A-List Bloggers' Coverage of Obama's 100th Day

Matt Drudge's The Druge Report, amid frantic links to stories about the swine flu and an ominous photo of a man suited in lab goggles, a face mask and full white protective bodysuit captioned "Level 5," pointed to a story from financial giant Bloomberg.com optimistically portraying Obama's first 100 days in office. The story, which plays off its headline that proclaims "Obama... says he is 'remaking America,'" focuses on Obama's plan to bail Chrysler out of bankruptcy and otherwise cut the budget deficit in half during his first term. The article also focuses on what Obama hopes to accomplish in his next 100 days. Most of the story's links were internal and comments were not enabled, making the Bloomberg story a triumphant and ultimately one-sided affair.

Other links on Drudge concerning Obama point to stories on the president's plan to fix the "economic wreckage" and the U.S.'s image as well as a story about Obama's decision that waterboarding, authorized by former President Bush, was torture. Drudge generally featured positive and progressive links concerning Obama's 100th day, although much more heavily covered issues surrounding the swine flu.

Colorado Springs local Michelle Malkin took a different approach - catching her readers' attention with a Photoshopped image of President Obama in a "Scare Force One" parody (at left). The image, which features a less-than-flattering image of Obama looking old, serious and somewhat threatening, is perhaps the most obviously opinionated A-list blog I saw. However, Malkin also seemed to be doing a good job at drawing in her audience through original pictorial arrangements as opposed to the generally positive, status quo slideshows featured elsewhere.

Malkin's coverage largely blames Obama's administration for "spending inordinate government resources - and recreating 9/11 havoc - to update Air Force One publicity shots." Malkin rants and Malkin raves, and Malkin also features some very negative and very Photoshopped images of Obama, one frighteningly reminiscent - with paintshop-style brush writing - of everyone's favorite celeb blogger Mr. Perez Hilton himself (see right).

The Huffington Post took a slightly more balanced approach, featuring a "report card" for President Obama's first 100 days from Huffington Post's top bloggers and major players. Though generally positive, the short blurbs cover a number of topics - from the economy to climate change to reproductive rights - and feature links directly to each blogger's post of their own impressions.

The HuffPost also featured the vapid "Michelle Obama's First 100 Days of Style: Vote for her Best and Worst Outfits," which included a slideshow and poll, as well as an interesting article titled "Obama's First 100 Days: 10 Achievements You Didn't Know About," including the fact that President Obama has appropriated $19 billion in the stimulus package to help implement an electronic medical record system. Overall, quite a smattering of coverage - for just about any Obama-supporter or fashion queen.

Ultimately? The blogs covered the issue based on their own pre-existing political slant, most featuring slideshows of Obama going about his first 100 days of business. The rare few who spoke out against Obama in an unapologetic way - like Michelle Malkin - caught some attention, but the big hitters that featured more than one perspective and quite a few external links (as Shirky discussed), like the already enormously popular HuffPost - which captured 1092 comments on its "Obama report card" story alone - inevitably stole the show.

Your request is being proce

A-List Blog Observations

Daily Kos

100 by Al Rodgers
I chose this blog post because it has gotten 274 comments on it since it was posted at 10 a.m. today. Rodgers is clearly writing from a left perspective. The blog has a ton of photos, all very positive and links to sources and different pages to get more information about individuals. It was enjoyable to read because it was a bullet point list of all of the things Obama has accomplished in his first 100 days with a twist of humor towards the end when Rodgers takes creative liberties with the list such as "appoints Kim Kardashian Secretary of Booty."

Huffington Post

One Hundred Days by Madeleine Albright
There is a whole list of bloggers reporting on Obama's 100 days in office, but I chose Albright because of her street cred. She praises Obama's efforts in the position of president at a very tough time in our history. She does not use any links or pictures in her post, but it is short and to the point and really, with her background as former Secretary of State, she really doesn't need to outsource information. Her opinion is one others probably seek to quote. Her post has gotten 74 comments since 8:30 a.m. this morning.

Thoughts

Albrights post was definitely a professional, more serious piece that mirrors mainstream news media. Rodgers' blog was the opposite, whereas it contained facts for the most part, he was very concerned with being more entertaining with visuals and getting a laugh through his humor and fabrications at the end. Both are successful and useful in my opinion. I found that reading Albright's opinion, someone who is a political veteran and someone who is widely respected, gave me an authoritative view on the issue. Rodgers did the same thing by actually bullet pointing out Obama's accomplishments which is useful if you haven't kept up on everything. Being able to see things in a black and white way was very informing and with the bit of humor, it was actually fun to read.

Obama's 100th Day in Office

I looked at the Huffington Post, Bloomberg.com, and Politico.com. These blogs are similar and different in many ways.

The Huffington Post and Bloomberg both quoted Obama as saying that he is happy we have made progress, but we still have a lot of work to do. However, that is where the similarities end between the Huffington Post and Bloomberg. The Huffington Post article by Madeleine Albright was pretty opinionated. She talked mainly about how Obama inherited the nation at a pretty unfortunate time, but that he has made several good decisions including assembling a strong and experienced team (Hilary Clinton and Biden), working with those in power internationally, making good use of the time he has had in office (talking with our neighbors and allies) and he has refrained from trivializing his positions into a bumper-sticker slogan. Then Albright goes into some of the tough questions Obama will probably be asked in the near future including ones about the Iraq War and the economy.

The Huffington Post and Politico had little in common other than that they both talked about what questions the president might be asked at his press conference tonight or in the near future.

Both Bloomberg and Politico talked about Obama's 60+ percent approval rating. However, I think Bloomberg gave a lot more information about what Obama has done in his first 100 days, whereas Politico mainly just lists some questions that Obama would most likely be asked tonight at his press conference. Bloomberg talked about the legislation that Obama is trying to get Congress to enact, where he stands on certain issues (including the Chrysler/Fiat deal), what laws he wants to put into place and when he plans on bringing the troops home from Iraq.

Overall, I would say that when it comes to describing Obama's first 100 days in office Bloomberg did the best job. The other two blogs mainly discussed questions he might be asked rather than what has happened in the last few weeks.

The 100th day according to the A-list

Almost every major blog you can find on the internet today has a piece on President Barack Obama's 100th day in office. Everyone seems to have an opinion. I took a look at six blogs and their pieces on this monumental event and have posted my findings here.

Daily Kos

This blog featured quotes from several sources about how they felt about Obama's hundred days--without failing to comment on them, of course. Earlier in the day they had at the top of their page a video of Sean Hannity saying how he thought Obama was good for the GOP because he hasn't donw anything, etc., etc. This is an obviously left wing blog that is open to posting opinions...which is what I think makes it popular. People like opinionated stories that they can either agree with or make fun of.

Crooks and Liars

This blog had a video of Obama himself speaking about his accomplishments over the past 100 days. I thought this was interesting because, though this is also an openly very left-wing blog that pokes fun at those who they deem worthy of being poked fun at, they chose to post a very serious piece on this story--Obama himself. I felt this is popular probably for the same reason Daily Kos is.

Politico

Politico posted questions that they had for Obama after his first 100 days in office. These were questions that the average American should be asking and, I thought, led to real and constructive discussion on the topic. People on this site seem to be having serious discussions on all kinds of political happenings--which leads me to believe that is why it is well-known.

Daily Beast

When I looked at the Daily Beast, I thought I must be missing something when all I could find on the event was a post about Michelle Obama's first hundred days and another titled "100 days of PDA" Whether they were going for irony or are simply just much more soft news focused, these 100 days themed stories made me smile...in an I'm giggling at you, not with you kind of way. I've never been to the site before, but I have a feeling it is more enlightenment and entertainment driven--light-hearted in other words.

Barackobama.com/blog

The only thing that Obama's own blog had was a few words about how we should all watch tonight’s address from the president himself about his first days in office. There is only one good answer to why this would be a popular blog--it's (supposedly) from the president himself.

Talking Points Memo

This blog had a link to a thirty picture slide show of the first hundred days. The pictures were mostly of the president doing his job. TPM seemed to be mostly straight-forward and news-driven.

I feel like most of the blogs were waiting to post their big stories about the event until Obama's speech was over because when I went bacl nearly all had another larger story about what the president had just said.

And to be true to Youtube, here's something light-hearted about Obama's first days.

I like to come back to comedy and to things like Youtube because I like to see what regular people are thinking about the same things I'm thinking about--regular people as in not the politically immersed A-list bloggers.

Be sure to check out that entire series of videos. It looks like there are nine.

Blogs Reporting on the 100th day of Obama's Presidency

The Huffington Post reported on Obama's 100th day in presidency by having a video of Obama speaking about his 100th day. The DailyKods blog also had a video with Obama talking about his 100th day in presidency. Obama discussed his views on abortion among other things. Among the previous blogs that I have mentioned, Politico also reported on Obama's 100th day in presidency. There were many different articles posted on Obama's blog about different issues that he has been dealing with. One was about Obama's limitations and another was about the Pentagon concerns with Pakistan aid. On Obama's blog he posted a video of himself discussing the problems that  he needs to address. It was interesting to see how on all of the blogs I looked at, each one had something on it regarding what Obama has done in the first 100 days of his presidency.

I think that all of the political blogs needed to have something about Obama's 100th day and I was happy to see that each one did. It was important to hear Obama speak about what he has achieved so far and what he intends to do in the coming months. 

Obama's 100th Day

Many of the "A-List" blogs that I looked at concerning Obama's 100th Day in office had slide shows or at least pictures of Obama looking heroic and almost godly.  The Huffington Post's coverage of the first 100 days was in the form of bloggers saying what they thought about what Obama has accomplished thus far.  What I noticed right away were the kinds of people who were commenting.  It was not obamafan29, or some other anonymous character, but instead the bloggers were people like Madeline Albright and Robert Kuttner.  This makes the site seem more "A-List" because these are people whose opinions are more likely to matter than an anonymous blogger throwing in his two cents.  

21889.html

The Politico blog entitled their story, "Questions for Obama on his 100th Day," a different take on the event.  The story is laid out in question and answer format, similar to something that a mainstream news source might choose to do as well.  I found this to be very informative and I hardly felt like I was reading a blog at all.  I think that these websites do a good job of portraying their information in a clear manner that is well written and accessible, all qualities that Shirky would agree gain them popularity. 

Blogosphere: Fairness or Fame?

As I looked over several of these A-list blog sites I noticed several differences in their leading stories concerning President Obama’s 100th day in office.
For starters they are very clear on their political stances right off the bat with their biased laden headlines. For example, Michelle Malkin titled her feature story headline concerning the day’s importance, “100 Days of the Poser Presidency.” Whereas the more left-friendly blog site Politico titled their headline, “Questions for Obama on his 100th day” with a picture looking up at President Obama with a god-like glow (pictured below).

Additionally to two went on completely different paths in addressing the day’s importance for the presidency and our country. Politico based its story off questions the President will be asked concerning our future, while repetitively documenting his high approval ratings as well. There were no links within this feature article and it basically summed up what the Presidents plans for the future were/are and what he is doing to stay in touch with the American people; i.e. Reading 10 letters a day from citizens, sent to the White House. Whereas Malkin goes on a rambling rant of what the President hasn’t done thus far. She uses several hyperlinks that demonstrate the original story/event that she is criticizing Obama on. Language like, “Let’s have some of that vaunted transparency Barack Obama is always talking about” clearly shows her stance too.
It seems that blogging can provide all sides to a topic and suffice links to even further demonstrate a point or idea, but is this really fair media, even though it’s coming from an A-list blog site. I understand the idea of “fair inequality” and that these are merit-based, cheap, and endless sources that feed off what the public asks for and that’s how they survive and essentially thrive, but isn’t that the same thing as jumping off a bridge because someone told you to or being the class clown just to get some attention? Or is this type of media just going to plunder into a race for 15 minutes of fame?

Politico...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21889.html

Michelle Malkin...http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/29/100-days-of-the-poser-presidency/

100th Day

On the Huffington Post, the overall blogging response was positive. Almost all of the bloggers, in some way, had President Obama's back and showed great support for the first 100 days he has already put in. Even Arianna Huffington, herself, had primarily positive things to say about the newly elected president but brought up a few of the mistakes made and faults committed by him, as well. She presented her positive and negative views of him in a pro/con list sort of format which was visually different from the other websites I looked at and put things into a better perspective. The Daily Beast was another website that held Obama in positive respects. Anna Marie Cox's main article, "God Loves Obama", similarly backed Huffinton's question, has it really already been 100 days? However, compared to Huffinton's article, Cox was much for casual with her jokes and wrote her article with more sarcasm than anything else. Bloggers that followed her article wrote similar, uplifting comments to those on the Huffington Post Blog. Here and there, there were a few downers (usually Republicans) who would completely throw the positive vibe off, but for the most part, bloggers were using pride and praise to describe his past 100 days. 

Huffington Post

Daily Beast 

A List Bloggers

On Obama’s 100^th day as President many A list bloggers put up posts about this progress so far.  Almost all of the posts I looked at had a slide show of Obama throughout 

his presidency.  The blogs made it easy to tell what political party they were associated with.  Conservative blogs, such as Michelle Malkin, made it a point to talk about Obama’s ego and all of the money he has spent on photo ops.  Points were brought up about Obama spending too much time talking.  Liberal blogs, such as the Huffington Post, showed a lot of slide shows and focused more on his 60% approval rating and the things ha has done so far.  The blogs liberal blogs used a lot of the same photos.  It was very interesting to compare the blogs and discover the major differences between the conservative and liberal blogs.

Response to Shirky

Shirky's article brought up really interesting points about how to become a "star" on the internet that I have actually always wondered about...and somehow, in his own science-y, mathematical way, he makes sense out of it. I've never understood how some people can become famous through the internet and the entire concept seems very strange to me. However, Shirky addresses it in a smart way. Even still, it is hard for me to comprehend how, though everyone is free to choose what they want to visit, read, link, etc., certain people, ideas, whatever gain status while others of equitable quality do not.

I also find it incredible (relieving incredible or nerve-wracking incredible, i haven't quite decided) that it can all be explained, at least in some way, through math. It figures. What I'd prefer to boil it down to, however, is that the more you get out there-the more blogs you post, the more friends you add, the more self-promotion and networking you do-the more famous you have the possibility of becoming (of course it helps to be talented, as well).

This guy (whose video I chose because he had nearly half a million hits-not star quality, but some status in the Youtube world) discusses how people become famous on Youtube. It's kind of silly, but it's the kind of thing I would view normally (sadly) and I thought that made it a good choice.

Personally, I think the thing that is the best way to become internet famous, other than to get yourself out there as much as possible, is to be different. Different because your better, because your controversial, because you're funny, because you're just different-it doesn't matter. Being different gets noticed and when something is noticed, people are more likely to pass it on or come back to it.

Again, it's a hard concept to come to grips with, but many of the issues we have been discussing in class about what is going on in journalism right now is difficult to understand. The important thing, in my opinion, is that it is happening.

My question: As I've been thinking about the video I put up, I can't help but wonder to myself how many views, hits, comments, etc. does a person have to get to be considered "famous"? Is it even quantitative? What do you think...

A Response to Clay Shirky's Article

Shirky's article was very interesting to read. It is true that in every society there is a core group that seems to steal the spotlight. Webblogs are no different in that there is going to be inequality. Not every blogger is going to get a lot of attention. It is impossible, with so many blogs on the internet, for there not to be a hierarchy. One blog that has become very popular in the gossip network is Perez Hilton's blog. In his blog he reports on what celebrities are up to and also makes fun of them. Perez posts up a number of different pictures of celebrities and draws things on their faces. Perez has become a very popular blogger in Hollywood, and is just one example of the blogging hierarchy.

Blogs are becoming a new way for people to communicate with one another therefore some blogs are going to slip under the radar in terms of popularity. It was very interesting to watch the video on Parson's and the course that students are taking to learn how to became famous on their blogging websites. It was cool to learn about how the students have software that they can check how many hits their blog receives and how popular they become. Sven Travis, the communication design and technology chair at Parsons made a very true comment about how the internet is changing society and explained how Parson's is trying to figure out what that means for our society. 

Both the article and the response video were very interesting to read/ watch. Blogging has reshaped connections between people and has become a new media outlet. It is going to be interesting to see how blogging progresses now that academic institutions have noticed its increasing dominance on global communication.

Students Try To Break Into the A-List

The video below chronicles one student's experience in the Internet Famous class at Parson's New School, which aims to empower students to build popularity on the Web from the ground up. The students' grades are assigned according to how their "fame" hits measure up to their classmates'.

I thought it particularly interesting how Andrew's work, though perhaps far superior and more entertaining than his classmate Liz's, didn't rank as high on the class's "fame-o-graph" the first week. The professor explains that Liz registered for her accounts on social media sites before Andrew and, in fact, before she even entered the class. I thought it a prime example of the power law distributions Shirky discusses - and an interesting look inside a pioneering digitally-focused college course.

Ideas on Clouds: Thoughts on the journalism vs. blogging debate

I’ve been trying to come up with a captivating blog topic for days and so far have failed miserably. And while I’ve been waiting for the epiphany to hit me, all kinds of ideas and thoughts have been floating through my head as I go through normal life. (Just envision that for a second, if you will…ideas floating by on little clouds.) This class inspires me to think, and though I find myself disagreeing more than agreeing with many topics discussed (purely due to the fact that I am innately an argumentative person), I’ve discovered a lot.

The biggest thing I’ve discovered is the complex and undeniable impact that media has on our everyday lives. I was walking by the front desk in my residence hall and a group of RAs were standing around the computer in a little half circle laughing hysterically at some clip, song, whatever someone had sent to them on the internet. I believe I heard one of them say it was the greatest thing they had ever seen. I don’t know why this made me think of this class, but I can remember having a conversation with myself (something I often do) about how this media enveloped world we live in has great power to bring us together—not just tear us apart.

To me, this is just a jumping off point to a conversation of the bigger picture concerning the state of journalism today. Fact: networked journalism is changing traditional journalism. The iffy part is the thought that it will ruin it, or worse, eliminate it.

I am of the opinion that citizen journalism and the ability for people to be publishers of their own work will not ruin journalism, but will aid it. The free circulation of information is just as beneficial to the professional journalists—if they choose to use it—as it is to consumers of news and citizen journalists. I do feel that there will always be a need for a separation between professional journalists and amateurs. That same hierarchy and distinction between the “interested” (amateurs) and “integrated” (educated professionals) is necessary in every profession. I would also venture to say that the role of professional journalists and the role of citizen journalists will always be seen as generally different. However, I think given the right attitude on both ends, journalists have an incredible opportunity to benefit from bloggers, commentators, etc. and the things that they write about.

I am by nature a person who wants to find the middle ground in things, and while it will be hard to see the face of journalism change, I think it is an important (and inevitable) movement that should be accepted (the good and the bad) and seen for what it is—growth.

I know we’ve talked about this a lot in class, but let me know what you all think.

Some articles on the debate:

Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over

Defining the Journalism vs. Blogging Debate, with a Science Reporting angle

midterm review

framing
difference between framing and bias
objectivity
sources
parajournalists
yellow journalism
penny press
truth
crisis in the news industry
relationship between journallsm and democracy
constraints of market-driven news
government subsidies for journalism
people formerly known as the audience
the Gulf wars
Rumor Bomb
PR-ification of news
Hallin's spheres of consensus, legitimate debate, and deviance
Deuze's categories of news-related sites
Blog
Twitter
Off the Bus
Indymedia
Digg and all of the other examples listed on syllabus
We Media

Get Off The Bus

Off The Bus is an incredibly powerful and smart idea. Amanda Michel's article on "The Future of Pro-am Journalism," is very enlightening and honest. Citizen journalism has become a very big phenomenon in our world today. More and more people that are not professional journalists are coming on the scene and reporting news by using blogs on the internet to say their piece. 

Mayhill Fowler is a sixty-two-year-old woman that made an incredible impression on the world of journalism. Fowler is one of the leading contributors for OTB. OTB was a citizen-powered campaign news site, which was also co-sponsored by The Huffington Post and Jay Rosen's New Assignment, at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. OTB was interested in covering what professional journalists couldn't cover. They called this the grass roots. OTB organized thousands of unprofessional journalists to cover the Obama election. OTB was able to get people on the ground level of the election and dig out the dirt that professional journalists did not have access to.

OTB gathered 12000 people across the nation to gather stories that were happening simultaneously. The pro-am model has the potential to extend the reach of pro-journalism. Mayfowler was managed by the staff at OTB almost a year before she opened the big story know as Bittergate. Michel's brings up the important point of how pro-am journalism is a different kind of management then what is seen in a professional news room. Pro-am journalism involves working and guiding unprofessional journalists so they can report as much news as possible. 

OTB grew a lot when they launched its high-profile project known as "Superdelegate Investigation." That one project included 227 contributors to find out what they could about the handpicked group of potential kingmakers. Stories were their number one instrument.

OTB was designed in a very smart way. They found citizens who not only wanted to take in news, but who also wanted to help put it together and report it. Many people like to be involved in important things, and by letting citizens put news together it most likely works so well because it gives everyday people a sense of accomplishment and purpose. OffTheBus also worked so well because of the staff members. Arianna Huffington and Jay Rosen were publishers along with many other noted staff members. OTB most likely did so well because the people that started it really cared about getting honest news, and including citizens in the process.

One example of how connected OTB is, was on November 30, 2007, when several members in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign were taken hostage. OTB immediately contacted their nearest journalist to check out what was going on. With OTB's reporter, Bryan Bissel, they were able to advance the story beyond the Web. OTB is so extraordinary because they were able to do what The New York Times does times ten. OTB has 12,000 reporters, all unpaid volunteers, to draw information from, while a paper like The New York Times can only work with they staff they have.

OTB did not come together in a day though. They worked hard to organize dedicated writers that they could count on. OTB came up with many great conclusions from their reporters.

OTB grew more and more interested in what they could do to get honest news out. They came up with the idea of generative features. The new feature was called "Eyes and Ears." A lot of interesting stories were developed from that feature. OTB and Wikipedia both came from the principle that quantity can become quality if it is done right.

OTB writers like Mayhill Fowler and Bryan Bissell have represented one of American's greatest traditions; citizen engagement and volunteerism. OTB opened up the idea of citizens being able to participate and contribute to the news, instead of just being the audience. Citizen journalists and professionals can be allies. The more people there are to pick up inside stories, the more likely we are to hear the truth.

OTB is not the only group that has noticed the importance of citizen journalism. Jeff Bercovici wrote a piece on portfolio.com. This is another example of the importance of citizen journalism and how much it is growing.

Citizen journalism really does open up a whole new way for news to be delivered. With so many people helping out with the news, other citizens are more likely to hear stories that they wouldn't have heard if a citizen journalist had not reported it.

A few questions arise when thinking about citizen journalism and OTB:

1. With so many citizen journalists coming onto the news scene, will it ever completely wipe out professional journalism?

2. If Mayfowler Hill had not broken the Bittergate story would it have been done by another citizen journalist or would it have been a professional journalist?

3. Will more people trust the media if they know that a lot of citizen journalists have reported, or will people think that it is less credible?

4. Is citizen journalism going to continue over the next decade, or will professional journalists come together and try to end it?

5. Do you think professional journalists are threatened by citizen journalism, or do they see it as a tool that they can utilize?

6. What are some negative aspects of citizen journalism?

News is never going to go away. As human beings we like to know about the world around us and many of us enjoy discussing the news and engaging in it. Citizen journalism has grown a lot and because of that we have been able to hear stories that professional journalists were not able to cover. OffTheBus is one example of how positive citizen journalism can be. A lot more news is distributed and everyday people have the chance to feel like they are contributing to the world around them in a very important way.

MediaShift

MediaShift is a PBS blog on "the digital media revolution" that you should all follow. It has great posts and links about emerging media practices, which can serve as resources for your paper and help those of you still searching for a topic.

Response: Mainstream News Online

Bloggers are people. Generally untrained, everyday, non-writer-type people using a pretty, pre-wrapped content management system (Blogger, Wordpress, perhaps even Livejournal) to send whatever message they deem fit to the general online population. Do they need technical know-how, or to have mastered the art of HTML and CSS? No. Do they need a college education or degree? Certainly not. Do they even need $5? No, this world is free. And within lies the power of the blog.

Above is a screenshot of my newly-started personal blog. It's somewhat interactive with comments enabled. I also link widely and will take suggestions from readers for future posts.

Mainstream news organizations are massive money-making (or, they used to be...), professional havens for trained journalists functioning on the idea that the pubic generally need information and trained journalists are the best conduit through which to communicate said information. The power of the mainstream news media? General trust in a brand, trust in professionalism, and trust in timeliness.

The Denver Post online, offering timely professional editorial content with high multimedia content (video, slideshows) but little real interactivity outside of commenting.

The current model? Journalists and mainstream news agents generally look down upon the blogosphere as a mish-mash of diary-like stream of consciousness thoughts projected by people with some serious time on their hands. Rosen spoke of this idea when he said that bloggers have to establish trust from the ground up, whereas noteworthy mainstream news has already established trust through their brand.

Bloggers, on the other hand - or, at least the bloggers who consider themselves journalists - generally look to each other for information they can really trust, especially in a time when, as Stacey mentioned, a 2004 survey showed that only 38% of people thought that the news held no bias.

The obvious solution? Integration. Deuze looks at the practice of online journalism from its onset in 1992 with the Chicago Online paper's inception on AOL to the date of the article's publication in September 2001, and Stacey asks whether or not sites incorporating Deuze's strategies - annotative reporting, open source journalism, and hyperadaptive news sites - have already been created.

Certainly we've moved forward from 2001, with coverage like CNN's interactive, multimedia-laced coverage of the Grim Sleeper serial killer, which allows users to do everything from navigate through a map of locations and victims to listen to the original 911 recording of victims to the ability to comment on the story, offer input or advice, or even try to puzzle through the clues to solve the crime. But does this neat, interactive coverage really allow the web users to generate or modify content (open source journalism), especially when compared with the infinite power blogs bestow on users to generate, modify, and link to information?

Take www.yourhub.com, for example. Journalists and users upload content specific to a neighborhood locale, and then journalists from each Hub review the postings and choose "the best," which used to be published by the Rocky Mountain News in a special section (anyone know if the print version is still being produced after the Rocky's demise?).

Open source journalism? Not quite, since journalists employed by yourhub.com choose their favorite stories for print, but it's definitely one example of user-generated news. Others? Users can rate content on Digg, create or edit entries on Wikipedia, or write and rate user-generated content on Kuro5hin, whose articles are either published or deleted based on user feedback. Bloggers can also participate in the Global Voices Online project as volunteer authors (if their work is up to snuff, of course), where their blogs can be featured as the best or most accurate news coming out of the blogger's respective country.

Screenshot of yourhub.com, where the first thing you see promotes you to "get published." Below this offer is the user-generated content selected by yourhub employees.

The core question, perhaps, is how mainstream news can thus use these sites as examples for a more open, participatory type of journalism, while still maintaining the credibility and brand trust of a mainstream news organization.

Some models tried so far:

• User blogs featured on mainstream news sites, like Chicago's Best Blogs, powered by and featured on the Chicago Tribune site's front page
  
• Enabling rating systems or comments on mainstream news articles
• More engaging, multimedia efforts like CNN's coverage of the Grim Sleeper
• Videocasts, audiocasts, or supplementary story material available only online
• Use of Twitter accounts for mainstream news sites
• Polls and other ranking systems for stories or ideas

Why don't we get a bit more interactive? Comment and share your ideas and links.

Also - for more information on bloggers, what they do, and how they do it, as well as blogging ethics and information on the importance of blogging internationally and in locations where blogging is censored or is against the law, check out a PDF book of the Blogger's Handbook.

Mainstream News Online

Online Journalism: Modeling the First Generation of News Media on the WWW

ONLINE JOURNALISMS

Internet affected the way journalism is done and created its own form of online journalism. Professional journalists were stressed about the immediate nature of the Internet and didn’t feel they had enough time to learn how to use it.

Online news sites can be “open” or “closed” models. “Open” meaning that the audience is free to interact with the site by leaving comments, “closed” meaning that the audience can still participate but in an edited way.

Closed Participatory Communication

Collaboration on Editorial Content

Collaboration on Public Content

Open Participatory Communication

-Mainstream News sites

The most widespread form of news media production online. It includes editorial content and minimal, moderated participation (CNN, BBC, MSNBC).

-Index and Category sites

Attributed to search engines, market research firms or agencies, and sometimes individuals.

They offer links to existing news sites and don’t include much editorial content of their own, but sometimes include areas for conversation exchanges (Drudge Report and blogs which are somewhere between index and comment sites).

-Meta and Comment sites

Sites about news media and media issues in general. Contains editorial content that discusses other content found on the Web (journalism about journalism/meta-journalism). Allows journalists to be self-critical and more professional.

-Share and Discussion sites

Journalism online uses people’s need to connect with other people by facilitating platforms for the exchange of ideas and stories. (Slashdot, Indymedia, group blogs that discuss experiences on the Internet).

CHARACTERISTICS

-Hypertextuality

People saw it as only way to link out, but is also a way to link internally and few sites even use it and if they do, only link internally. Problems include ownership and copyright issues.

-Multimediality

Just because the ability for multimedia exists, it should have a purpose.

-Interactivity

Most sites only have navigation as their interactivity. There are three forms of interactivity on a news site. Functional, which are mail, bulletin boards, and discussion lists. Adaptive, which are chat rooms and the ability to customize the site. Perceived, which is when a user doesn’t actually use all of the interactive functions, but knows they exist.

Interactivity allows for accountability by allowing feedback and tips from users.

ADDED VALUE

There are two approaches of thought when thinking about the added value the Internet brings to existing news organizations.

1. Utopian – what the Internet brings is generally considered as promising a better world for all.
2. Pragmatic and pessimistic – there is no added value. People in this thought are referred to as “neutral rational realists.”
   

More training needs to be completed by journalists such as writing for the Web.
News sites can offer more information without time or space constraints that their counterparts deal with.

Open forms of communication, connections to people and content all over the Web.

Open discussion changing the definition of citizenship from the broadly informed citizen to monitorial citizen who demands information that is of high content and on their own time.
Archival capacity.

NEW STRATEGIES

-Annotative Reporting

A model based on hyperlinks creating an active rather than passive audience.

Even though the line between journalist and non-journalist is breaking down, people will still need professionals to guide them through certain things.

-Open Source Journalism

Harnessing the capacity of the Internet by utilizing the users as fact checkers and editors before running a story. This allows for expertise from people that you don’t or wouldn’t know in person.

-Hyperadaptive News Sites

Convergence of particular hypertext, multimedia, and interactivity. This means that eventually these three strategies will blend together.

DISCUSSION

Online journalism might change what is perceived as being journalism.

The open source format creates potential for user-generated content formed by the masses instead of one or two professionals (Wikipedia).

This participatory format democratizes journalism.

Sites should allow users to rate content and suggest or even upload content. The home page could adapt itself based on the users interests (in an Amazon type way) empowering its online users.



Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over

The question is not whether blogs are journalism, but whether bloggers are journalists.

The shift to participatory journalism means that professional journalism is no longer sovereign. People can express their opinions without having to hope that they are published in the editorial section of the paper.

Sources are now turning to blogs to have their voices heard without mediation from journalists. Such as the Mavericks' coach example turning to his blog and rarely speaking to the press. But journalists can quote from personal blogs and even Twitter feeds such as this story about the UK sensation Susan Boyle (if you haven't seen this video yet, take a minute to watch it). The whole story is based on tweets sent between Demi Moore and husband Ashton Kutcher.

Not sovereign

Declining sovereignty does not have to mean declining influence or reputation.

Being unbias has actually hurt journalists.

"This was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, 'objectivity' makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional." Geneva Overholser

"The paper doesn't have a voice"

Newspapers do not have a voice whereas blogs do. This builds a sense of bonding with blogs more than papers. Also, the availability of blogs throughout the day whereas newspapers only come in the morning typically.

The cartoon dialogue

Reducing the question or issue to bloggers vs. journalists is silly. The two are actually mutually beneficial to each other. The question should be about blogging's potential in journalism.

Departure points

1.) Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and blogging means practically anyone can own one. That is the Number One reason why weblogs matter. It is the broadest and deepest of all factors making this conference urgent.

2.) Instead of starting with “do blogs have credibility?” or “should blogging obey journalism ethics?” we should begin in a broader territory, which is trust. Trust as it is generated in different settings, online and off, in both blogging and in journalism— or in life.

3.) Look around: blogging partakes of a resurgent spirit of amateurism now showing in many fields earlier colonized by professionals. Why would journalism be immune?

4.) If news as lecture could yield to news as conversation, as some have recommended, it might transform the credibility puzzle because it would feed good information to journalists about the trusters and what they do and do not put their trust in.

5.) Among bloggers there is the type “stand alone journalist,” and this is why among journalists there now stands the type: blogger.

Conclusion

Bloggers strengths: first person accounts are easier to connect to and there is a large number of them.

Bloggers weaknesses: the lack of shape, structure, and meaning. Professional journalism provides meaning for a story through structure.




Questions

1. What are you opinions regarding blogging as changing civic engagement?

2. Where do you see the convergence going in regards to mainstream media? How will it change?

3. Rosen mentions that mainstream news have built up respect and trust over long periods of time so that when you see something in the New York Times, you are likely to take their word for it. Blogs in contrast need to build trust from the ground up. Do you think given the lack of trust in news media (the 2004 survey stated that only 38% of people thought that the news held no bias) that even mainstream news sites should be rebuilding their brand and audience trust by focusing more on users and allowing for more participation?

4. Do you think that convergence of the strategies in the first article, annotative reporting, open source journalism, and hyperadaptive news sites has already happened? How so?

Here is an interesting blog covering the unification of print and online news media.

Control Room (better quality)

CONTROL ROOM 1 OF 4
Uploaded by Top-Notch112

CONTROL ROOM 2 OF 4
Uploaded by Top-Notch112

CONTROL ROOM 3 OF 4
Uploaded by Top-Notch112

CONTROL ROOM 4 OF 4
Uploaded by Top-Notch112

Tea Baggers

Okay, so maybe the news really shouldn't go in this direction, however, in this instance, I got a great laugh out of it. I actually felt like I was watching Jon Stewart more than Rachel Maddow.

Thoughts on rumors in the media

The article about the Rumor Bomb really got me thinking because false rumors in the news have always irritated me as a reader because I try to trust the news as much as possible, but the more false information that is put out there, the less likely I am to trust the media. And the more I invest myself in the idea of becoming a journalist, the more rumors irritate me because I know that other readers like me are beginning to trust journalists less and less, which makes me nervous to be heading in that professional direction.

The article discussed all of the rumors that were going around during Obama's campaign, which blew my mind at the time. Many of my friends believed the rumors and let them influence their vote in the election, which shocked me. These rumors and the article we read brings up a big dilemma for me. As an upcoming journalist, I hope that the public will take what I report seriously and trust that what I'm saying is true, but since there have been so many false rumors in the news, as a reader I think it is important to remain skeptical and choose sometimes what to trust and what not to. What is the line between trusting the media and being skeptical of it?

And rumors in the news are nothing new. Here's an article about rumors and lies in the news going on decades ago. http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/the-propagation-of-false-news-in-wartime/

Embedded Journalism

The discussion our class had yesterday on embedded journalism was extremely interesting to me.  I did some research on the topic and researchers found that a study done on embedded journalists found that the journalists do not face any more of a risk for psychological disorders than nonembedded journalists do. 

However, after watching the film “Generation Kill,”  I find that embedded journalists have a much different experience than nonembedded journalists do.  Embedded journalists are assigned to a squad and essentially become one of the soldiers.  The journalists develop a relationship among their squad and may become bias when reporting on the war. 

Do you think that relationships developed with the soldiers while reporting on the war will have an effect on the articles written by the journalists or their point of view?

watch this!

The Control Room

And if anyone can find a better quality version online please post it.

response

Its a common penomenon that in at time of National chaos, the press tend to back off of their investigative ways in favor of a more nationalistic approach. This, when combined with the fact that the president of the United States maintains a sort of celebrity status in our society can hint towards why the media lacked agressive curiosity at the time. Although journalists are expected to ask the "hard hitting questions," they are usually advised not to offend the person being interviewed. During this time of uncertainty they erred on the side of caution probably to maintain job security. To step to far into dissident territory would seemingly outrage if not the public, at least their superiors.

While this may explain their initial reaction, it doesnt explain why the media continued to obstain from objectivity and critical questioning as the war began. The media, as we have dicussed in the class, is flawed. Societies definition of objectivity and audience consenses is skewed, leaving many popular view points out of the relm of coverage as in the model discussed in class lats week. While they strive to be fair and balenced, in America, Democracy and patriotism are held in the highest regard and viewed as what is right and fair, to go against such ideals is risky and, as such avoided.

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES ABOUT MEDIA CENSORSHIP

http://www.globalissues.org/article/269/new-slogan-in-washington-watch-what-you-say
http://www.globalissues.org/article/325/patriotism-and-censorship

MEDIA TIME LINE
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB219/index.htm#timeline

It may go against everything jounalism and the media represent to stand by and passivly consume information provided by the government, but opposing such orders was deamed as threat to society; like those with oposing viewes during WWII were pegged at communists.

Media and The Press

Orville Schell's article was very captivating. I had heard before I read the article about the Bush Administration being very hard to get the "truth" out of. Bush gained the reputation of always answering certain questions the same way and of having a "script" in mind rather then open and honest answers.

When I read about Carol Coleman having to submit her questions in to the White House before she went for the interview I was annoyed. I saw it as another reason why so many people in America and around the world hated Bush and his administration. When a reporter has to submit his/her questions in advance it takes away from the whole idea of an interview. Interviews are meant to be unplanned and unexpected because that is when the truth comes out. Interviews are meant to learn information from. Planned answers having nothing to do with the question being asked because the answer ends up being for show and not the real answer.

When political figures are interviewed they are obviously guided to an extent on what to say and what not to say, but by knowing the questions that they are going to be asked it allows them time to think and devise answers to questions that fit the criteria of being "safe." Political figures often dodge difficult questions because they are always trying to maintain popularity and keep a good face for the world to see. I think that it is the job of the media to find ways around political figures getting questions before interviews, and grilling them when they get the chance. 

Bush knew that being the President was going to be a very tough job that involved a lot of discussion between him and the public through reporters. The media made him look dishonest and dumb because he didn't take it seriously. A good political figure needs to be honest and a good journalist needs to be able to get answers for tough questions and be willing to put important people in uncomfortable situations.

In this video Bush is portrayed very badly and if he had been more honest and open with the media it most likely would not have happened. Political figures need to be taught to be honest and to confront the media rather then hiding and running from it.

The article did bring up a good point about media being split into two tiers. There are the few major news outlets like CBS and NBC, and then there is the internet outlet that anyone can use to write their opinions. The second tier I mentioned is more alternative because it is not run by a huge company and people can say their opinions openly.  I think news is heading towards the alternative direction because people like to read honest opinions. I think that there will always be one major news provider but a lot more people are moving away from the first tier of media because of reasons that Schell described.

Journalists have a goal and that is to seek answers and reveal them to the world. When politics get in the way of truth and answers journalists cannot do their jobs properly.

Media vs. Political Figures

After I read Orville Schell’s article, I was interested but somewhat surprised to hear about the media being timid and standoffish in the presence of President Bush. I have often wondered how political figures are able to come up with such detailed and descriptive answers on the spot, but many times, reporters’ questions aren’t even given direct answers. I think it’s somewhat funny, but in a pathetic way, that White House officials would force journalists to submit their questions beforehand. What’s the point of asking these questions if the President has had time to craft particular answers that may or may not be completely honest and true? As the audience, we don’t know if we’re getting real answers, and this is concerning. I found a few articles related to the media and their interactions with Presidents.

Here are the links of articles related to the media being controlled by political figures:
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4175

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/01/13/obama-hand-picks-which-journalists-are-allowed-to-ask-him-questions/

Article discussing just the opposite-what happens when reporters don’t go easy:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html

Why Our Press Failed

The main theme that I took away from Orville Schell and his 'Failed Press' article is how tamed and cowed the media had become in the face off with the Bush Administration post 9/11 (May 2004). Schell made great points about how timid news reporters became at the time in response to White House media restrictions and threats made by government officials to reporters. 

Schell's article begins with the former president, George W. Bush, limiting the press's access to the White House by forcing them to submit questions in advance. This started with RTE reporter from Ireland, Carole Coleman, who became frustrated by Bush's rambling and non-specific answers. She tried to redirect the president and pressed for more specific answers to her questions. The article stated that 'she failed to receive the memo' telling reporters to treat the president with kid gloves. In response to this, the White House complained about Coleman as a reporter and cut off her access to a planned interview with Laura Bush because she did not play by the White House Rules. 

Schell creates a variety of depth for the reader and a broad insight into the taming of the media, which I found to be a constant theme within his article. Because of the Bush administration and the aggressive ways in which they chose to protect information and President Bush, himself, an unspoken perimeter was built around the Government, which warned reporters and news stations to respect its boundaries and limitations. Schell's quote from Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, infamously warning reporters, "People had better watch what they say", is a perfect example of the effect it had on the media. Threats like this were found to be intimidating and convinced the media, at the time, to back off when they could have found this as a sign to press harder. The article further states that the administration adeptly used the threat of denied access as a way to intimidate reporters who showed evidence of independence. 

This is almost infuriating to read since the war going on in Iraq has been one of the most controversial issues our country has faced over the past decade, at least. It almost seems like the Bush administration was choosing to leave reporters and news stations- two of the biggest outlets to the public- in the dark. This, to me, is a sign of weakness from the Bush administration. They were trying to protect their own ideas and sources (which turned out to be false, i.e. the weapons of mass destruction theory) so that the media and voice of our country could not try to counteract or alter those ideas and plans. 

This leads into another theme of the former President Bush using faith-based truth and how that conflicted with access journalism. In my opinion, this seemed like President Bush was almost using religion and messages  from God as a scapegoat, as opposed to fact, which is what the press was supposed to be gathering. So if people disagreed with his thoughts or ideas, they wouldn't be able to blame him, since they came from a higher source. Would as many people have voted for George W. Bush if they knew that the ideas that he trusted came primarily from his "gut-instinct"? 

It is alarming that we have been governed by people who do not believe that the news media plays an important/constructive role in our system of government. I absolutely agree with Schell, that if the press does not use their "watchdog role" to its fullest potential, our country will fall into the same trap over and over again. It is part of our president's duty to keep the citizens of our country well informed with government affairs, (as well as enable and encourage the press to have access to both the President and his staff) so it is disappointing to see that George W. Bush did not fulfill this specific duty as a crucial time in our country's history. However, it is also a disappointment to look back and see that our press, as well as we, the citizens, did not fully do our part to work to find more answer and challenge the threats and warnings issued by our government at the time. However, I believe it is important for us, as a country, to recognize what went wrong in the past (why our press failed) and help to make sure that it does not happen again in the future. 

Additional Links:

Carole Coleman interview which the Bush administration banned from U.S.

Bush administration's systematic efforts to influence and distort information concerning global warning (2007 article... it was still going on!) 

Book: No Questions Asked: News Coverage Since 9/11

Questions:

1. If reporters had been more aggressive in their reporting and questioning in the first place, do you think this could have saved our country from going to war in the first place?
2. What are things that you can do as a news reporter or an agency to combat threats and fight back?
3. In the 2008 election, voters clearly voted for change; how has Obama's presidency changed with regard to the media? 
4. Why is it important that citizens of our country have a free press?

Just Tweet Me Later!

Yesterday's discussion was a little overwhelming for me and this morning over my usual omelet while reading the Denver Post, I read an article that made me feel a little better that I wasn't the only one... Just thought I'd share if anyone else felt that they were the only one not on the bandwagon.

Here's a short article that will help ease the overworked nerve endings of our endless, social networking revolved lives.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12103046

Some thoughts on today's discussion

I was thinking about the relationship change between the public and the media and how recently it has seemed that the public is more in touch with the media and with each other.  I agree with this but there has always been the idea of horizontal journalism, person to person rather than big company down to the public, technology just propels it so that people can interact instantaneously with millions of others.  Before blogs and sites like Twitter, newspapers used tools like man on the street (getting peoples' opinions on certain subjects), polls, letters to the editor, etc.  The change is that now there are so many more channels to go through and they work immediately rather than waiting for a letter to be delivered or waiting for people to call in a response for a poll.  The want for a two-way street is nothing new to the world of journalism, it has simply grown exponentially in recent years.  

The thing is though, that no matter how many blogs there are on certain subjects, they are still more opinionated versions of the story.  If I needed to get the facts on a story, the New York Times would win out over a blog.  I see bloggers as the people who are there to challenge what the mainstream media says rather than taking everything they say as the whole truth.  Though people are critical of what they read it is the bloggers who post their questions and concerns for the world to see.  Maybe it is that I don't have enough experience with blogs, but who is there to hold the authors responsible for what they write?  They do not have to be balanced, they don't even have to be completely true, from what I can tell.  This is what worries me, and what leads people to the trust the public or trust the press question.  I guess you have to look at everything with a critical eye. 

It is clear that the popularity of blogs is rising, but the demand for hard news stories and investigative journalism will remain.  The majority of blogs get their start from these main stream media outlets.  I think that rather than a "death of all newspapers" as some people are predicting, we will instead see the continuation of the change in tone.  The more conversational the language is, the more popular the article will be to readers.

A blog about Why We Need the New York Times in the Huffington Post

Paper Assignment

Paper Prospectus-Due April 22
The research prospectus should serve as an outline for your research paper. It should be 3-4 double-spaced pages and should include:
1) a clear statement of your research question;
2) a description of specifically what you are going to look at;
3) an outline of the literature that will inform your work;
4) a preliminary bibliography.

Final Paper
Aim
The purpose of this assignment is provide a case study of the changes taking place in journalism due to the proliferation of digital tools and networks. You should choose a topic that is compelling to you and aim to contribute to the overall understanding of the current journalistic environment.

Choose a networked journalism product, organization, idea, trend, or treatment of a particular story and evaluate it by comparing it to traditional newsmedia products and norms.

Structure
Your paper should be between 5-7 single-spaced pages and should use either APA or MLA style of bibliographic reference. All papers must build on literature in the field and include a literature review.

a. A thesis about what this comparison tells us about the networked journalism environment and how it builds on or challenges some of the ideas and theories introduced to in this class.

b. Historical background of the specific media product or outlet. For example, if you are studying a particular Website this section should include the history of that site—who started it, why, etc.

c. A description and analysis of the “text” or phenomenon.

d. A description and analysis of the social/cultural impact of this “text” or organization. In other words, why does it matter? What are its aims and what role does it play in local, national or global politics and culture.

e. A conclusion that discusses how this study contributes to our understanding of the networked journalism environment.

The Former Audience - Response

While I agree with Jamie about there not being a complete shift in power from the old media to the “audience,” I believe the most important thing is that there is potential for a shift. The “audience,” or more accurately, the “public,” now has the tools and power to create a major shift in the industry of media. While there will always be people with more money and more pull, they can’t shut us out for much longer. With more talk about government subsidies, the marketplace might be forced to loosen its stranglehold on journalism and the media as a whole.

I disagree with the statement “with more speakers there will be fewer listeners.” Just because someone wants to join the conversation and have a voice doesn’t mean he won’t listen to other voices anymore. True, some speakers tend to be or become rather one-sided, but most speakers are the most active of listeners. And in order to continue having things to say, the speakers must keep up with what other people are saying. While it is nice having people who’ll sit back and listen to what you say and not argue with you, wouldn’t it be in our best interest to have everyone with a great idea speak up? One interesting idea I found was that there can be fluidity between the audience and the author.

I applaud the “public” for finding a way to get their voices heard and their great ideas on the floor. Traditional media already has one foot out the door thanks to bloggers and the infiltration of proud speakers in the public into the media. With more speakers, innovations, and active listeners (or “eyeballs,” which really just gives me a weird mental picture), we can expect to have a shift from old media to power being placed in the audience. To answer one of Jamie’s questions, I definitely believe that media is headed in the right direction. Power in the hands of the people is infinitely more valuable than power in the hands of corporations.

More Economics - New Business Model for College Newspapers

Found an interesting story online regarding our last class on the economics of news -- linked from a fellow college journalist's Twitter account -- about new business models for college newspapers.

Blogger Greg Linch makes the point that journalists, especially those in college, need to become not only strong journalists, but effective videographers, photographers, and web designers -- and, now, business agents, as newspaper advertising revenues continue to drop (see graph).

Perhaps this is even more (sadly) relevant in light of the fact that the UCLA Daily Bruin ran an ad on the front page of their paper today.

UPDATE: More on the Daily Bruin's front-page ad (which looks like an incredible replica of the real paper), plus photos.


Linch's proposition? College news should look to make revenue from the continued support of advertisers, but also from offering specialized university services for off-campus companies and working on campus as surveyors gathering advertising input for company-customers. Linch goes so far as to propose that college journalists working at school papers should earn more $$ by creating websites and a social networking presence for advertisers.

What do you guys think? Should we really be expected to be jacks and jills of every trade imaginable? Is this a realistic expectation of professional journalists and, perhaps even more importantly, college journalists?

As a journalism and digital media double-major, I already feel like I'm trying to hit every base in order to be "prepared" for the new journalism world on the cusp of emerging. What if even this isn't enough? I feel like expectations are starting to get a little out of hand...


Also, for more thoughts from the writer of today's reading, The People Formerly Known as the Audience, check out Jay Rosen's Twitter musings on the state of the news media and social networking.

One more question to add to the mix, based off Mr. Rosen's article: Is it possible there is a monopoly of people formerly known as the audience who dominate new media, or are all users and all citizens blogging, Twittering, and contributing to the new media discourse? What kind of a frame or slant could this lend to the world of citizen media?

The People Formerly Known as the Audience

The Audiences Control:

In this article, Jay Rosen makes the argument that the “people formerly known as the audience” are no longer just editors of the news, but creators.  We no longer just listen to media and have it control us; we are now able to control the news.  Things such as, blogs, podcasts, and videos on the Web, gives the audience the power to control and create the news.  Rosen believes there has been a shift of power from the media to the audience. 

I do not fully believe that there has been a “shift” of power from the media to the audience.  The audience has a limited control over what the media covers but does not create the news by any means.  Though it is easier for the audience to be heard on a more powerful level the media still controls what stories are told.  Blogs are posted based on the media’s view on the World.  Whatever articles are told on the news, the radio, or the web are used to make blogs.  Bloggers go off of what the media sees and use it for ammunition to post their own comments.  There aren’t necessarily bloggers creating new stories or even researching anything outside of their homes for the most part.  The media has the power and the money to send reporters overseas to cover the war.  Bloggers, therefore, can only go off of what certain reporters see or write about. 

Either way, I do not believe there is a “shift” in power, I believe that the power has grown and is being distributed among more people.  But the more voices there are, fewer listeners will be available.

A quote in the article that caught my eye was “Give the people control of media, they will use it.  The corollary:  Don’t give the people control of the media, and you will lose.  Whenever citizens can exercise control, they will.”  Jeff Jarvis

Questions:

Can audiences today create stories or facts?

Watch this video on the Colbert Report about people creating new facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20PlHx_JjEo

Do you believe the audience is creating news or just contributing to the preexisting news?

Do you think that the media is headed in the right direction?  Why? 

Audience Atomization Overcome:  Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press:

The Three Spheres:

In this article, Jay Rosen creates a diagram explaining journalism in the United States.  The Sphere of Consensus is the sphere that everyone seems to agree with.  Things such as cutting up toddlers is wrong would be found in this sphere.  The second sphere is what Rosen believes is the “two-party system.”  This is where people split in their views on certain issues such as abortion.  The third sphere marks the “political actors” who are untrustworthy and deviant who journalists keep out of the news completely.  In this area there is no debate on the issues.  Rosen believes that blogging has given the audience the power to connect “up” to the media. 

I believe that the diagram is a great way of viewing the media, but I do not believe that bloggers are challenging the diagram. Just because a post is made about a certain story does not mean that the media is going to redevelop their entire system. 

Questions:

Do you believe the diagram exists in today’s media?

Do you believe that bloggers have an effect on the diagram?

Here is an interesting article about the popularity of blogs vs. the NYT.