to educate the readers. Readers of online blogs and websites need to be more aware of where the news is coming from. The story someone posts in a blog may have come from a factual story, but what they have posted may be skewed by their personal opinions and beliefs. Readers need to be able to pick up a paper and trust that the stories seen have been fact checked for accuracy. In the end the print media companies need to find a way to make the readers need them. They need to prove to readers that the information they cover is the best information available, and they need to offer a variety of topics to pull in different demographics.
Another way for news papers to build credibility and a larger following with readers is to educate the readers. Readers of online blogs and websites need to be more aware of where the news is coming from. The story someone posts in a blog may have come from a factual story, but what they have posted may be skewed by their personal opinions and beliefs. Readers need to be able to pick up a paper and trust that the stories seen have been fact checked for accuracy. In the end the print media companies need to find a way to make the readers need them. They need to prove to readers that the information they cover is the best information available, and they need to offer a variety of topics to pull in different demographics.
Future of Journalism
Vice President of Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr. gave an inspirational conference at Stanford University. He examined how newspapers are losing money because it has become difficult to find buyers. He also noted that more than 100 newspapers do not deliver everyday to customers. There has been a decrease. Now, it has become easier than ever to access news of any kind through computers or phones, whether the news is coming internationally or locally. People feel that they do not need to read a newspaper, because they are getting information by other sources. Downie Jr. exclaimed that he does not believe that the newpaper industry will disappear in the future. However, there has much controversey surrounding this idea. There is a danger in journalism. Dozens of people are getting fired from their jobs now more than ever especially in the journalism field. Who knows what the future has in store. In the future of journalism, students should be more connected with their local newspapers and should write for them. There has been search of new models such as the internet in an effort to expand forms of journalism. Now a days, it seems everyone can be a journalist. People have blogs and social networking sites that allows them to put their opinions and even personal information. As for the future, we just have to wait and see what will happen. Hopefully the economy will get better and more jobs will be available. The issue that still stands however is whether or not newspapers will too. Only time will tell since the "audience for news is bigger and better than ever."