The media is supposed to serve as a watchdog over the government for the public, but the White House seems to think Fox is taking its role a bit too far.
Fox is notorious for its conservative-leaning news coverage and commentators. It is consistently accused by the left of biased and unverified reporting, and of promoting anti-Obama rhetoric and rumors spread by the GOP. Fox claims the White House is simply confusing the opinions of its commentators with that of its news coverage, and that they are being unfairly boycotted by the White House.
As a journalist, I am taught to cringe at the thought of the leader of our nation favoring certain news outlets over others. The press needs access to government officials to carry out their duties to the public, but Obama is not the first president to place a news organization in disfavor. Bush refused to respond to the New York Times’ requests for interviews after 2005. Obama may, however, be the first president to do so in such a public way.
While, as a journalist, I find the White House’s decision worrisome, I also have to consider what would lead a president to freeze out a specific media outlet so openly. When you consider the brutality with which Fox’s commentators have hammered Obama since the beginning of the election, it’s to blame him.
As for Fox’s defense that its commentators are not its news, I think it is hard to discern between the two. When you think of a media outlet, you think of its top personalities. For me, when someone mentions Fox, I don’t always think of its reporters first. Instead, images of Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly pop into my head. When I think of CNN, I see Anderson Cooper. The commentators make up part of the news organization in the same way the reporters do, and in many cases they are more high profile.
There are potential positive effects of the boycott. It could serve as a reminder to news outlets to not become too entrenched in the politics of one side. As far as being potentially harmful to democracy, Fox is still reporting. As long as they are not kept from obtaining information necessary to accurately report the government’s actions, then I don’t think the White House is overstepping.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
On blogging
I intern for a green-living magazine, so I like to visit Treehugger to get ideas for the blog on our magazine’s site. The coverage keeps up with current issues within the “green” movement and most of the research and links are helpful and legitimate.
In criticism, Treehugger definitely has an agenda. But, I also have to say that the name makes the agenda very obvious. The blog is run by a company that calls itself a media company, but also offers green “advice” to other companies. Essentially, they are a consulting company centered on sustainability with a great self-promotional blog.
One of the greatest things about this blog is the organization. The categories are well chosen for the topic of the blog, and it makes the site easy to navigate. Plus, it has a games tab, which is a fun little time-waster.
Along the right side bar, once you get past the ads, there are some additional links. One contains a list of interviews with various people. Another has their top tips for being green. Also, the blog’s SEO must be good because it often pops up often when I do research for my blog posts at my internship.
The tone of the blog is often witty, but also very pro-environment. If you are looking for light reading that doesn’t make you feel guilty about driving to the grocery store instead of walking, then this blog is not for you.
In criticism, Treehugger definitely has an agenda. But, I also have to say that the name makes the agenda very obvious. The blog is run by a company that calls itself a media company, but also offers green “advice” to other companies. Essentially, they are a consulting company centered on sustainability with a great self-promotional blog.
One of the greatest things about this blog is the organization. The categories are well chosen for the topic of the blog, and it makes the site easy to navigate. Plus, it has a games tab, which is a fun little time-waster.
Along the right side bar, once you get past the ads, there are some additional links. One contains a list of interviews with various people. Another has their top tips for being green. Also, the blog’s SEO must be good because it often pops up often when I do research for my blog posts at my internship.
The tone of the blog is often witty, but also very pro-environment. If you are looking for light reading that doesn’t make you feel guilty about driving to the grocery store instead of walking, then this blog is not for you.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Ethical? the media's use of "citizen journalists" as sources during Iran's election
During the recent election in Iran, many journalists were detained and/or prevented from reporting on the events following the election. Instead, the world's media organizations reported on the conflicts using tweets, YouTube posts and other forms of new media posted by Iranian citizens in the midst of the action.
Until the advent of new media, respectable world news organizations would be wary of using such reports because they are unconfirmed. However, in this case, it could be argued justifiable because they didn't have immediate access to confirmed reports. The public deserves to know what is going on in Iran, and if journalists are prevented from reporting, then the news outlets have little choice but to use such accounts.
The news outlets seem to agree with such logic. In fact, many news organizations ran articles about the important role new media played in the election. So, the question is, does the benefit of these new ways of obtaining information override traditional journalistic ethics in certain situations?
For one, in the case of the Iranian elections, the world media was in general upfront about where the information was coming from. Second, similar reports from thousands of people covering the same events are unlikely to be fabricated. Third, as part of the media's audience myself, I would rather get information from these "citizen journalists" than be in the dark, assuming the media discloses where the information was obtained from.
Until the advent of new media, respectable world news organizations would be wary of using such reports because they are unconfirmed. However, in this case, it could be argued justifiable because they didn't have immediate access to confirmed reports. The public deserves to know what is going on in Iran, and if journalists are prevented from reporting, then the news outlets have little choice but to use such accounts.
The news outlets seem to agree with such logic. In fact, many news organizations ran articles about the important role new media played in the election. So, the question is, does the benefit of these new ways of obtaining information override traditional journalistic ethics in certain situations?
For one, in the case of the Iranian elections, the world media was in general upfront about where the information was coming from. Second, similar reports from thousands of people covering the same events are unlikely to be fabricated. Third, as part of the media's audience myself, I would rather get information from these "citizen journalists" than be in the dark, assuming the media discloses where the information was obtained from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)