My ambitions as a journalist

I remember watching interviews on TV and admiring an anchor’s ability to bring out the personality and values of their interviewees. I also remember loving reports that uncovered injustices or crimes: the product of investigative journalism. I liked the idea of being a part of that.      As I learn more about journalism through my courses, I am realizing that there is much more to it. I am embarrassed to admit that I use to think that all news channels were objective and that I didn’t realize the ideological filter they use. I dislike channels like Fox News and think of their journalists as puppets. I think they offer irresponsible journalism that does not posses integrity. To me journalism is a medium of information powered by human intellect and passion. Everyone can give news, but only people who have love for journalism can do it responsibly and with just the right words to have the desired effect on the audience.      My goals in journalism are very specific, for I know I want to work with Spanish speaking networks and practice my profession in Spanish. I want to start from the bottom, as a reporter. I believe this dignifies a person and makes one value every one who contributes in news broadcasting. I love the idea of researching and uncovering facts to provide them to the public, whether it be to benefit a community, a city or the entire nation. This is why I would love to do some investigative reporting in my career.      I also ambition to host a news program. I would like to have the privilege of reaching thousands of people and share with them analysis of the issues of the time. Some issues require more from journalists than a mere mention of facts. An example of this is the issue with the Mosque near ground zero. Most news channels dedicated themselves to mention the turmoil around this controversy and that just created more hostility. This issue required journalists to educate the public in the most objective way possible about Islam and their practice of Sharia law. I envision a change in journalism that would provide more space for educating the public and I envision myself working under this system.     I think journalism will undergo significant changes, given the technological advances of today and the rapid expansion of the internet. I am excited to see what the future holds for this profession. Hopefully journalists take advantage of the internet to provide more variety in journalism. And hopefully people learn to appreciate objective journalism and learn to separate it from entertainment. Not that journalism has to be boring, but its focus shouldn’t be on entertaining the viewer, but on disseminating important information.      These are some of my goals in journalism and although I know this is a competitive profession, I believe I have what it takes to reach them.

Not the beginning of the end

 Important ideas came out during our last class meeting; including the one that says months are years in politics.  For this reason it is hard to imagine anything that happens today as being absolutely defining of Obama’s presidency.  The only thing that could do it would be if the president lost all support from his party and is not able to get anything done from here on.  But this is an extreme theory because chances are that if Obama goes down, the whole Democratic Party would go down.  I think people wouldn’t trust a party who seems disorganized and disunified.

The media has been portraying Obama as weak and as lacking leadership because his own party is mad at him.  Even Rachel Maddow, in this segment, acknowledged his party is mad at him “because they want a president who can win.  However I don’t think this compromise with Republicans will determine how they will continue to portray him in the next year.  The deal was a risky move for him because of the probability of enraging his party and liberals in general.  However, with a split Congress, it is likely that the time to take such risk would come anyway.  By doing it now, Obama was able to indebt Republicans to him, while allowing him enough time to get out of this hole.   Now Obama will be able to put the blame on Republicans if they keep gridlocking policies in Congress because he will be able to say “you see, I’m willing to compromise and enrage my own party for the sake of the people, Republicans are not.” 

Although Obama has being portrayed as weak in these last few weeks, I think he has enough time to recover.  This clip analyzes Obama’s promises, those kept, broken, or postponed.  The fact that he was able to pass the Healthcare reform is a big deal.  Recently the Dream Act was able to pass in Congress for the first time as well.  If the Dream Act manages to pass in the Senate Obama will score huge points with his Latino followers.  I think overall he has been able to maintain that base and that he has enough time to make the right moves to persuade the independents or undecided.  When 2012 comes and Obama is campaigning again, his political ads will refresh people’s memory and illustrate the president more fairly.   

Jon Stewart: Loud and Clear

There had been an ongoing disagreement in Washington on what to do about the taxes that would go up for everyone in January.  Democrats wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts, but only for families making up to $250,000 per year.  Republicans wanted to extend them for the wealthy as well.  President Obama and the Democratic Party also wanted to extend unemployment benefits.  So that both parties would get their way, a “deal” had to be made.  The result was extended unemployment benefits and extended Bush tax cuts for all.

I watched an episode from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that talked about the compromise between Democrats and Republicans.   Despite not being considered a “serious” news provider, I found the show informative and analytic.  It uses humor to simplify politics and ideas that sometimes are hard to comprehend for the public.   For example, in this specific episode the show uses a comic metaphor to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Bush tax cuts that have been in place for many years.  It highlights the idea that the wealth that is supposed to be generated by this tax cuts is not reaching the majority of the people.   Other news channels use statistics and specific details to convey the same ideas, but buried among so many details, the main point sometimes gets lost.  On the other hand, while Stewart might ignore many details, he makes sure the main point is loud and clear.

Another thing that I noticed from the show is that it focuses more on how the issues, and the things that are getting done about them, affect the people.  They focus less on the political turmoil in Washington, on how Democrats or Republicans could be feeling about certain things.  On the other hand, some news channels seem to pay more attention to the political dynamics than the effect some of the issues are having on people.  They seem more concerned with pointing fingers or highlighting who’s now on the spot light, Democrats or Republicans.  For example on this segment from the O’Reilly Factor the attention is centered around the political dynamics, instead of focusing on how the new deal between the Democrats and the Republicans is expected to affect Americans.

KEEP US INFORMED

The economy continues to be the number one issue in the United States.This is a problem that should and will certainly be address (according to this analysis in the PBS network) in the next six months.  Surrounding this problem is a disagreement on how exactly Congress plans to do that. 

The two major factors are tax cuts and the debt ceiling.  Obama says he wants to keep the tax cuts for the middle class but not for the wealthy.  Republicans want the tax cuts to be extended to the wealthy as well.  With a split congress, compromise seems to be the only option in order to get anything done.  I think it is crucial for journalists to stay on top of this because Americans are desperate, they want solutions to their problems and they want to know who to hold accountable if things go worse, or who to celebrate if things improve.  

A thorough coverage on this subject should also let us know how the politicians we elected are responding to us.  What we need to hear less of is which Senator or Representative had affair, and those sorts of things irrelevant to our country.

Unemployment, a consequence of the economy, should also be covered.  This is really important because thousands of people are depending on it to survive and because making any changes to the benefits would impact the economy.  Whether it would be good or bad will probably be debated, but journalists should maintain the public informed.

I definitely think Healthcare should continue to be covered because apparently Republicans are trying to repeal it.  The Healthcare reform would affect everyone and the public should be kept informed of any changes.  It is also important because of what it symbolizes.  Healthcare represents Obama’s achievement as a president.  If it gets repealed, Obama’s success would be threatened.

Social security should also be covered with accuracy.   Whether or not retirement age should be raised, is one of the questions surrounding this issue.  Any changes and even no changes to the current social security system will impact everyone in the future.  Therefore it is something to take seriously and give importance to.

Another less conventional, but equally important issue is the securing of the border and immigration reform.  Immigration reform has been broadly covered, especially after the Arizona laws, and should continue to be covered because it has proven to be crucial for lining up state rights vs. federal rights. 

Border security has not been treated properly; most of the focus was on securing it to prevent illegal immigration.  It could have been because of the elections and journalists wanting to expose who was pro and who was con.  Now that they have passed I hope journalists can start focusing on the elements that really matter: drug and human trafficking.   This article from BBC News explores drug trafficking and the drug War in Mexico from Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon’s point of view.

Journalists and campaign contributions

Keith Olbermann is MSNBC’s most prominent host and gets paid for expressing his opinions on his show “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”.  His suspension from the show for making political campaign contributions raises several questions within journalism. 

The first one I would like to explore it’s the most direct one: should journalist be allowed to make campaign contributions?

If today’s journalism was the ideal journalism which complies with the rules of objectivity, the answer would be a flat NO.   An article from Politico.com emphasizes NBC ‘s stand on the subject, stating that they consider it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover. It is reasonable to believe that engaging in political activities such as making campaign contributions can distract the reporter and cause him/her to be biased.  It would be an appropriate rule, although inhumane.  And I say inhumane because I think that journalists, more than anyone else, stimulate their ideology and feel drawn to whatever party they identify themselves with.   Journalists are privileged with access to information that every other citizen does not get, and I think that the more informed you are the more you like or dislike a political party.

However, today’s journalism is becoming more and more partisan.  You don’t have to be a journalist to notice that Fox News broadcasts its news from a conservative point of view and that MSNBC does the same for the liberal ideology.  Both are very popular and reach millions of people across the country.  What does this say about us?  That we are becoming narrow-minded and sticking to the ideas that we already have.  I think this has contributed to the divisiveness of the country.  The conservatives are only turning more conservative and the liberals more liberals.  Why? In part because we have a respected and prominent anchor reinforcing our ideas and encouraging the rejection of everything else. 

If news channels clearly represent an ideology, and thus are biased, why do they have a problem with their employees making campaign contributions?  At least the folks from Fox News are not pretending to be objective, for their employees are free to make political campaign contributions, and their employees include politicians themselves, for example Sarah Palin.   I find it absurd for MSNBC to prohibit their opinion journalists to make campaign contributions.  What’s worse is that permission to do so can be granted upon approval from superiors.   Really?  So based upon what?  This just makes the whole thing more suspicious.

 This matter was covered by PBS Newshour and some interesting points came out.  One was the idea that perhaps there are new ethics in journalism.  One of the guests in the show, Geneva Overholser, director of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, said: “Is only when he puts his money where his mouth is when he is misbehaved.”  It is certainly how it seems.

           

Mosque on 2010 political campaigns

After the ‘’Ground Zero Mosque’’ controversy emerged, it seems as if politicians care less about their people and more about winning. As a citizen, I would expect my representative to at least promise to address some of the most prominent issues.  Instead, some are coming forward with absurd campaign ads that say nothing about them and just launch ungrounded accusations toward their opponents. 

                In the case of Renee Ellmers, Republican fighting for a seat in the House of Representatives for North Carolina-2, her campaign ad focuses solely on the Ground Zero Mosque.  The advertisement techniques are very impressive.  Starting with the audio, the buzz words ‘’victory mosques’’ create a false conception of the mosque in New York as a mosque the terrorists will build as physical proof of their conquest of America.   The ad fails to provide convincing evidence that terrorists, and not peaceful Muslims, are behind the construction of the mosque. 

Second, the images in the ad are also quiet interesting.  When speaking of the Muslims’ conquests, paintings illustrating warfare come up.  There is one that caught my attention, the one showing buildings on fire, very reminiscent of the airplane crash on the Twin Towers.  Also, the ad depicts monumental Mosques, nothing like what the mosque inside the community center will be. 

The ad concludes with Ellmers saying ‘’There will never be a mosque at Ground Zero.’’  This is probably the most accurate statement in the ad, because the Mosque wouldn’t be at Ground Zero, but two blocks away from it.  According to an article from Britannica, Ellmers seemed to be far behind her opponent, Democrat Bob Etheridge, which forced her to play her nastier card.

The National GOP Trust PAC launched its own ad, calling on Americans to join them in the effort of ‘’killing the Ground Zero Mosque.’’  This is a very graphic ad, and once again, it doesn’t bother to make a distinction between Muslims and terrorists, it actually implies that the Muslims behind the project are terrorists. It portrays the mosque as ‘’a monument of their victory and an invitation for war.’’  It points fingers to the ultimate Democratic leader, President Obama, for not doing anything to stop it. 

It is evident that politicians are taking advantage of the national attention the mosque near Ground Zero has gotten.  There are numerous issues at local and federal levels that could be address, yet somehow the upcoming elections have made a NY issue the center of many political campaign ads. Politicians conveniently turn to this issue in an attempt to distract voters from personal faults or incompetency.

A slap in the Face

               

                If the net neutrality that we enjoy today is replaced with a Tier system by the internet providers, the essence of this information medium would be lost.  The internet became globally adopted and grew so rapidly because of the infinite variety of content.  It provides space for everything, from the smallest localized things, to the largest worldwide concepts, such as music.  The internet’s success can also be attributed to the convenience it provides.  For example, it outperforms libraries with its ability to make information available much faster.  Perhaps the most important thing is that the internet has become a standard tool and having access to it has gone from a commodity to a necessity.

                College students can’t live without the internet.  Not only do we use it for entertainment, to lay back after all the stress, but also to do our research and meet our obligations.  Some of us use it to access online classes or class material.  So far, this has been quiet convenient for a lot students who work and/or have children.  Therefore, any changes to the internet would affect us tremendously.

                An article from The New York Times mentions that some envision a public Internet and  a  “private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls.”  The first thing that comes to my mind, as a student who has taken an online class before, is how would that affect my classes?  I wonder whether online classes would become more expensive since UH would need to pay a fee to keep getting its content downloaded at a high speed.  I would still have the option to take a hybrid class instead. But what about those students whose only method of getting an education is via online classes?  We all know tuition is very expensive and a lot of students barely manage to cover the costs. 

                Tuition is a very sensitive issue for many students.  My guess is that it would eventually increase for everyone.  Universities provide internet services to their students, which are included in the tuition fees.  If their internet service becomes more expensive, they will pass those extra expenses to us.  

Money is not the only issue, nor the most important one.  To me the most important thing is the free flow of information.  We already have a filtered medium of information, the TV.  Even cable is filtered and has limited content and thus limited points of view.  The internet has no limits, and abandoning net neutrality would impose them for the first time.  As an article from PBS points out, if providers are going to start regulating content, not only would the speed be jeopardized, but its accessibility at all.

Changing the internet looks like a profitable idea for the Internet providers.  For the public, it looks like a slap in the face.  The internet as we have been enjoying it, would no longer be free, nor cheap, nor convenient, and perhaps not even as valuable.