You can find the full article by the Washington Post here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/08/officer-threw-black-teen-like-a-childs-doll-during-parking-lot-encounter-lawsuit-claims/?utm_term=.cff29b79c488
While I was researching current events last Thursday I came across an article in the Washington Post that I immediately thought would be a good article to critique. The article is attached above.
The article is about a video clip from 2014 that was released showing a black teen being physically attacked by a police officer. It is a surveillance video, and it takes place in a parking lot. Upon reading the article, I was informed that the girl who was attacked was with her brother at the time of the attack. They both claimed to have been doing nothing warranting any sort of police interaction. The police officer can be seen pushing the girl against a car, throwing her to the ground, and shocking her with a stun gun. There is a lawsuit attached to this case, and the case is seems to have been mostly resolved. So my question is, why are we hearing about this now from a national news source?
First, this took place in 2014. Even if there were something that was worthy of national attention within this story, it happened over two years ago and is, at this point, irrelevant. However, I watched the video, and I was cringing the whole time. It certainly draws an emotional result from the viewer, and I was very quick to click on the video when I saw it in the first place. Though it is absolutely not okay how the police officer treated the girl, there was already a court case and a lawsuit.
To me, this story violates the fourth and first yardstick of journalism. The fourth yardstick "local relevance" states that news that is reported must matter to the audience it is reported to. Though this video could, perhaps, be used to gain leverage in the fight against police brutality and racism in America, it certainly does not affect the entire country directly. The only people that were truly affected by this happening were the people directly involved in the incident, perhaps the families and friends/coworkers of said people, and whoever got involved in the legal process following its occurrence. This is a very small group of people, which means this story is not justifiably national news.
I think that because it is a shocking and upsetting story, the Washington Post decided to report it. The key factor here, however, is that there is video. A video makes a story vastly more entertaining, and more people are willing to watch a clip than read a whole story.
It violates the first yardstick of journalism, newsworthiness, because it did/does not affect a lot of people for a long time. As stated previously, it only affected a small group of people. Also, I must stress again that this video is from 2014. It did not have the power to affect people for a long time when it happened, and it doesn't now. This is a small event, and though it was wrong and worthy of addressing, there is no prevalent long-term, nation-wide affect that stems from it.
This story could have justly been reported at the time of its occurrence by the local station of where it took place. If it had been (and I'm sure it was) reported in the town where actually happened, I don't think it would have violated the fourth yardstick of journalism. At the time it happened it would have been locally relevant because it was a very good example of unacceptable police behavior, which is worthy of coverage. I think it is important to make events like this one known. The article did connect this event to similar occurrences, such as the police shootings in Louisiana. But, that doesn't excuse it from the fact that this happened such a long time ago.
If it were have been a massive attack from the police onto citizens with a large amount of people hurt, then I could see it being nationally relevant. It would have been "newsworthy" (and not in violation of this yardstick) if there were the case. But, it wasn't.
The bottom line is that this story was not nationally relevant when it happened, and it definitely is not today.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Peer Review: Euan Dunn
Here is where you can check out Euan's blog: http://theinsightscoops.blogspot.com/
Though Euan's entire blog was very well done, I particularly enjoyed his first post regarding how Mr. Miller's class changed the way he viewed school, at least within his classroom. Euan discussed the general sentiment students tend to have towards school: it is a waste of time and an annoyance. I can certainly relate to this feeling. However, I can also relate to the sense of elated excitement towards school after receiving one of Miller's first lectures. Suddenly I was engaged in something that I probably would not take much time to learn about on my own, and I remained focused for the duration of the lecture which was also new to me. I, like Euan, look forward to more lectures and am very excited and impressed with the amount of knowledge I have attained in the short time I have had as a Journalism 1 student with Mr. Miller.
Aside from my personal view on the topic of Euan's blog post, it was very well written and it communicated his thoughts in a direct detailed way. The rest of his blog followed this trend as well. Nice work.
Though Euan's entire blog was very well done, I particularly enjoyed his first post regarding how Mr. Miller's class changed the way he viewed school, at least within his classroom. Euan discussed the general sentiment students tend to have towards school: it is a waste of time and an annoyance. I can certainly relate to this feeling. However, I can also relate to the sense of elated excitement towards school after receiving one of Miller's first lectures. Suddenly I was engaged in something that I probably would not take much time to learn about on my own, and I remained focused for the duration of the lecture which was also new to me. I, like Euan, look forward to more lectures and am very excited and impressed with the amount of knowledge I have attained in the short time I have had as a Journalism 1 student with Mr. Miller.
Aside from my personal view on the topic of Euan's blog post, it was very well written and it communicated his thoughts in a direct detailed way. The rest of his blog followed this trend as well. Nice work.
Peer Review: Sophia Goldberg
Here is where you can read Sophia's awesome writing: http://sophiawritessometimes.blogspot.com/
My friend Sophia's blog has a common theme: passion. As a fellow student, I know that it is hard to actually engage in an assignment and to put forth more effort than necessary, but from reading her writing I can tell that she did. She provided not just a summary of class discussions, but also how each one can be applied to life.
I really enjoyed her post about fact checking. I totally agree with her point that some news stations are forgetting that journalism is based upon facts, and are instead succumbing to the pressures to receive good ratings. She used the example of how people who argue that vaccines cause autism are receiving air time, even though their points are not true. But, they are attention grabbers...
I recommend Sophia's blog to those seeking an in-depth analysis of the topics we are coving in class. I admire the way she doesn't just list, but explain.
My friend Sophia's blog has a common theme: passion. As a fellow student, I know that it is hard to actually engage in an assignment and to put forth more effort than necessary, but from reading her writing I can tell that she did. She provided not just a summary of class discussions, but also how each one can be applied to life.
I really enjoyed her post about fact checking. I totally agree with her point that some news stations are forgetting that journalism is based upon facts, and are instead succumbing to the pressures to receive good ratings. She used the example of how people who argue that vaccines cause autism are receiving air time, even though their points are not true. But, they are attention grabbers...
I recommend Sophia's blog to those seeking an in-depth analysis of the topics we are coving in class. I admire the way she doesn't just list, but explain.
Watchdog
"Watchdog" is the 5th element of journalism. We discussed this in the first week of school when we went over the 10 Elements and 7 Yardsticks, but I thought I would return to the topic as I see it to be a very important standard of journalism.
To assume the role of "watchdog" as a journalist is to vow to provide a check against power. This includes keeping an eye out for corruptness in government, with large corporations, or individual people with a lot of power. The reason for its large importance is that they catch and report abuses of power. Because so much power is held within the "1%,"the government, etc., suspect actions are often very well hidden and are kept secret with money and power they have. Citizens deserve to be informed when such actions are taken, and this is where journalists come in. An entire subgenre of journalism has been created devoted to investigating power; it is rightfully called investigative journalism. These stories are heavily research and take a lot of effort, but are extremely important and are often the only way serious conspiracies to get out.
I see this standard of journalism to be of extremely high importance. I think that being a "watchdog" shows ultimate loyalty to the people, which is to me the most important standard journalists are expected to uphold.
To assume the role of "watchdog" as a journalist is to vow to provide a check against power. This includes keeping an eye out for corruptness in government, with large corporations, or individual people with a lot of power. The reason for its large importance is that they catch and report abuses of power. Because so much power is held within the "1%,"the government, etc., suspect actions are often very well hidden and are kept secret with money and power they have. Citizens deserve to be informed when such actions are taken, and this is where journalists come in. An entire subgenre of journalism has been created devoted to investigating power; it is rightfully called investigative journalism. These stories are heavily research and take a lot of effort, but are extremely important and are often the only way serious conspiracies to get out.
I see this standard of journalism to be of extremely high importance. I think that being a "watchdog" shows ultimate loyalty to the people, which is to me the most important standard journalists are expected to uphold.
Yellow Journalism
Yellow Journalism was essentially a form of journalism who's only purpose was to entertain the reader with things that were subjectively titillating. Yellow journalists did their best to dig up scandal, and when they did find something they blew it way out of proportion and exaggerated it. If they didn't find anything interesting enough to report, they weren't above practically making things up. They were often sensationalists.
This week our teacher Mr. Miller showed us the basic timeline of print journalism's history. He began with 3500 BCE, when the first printing press system was recorded. A major point on the timeline was in 1450 CE when Gutenberg created the first metal, movable type press that revolutionized the previous method of printing created by Bi Sheng in 1040 CE. Gutenberg's press created the first opportunity for mass communication, which was utilized to spread the Bible. We continued to learn about the important milestones in print journalism. Finally we arrived at the subject of yellow journalism, which was popularized during the penny press era. I chose this as my topic for this blog post because I think that this form of journalism is not dead, and is very much alive and well today.
The largest example of yellow journalism I can think of today are tabloids. They dig up dirt on celebrities and exaggerate it, often beyond anything that could reasonably be true. Or, they warn people of things that could cause them to gain weight or of things that could be harmful, regardless of the truth because they know people will want to read it. It is sensationalism.
The principle of yellow journalism could, I think, be very directly tied to certain TV. Stations such as ''E!" and "Oxygen" that focus only on gossip fit under the definition of yellow journalism very well. I think this comparison between yellow journalism from the 1800's to current mass media is important to understand because it demonstrates how very populist current media (especially TV) is becoming.
This week our teacher Mr. Miller showed us the basic timeline of print journalism's history. He began with 3500 BCE, when the first printing press system was recorded. A major point on the timeline was in 1450 CE when Gutenberg created the first metal, movable type press that revolutionized the previous method of printing created by Bi Sheng in 1040 CE. Gutenberg's press created the first opportunity for mass communication, which was utilized to spread the Bible. We continued to learn about the important milestones in print journalism. Finally we arrived at the subject of yellow journalism, which was popularized during the penny press era. I chose this as my topic for this blog post because I think that this form of journalism is not dead, and is very much alive and well today.
The largest example of yellow journalism I can think of today are tabloids. They dig up dirt on celebrities and exaggerate it, often beyond anything that could reasonably be true. Or, they warn people of things that could cause them to gain weight or of things that could be harmful, regardless of the truth because they know people will want to read it. It is sensationalism.
The principle of yellow journalism could, I think, be very directly tied to certain TV. Stations such as ''E!" and "Oxygen" that focus only on gossip fit under the definition of yellow journalism very well. I think this comparison between yellow journalism from the 1800's to current mass media is important to understand because it demonstrates how very populist current media (especially TV) is becoming.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Monopolies
This week a portion of our lecture was centered on the existence of monopolies within the media, and about what they are in general. We discussed the difference between horizontal and vertical monopolies, which was presented in a way that I understood very easily. Though the discussion was brief (depending on who you ask), I had a significant take away from learning about monopolies. It made me realize that as objective or democratic as TV stations or programs make themselves out to be, in most cases there is always someone who is influencing them in a major way. There could be, for example, a scandal going on with an executive at CBS. None of the news stations owned by CBS would air that story because they wouldn't want to piss off their bosses, to put it simply. This could either fall under the category of consequences of conglomeration or of monopolies, but either way this example and idea adds to my view that really no major television networks are completely objective. This is an underlying principle that has been forming within myself throughout my time in our classroom. We were given a reading by Jerry Mander called "Arguments for the Elimination of Television." He expanded the idea that no TV is totally democratic to argue that it should be removed completely. Though I do not think this is feasible or right, many of his points opened my eyes to my current view on television. I now question the news I am fed, and make more of an effort to seek information from many perspectives and sources. I think this is essential to try to get a somewhat accurate depiction of what is going on in the world, and I think it is important for people to realize that even by not having an opinion, you have one. Overall, my whole experience as a student of journalism has been extremely influential in my perspective of media thus far. The discussion on monopolies we took part in lit a fuse of curiosity about fairness and what is truly ethical in media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)