Media Critique: Verification and Context

New York’s Air Is Cleanest in 50 Years, Survey Finds. (New York Times)

Obamacare delay for small business exchanges. (CNN.com)

New York Times and CNN, supposedly the most trusted national publications, violated both a principle and a yardstick today, Thursday, September 26, 2013. These newspapers made a very simple to correct, yet lazy mistake: verify.

Verification - seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment.

Context - measures the number of sources, and independent expert sources. 4 regular sources and 2 experts merit a good article.

The New York Times' story about the cleanest Air in 50 years did a lot of things right. It was newsworthy, it affects 8.245 million people's health and well being for a long period of time. It's truthful, the article's goal was to get across the message honestly, and it succeeded. But The author made one mistake: verification and context. In the article it provides us with the following sources: Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the NYC Community Air Survey. First off are these expert or regular sources? Well, I'd say that in many situations Mayor Bloomberg would qualify as an expert source, but in this instance, no. I think that what could qualify as an expert would be a scientist, sanitation expert, etc. Not someone who just looks at a survey. Next, does a survey even count as a source? Here, yes. Since this is a scientific survey, I'll let it slide, but typically it wouldn't.

The CNN article is on Obamacare, which we all know some one who has something to say on the topic. But this is also CNN Money, a business geared new source, so  I'd expect the sources to be some business aficionados. In the first paragraph it cites the source as "according to a U.S. Health and Human Services Department official." This is too broad and ambiguous. I mean how do we know this is even true? We can't back it up without some of that information. Later in the article it keeps sighting a press release by that organization, so you'd just have to check with that Press Release, which isn't clarified. In general it uses the following terms as sources:

•  Senior Obama administration officials
•  Critics of Obamacare 
• Timothy Finnell, a health care broker who services small businesses in Tennessee.

There's only only source in there that can be background checked to be verified. The rest would cause you to have to dig up the source yourself to double check. There should be enough active reporting to get more than one name in an article. And I wouldn't call Finnell an expert, so he's only a regular source.

So you have a New York Times article with two regular sources, and a CNN article with one name in the entire story. So both fail to meet the journalistic standards of verification and context.  
 
   

Newspapers: The Top Priority

   I have two parents who have worked in the journalistic field in a number of jobs. But there's one that always stuck out: News Journalist. My mother worked at the Courier-Journal and my father worked at the Herald Leader (I know, they're basically Romeo and Juliet), so you'd think I would grow up having a journalist's #1 duty drilled into my skull. Nope. That's not because I'd never heard them (or anyone else for that matter) say it, it's because it's so simple: report the truth.

   What, That's all? I mean duh, first amendment, I thought. But the reason we have freedom of the press is partly because of this man: John Peter Zenger. He was the creator of the first (failed) newspaper in the American colonies. It's name: Publick Occurrences (spelled with a k.) It only had one issue, but that's besides the point.

   Later on, in another newspaper, Zenger criticized a British governor. Obviously the governor wasn't thrilled, and so he had good ole Johnny  tried. But what Zenger said was true, it just shone a bad light on the governor. At the trial it was discovered that truth is the ultimate defense.

   This standard would later be tweaked to be our first amendment, and is still a journalist's top priority. I thought this lecture was important and interesting (principle.) It was also well-rounded and covered multiple components of a newspaper.

Why Syria is Syri-ous

   It's in our newspapers. It's on our TV's. It's on the radio. And it's been on all of our current event quizzes. But why is such a small nation so focused upon? Why do we care what  is going on in Syria?

    First off, the reason we care so much is that it's in our nature as Americans to care about what goes on everywhere at all times. We're the world's mediator, which is a heavy burden to place upon ourselves. However, Syria is something we must keep our eye on.

    Syria or the Syrian Arab Republic is a country located in Southwest Asia, specifically the Middle East. It's bordered by Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Jordan, this is significant because of a chain reaction known as, The Arab Spring. Originating in Tunisia, it set off series of events throughout the Middle East shaking it nation to nation. Finally it reached its way to Syria, whose people have had enough.

   Currently in control is Bashar al-Assad. He is a socialist dictator who oppresses his people, who are dying every day. The Assad family's cruel reign began in 1971, however people have gained the courage to stand up recently, because of other countries' reactions. Assad along with the rest of the government are harsh and unwavering. The attacks include the use of chemical weapons which have been in the news recently because of the agreement to not use them. Sarin gas is the weapon of choice. It can kill  you in minutes with the use of just one drop. It disrupts your nervous system, destroying organs and muscles. It is used as a mass suffocant, because when inhaled it paralyzes the muscles around your lungs. And while supposedly chemical weapons are off the table, the torture and killing will continue. 

   Recently in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote a story about a boy, only 11, who stood up to injustice. He protested against the violent torture of students who scrawled anti-government graffiti upon buildings. He, along with the rest of the child protestors, was arrested. Then what else? Tortured. Beaten and whipped. His knees were beaten with the butt of a rifle, until they were shattered. This boy's father finally had to pay to have him released before the family went into hiding. (For length's sake I saved some of the more maleficent details out.)
    
   One of the reasons Syria's government is so powerful right now is because of its allies. The main 3 being China, Russia, and Iran. This is something that could be further extended upon in class. But it has a lot to do with geographic location, military, and similar styles of oppression.

   But I think we should all be informed about this issue so that we can form our own opinions. Public opinion goes hand in hand with democracy. What our nation, America wants, not only as a whole, but also what politicians and your average Joe wants.

  Syria is the cause of tension world-wide, and that's why we should be informed about it, and discuss. 

George H.W. Bush goes to wedding: Kitty Says.

To go to Kitty's post click this. To go to Kitty's Blog click this.

Our 41st president was the official witness went to a wedding of two lesbians. But does that really qualify as "the news." In Kitty's opinion, no. She used the argument that the article did not meet the journalistic standard of "newsworthiness." On this we agree. The Fox News article did not share the story of a long time, influential, republican in opposition, turning supportive. It merely showed him going about a personal event. Kitty's main two criticisms are: that it is peripheral, and the former president is viewed as a celebrity; and that it did not have a lasting impact toward a wide audience, which is journalism's goal. I think these are not only valid opinion's, but it was well written and researched.

Libel and Slander: Morgan Says.

To go to Morgan's post click this. To go to Morgan's Blog click this.

My peer, Morgan, recently posted about libel laws, and their importance and relevance to us as students. Before reading this I kind of glossed over the part about libel and slander laws, but I've come to the realization now, that they're similar to plagiarism and deserve focus. So first off, I suggest to Mr. Miller that we discuss these in class. And Secondly, I suggest you go read this post (heck, go crazy, read the whole darn thing.)

Conglomeration: Sweeping the Nation.

   Conglomeration is a word my grandpa uses to describe a mess or of jumble of things. Usually he uses it in lieu of the word tarnation, but I mean that's just a personal preference. 

   Conglomeration in the journalistic sense is similar. Conglomeration-the process of taking small media organizations, purchasing them, and pulling them together. It's sounds like a game of monopoly, and it can easily become one. So let look at the side of the conglomerates and everyone else.

First the pros:

•  efficiency
•  more money with less of a risk
•  and of course, if you buy up all the companies, you'll have less competition

 These obviously cater to the conglomerates themselves, and not the consumers or smaller companies.

Cons of conglomerates:

• risk (the conglomerates are putting all their chips in one pile.)

 Cons to everyone else:

• less competition (conglomerates can price whatever they want)
• less diversity (conglomerates can use one idea in every one of their facets)
• less jobs

   But I'd like to tie back into the monopoly observation. I think our class should discuss which conglomerates monopolize, and that toll on society.
 

Demassification

Demassification. According to dictionary.com, demassification is to cause to be less centralized. But I think in order to really understand what demassification really is, you must be familiar with what is classified as a mass media. 
   
To be a mass media, a medium must fill these 3 criteria: 

1. You must have the potential to reach a mass audience. 
2. Must you some form of technology. (Remember books and magazines use technological tools too.)  But something has to be going on so that it can transmit.
3. You cannot receive immediate feedback (ie: clapping, body language.) This is because the audience is on the other side of the transmission.

Now that you understand what a mass media is, we can begin to discuss demassification. Understand this: demassification does not just happen to one company or conglomerate, it happens to an entire medium. All the magazines. All TV stations. All the radio channels. Next, demassification happens when a medium loses one of the following: audience or advertising. Because shortly after you lose one, you lose the other. So once those are lost you are forced to demassify. That's right, forced. A medium doesn't want to demassify. If you're reaching a broad audience, why would you want to narrow it? You wouldn't. Demassification forces the medium to target specific, "niche" audiences. They are smaller so their needs must be specifically catered to. 

So why do mediums lose advertisers and audiences? Easy. Something bigger and better comes along to take them away. Magazines and radio were demassified by TV, which in  turn was demassified by the internet. I know, I'm leaving out books, newspapers, and the internet. Books were technically never demassified because they never really had to be. I mean, they started off being about religion and keeping records, but branched off naturally. Speaking of, the internet, by nature was already demassified. Similar to books, computers were once just used to spread military information, but the internet is different. Websites are designed to separately and specifically cater to the needs of the  individual. Ergo, the process of demassification never really needed happen.

Then what about newspapers, are they demassified? Yes and no. While newspapers have differentiated themselves into categories, they haven't started to fully demassify. There are newspapers like The Wall Street Journal which is geared toward businesspeople. They tell the news, but with a twist that keys in stockbrokers and investors. Also you have unbiased newspapers, which can lean either right (conservative/Republican) or left (liberal/Democratic.) But why are there still clear-cut sections to the news? (ie: features, sports, metro, comics, etc.)

That's what I think we should focus on in class, because it is clear that the lack of demassification is causing monetary issues.