What's News?

Spenser Dopp

sd470213@ohio.edu

Journalists do not always have carte blanche over what stories they deal with. Sometimes journalists are asked to cover stories that they would prefer not to, and other times they are asked not to cover stories that they truly believe in. How journalists react in these situations tells us a great deal about them and the industry in which they work.

In 2005, Bob Costas declined to host CNN’s Larry King Live, saying, “I didn’t think the subject matter of Thursday’s show was the kind of broadcast I should be doing.” The broadcast in question was about the May 2005 disappearance of Natalee Holloway, a story that had already been grossly overreported. Costas was praised for his decision to not pile onto the redundant and unproductive news coverage of a months-old disappearance.

In 1997, Carol Marin resigned from her job as an anchor at WMAQ in Chicago because she disagreed with the decision to bring Jerry Springer onto the news.  She felt that Jerry Springer and his material were too sleazy for a serious news operation.

Costas and Marin both faced pressure from above to conform to what they considered a sub-standard practice of journalism. Rather than meekly accept their assignments and perfunctorily carry them out, these public servants decided to stand up for their principles in support of good journalism.

Credit: nytimes.com

I do not have a concrete definition of what news is or should be, but I can tell you now that something like Jerry Springer does not make the cut. Neither does incessantly repetitive coverage of, say, the disappearance of a Malaysian Airlines plane. Another example of what I consider faux-news is coverage of celebrities.

When Justin Bieber egged his neighbor’s house, everyone in America who watched the evening news was made aware. I cannot understand why. The time and resources spent on that story could have been devoted to covering science, politics, law, economics or just about any other topic that would have been infinitely more beneficial to bring into the public eye than the latest shenanigans of a young pop star. It’s a shame that the people working at our top news networks apparently do not have a problem airing stories devoid of any value beyond perhaps entertainment. News is meant to serve many purposes, and entertainment is definitely not near the top of the list.

Either the journalists who cover stories like Justin Bieber throwing eggs truly believe that these stories are newsworthy, or they recognize that these stories are garbage but choose to pursue and air them anyway in place of real news. In any case, I am disheartened and incensed. News is meant to play an important role in our democratic society, and every “news” story about celebrity gossip or skydiving cats distracts from that role and that mission to the detriment of our entire culture.

I got into journalism because when I watch or read what passes for national news I feel upset. I worry that this faux-news is damaging to the good name of American journalism, as well as to the audiences that news journalists are meant to work with and for. There may be a place in the world of journalism for celebrity gossip, scare tactics and otherwise frivolous stories, but that place is not on the prime time slots of our nation’s top news networks or on the front pages of our leading newspapers.

I hope that this trend of reporting bunk news stories is on the way out. I hope that more journalists and news consumers alike begin to acknowledge that these stories have no business taking resources and attention away from truly newsworthy subjects that could stand to benefit us all.

Should ABC News Cover Disney?

Zachary Berry
zb781311@ohio.edu

Disney is often considered the happiest company on the planet. From beloved films like The Lion King to amazing theme parks like Disneyland, just the thought of Disney evokes fond memories in the minds of people. It's also one of the fastest growing companies in the world. Disney seems to have placed mouse ears on intellectual properties in every facet of the industry, from ESPN to Marvel Comics and the Muppets! Disney's acquisition of all these companies has some people perceiving the company less like this:

Courtesy of Disney Parks

And more like this:

Only with Mickey Ears
Cartoon by Udo Keppler

Having your fingers in media conglomerate pie can make things a little sticky, especially when news associations are involved. That's the situation Disney found itself in when it acquired ABC nearly 20 years ago. 

Rewinding time, ABC was established in 1943. ABC's connection with Disney has its roots long before the two companies merged. According to Designing Disney.com, ABC agreed to loan Disney $500,000 to help with the construction of Disneyland if ABC could air a weekly Disney-themed program on their channel. Enter The Wonderful World of Disney and other Disney programs broadcasted on ABC. 

In the 1980s, ABC merged with media company Capital Cities Communications. During this time, ABC News programs were number one across the board in every time slot, covering a variety of hard pressure news.

In 1996, Disney bought out Capital Cities, thus acquiring ABC. This led to some big changes. First, legendary ABC News president Ron Arledge stepped down from his position two years after the acquisition, according to the LA Times. Rumors abound that Arledge was forcibly removed after his management style clashed with Disney's vision.

The true test of ABC's relationship with Disney came about that very same year. Brian Ross, a reporter working at ABC News, was covering a story about lax employment security at theme parks across the country that could allow convicted pedophiles to be hired. This included Disneyland and Disney World.

However, days before the story was set to be published, it was terminated, according to The New York Times. Critics immediately claimed that Disney had pressured the company it now controlled into not publishing the story.

Adding fuel to the fire were statements made by then CEO of Disney, Michael Eisner. A few days before the story was shelved, Eisner was quoted on NPR as saying, "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney...I think it's inappropriate for Disney to be covered by Disney."

ABC denied that the decision to terminate the story was due to pressure from upper-mouse management. The story's termination raises the question: Should ABC News cover Disney?

On one hand, it is an ethical responsibility of a journalist to inform the public of the news. That means all the facts presented in a true and unbiased way. Journalists are supposed to be watchdogs of corrupt companies, not lapdogs for Disney like Pluto is to Mickey.

Courtesy of Disney Clip Art

On the other hand, just as Disney might pressure ABC to ax bad news, they could also pressure ABC to highlight good news. If done improperly, ABC News reports about the parent company could sound more like the march from the Mickey Mouse Club.

Fortunately, ABC News has not always shied away from stories depicting Disney in a negative light. An ABC news station covered a story about a family who filed a complaint after a Disneyland employee commented the mother needed to wear less revealing clothing in the park.  This is an optimistic sign that ABC can and does in fact present Disney News from an unbiased perspective.

The balancing act of serving your company and serving the public is one that journalists struggle with every day. There is no quintessential guide for navigating the tightrope, and one false step could lead to a fall into the abyss below. 

One way to make the task at hand easier is clear communication between journalists and company heads. If the executives recognize the duty of journalists to report the news truthfully, and if clear, but reasonable, boundaries are put in place for journalists, fewer conflicts of interest will arise. With more companies becoming conglomerates, it would appear that the issue will become more prevalent and more difficult to solve in the near future. 

Despite an atmosphere of uncertainty from the public audience, there is good news for ABC. Last year, ABC News earned some of its best ratings since the days of Arledge. Hopefully, it can earn those ratings without trading integrity for a ride with Steamboat Willie. 

Media Bias; Is it real or not?

T.L. Schilling

ts568115@ohio.edu

In today’s media there are certainly what seems to be “biases” among the networks. If one watches television, especially around this time of an election year, it clear to see. FOX news is synonymous with the conservative point of view while the major networks of ABC, NBC, CBS, and notable cable station MSNBC are labeled liberal by some. There are facts to back up these claims as seen in an article from http://newsbusters.org/ regarding statements made about Mitt Romney. Below are some numbers of where respondents of a recent poll said they derived their news information from.

                                     Courtesy of Business Insider

Whether or not you subscribe to the theory of bias in the news media you should be reminded of the old adage of “perception is reality”. For this very reason, I conducted my own survey to see if there is any truth to this question.

I asked 10 people of whom I felt were conservative in their political views where they news information from. Of those 10 conservative view people asked, 7 of them said FOX news or the Huffington Post. I was somewhat surprised to hear that every one of those 7 who said either FOX News or The Huffington Post said so because they believed that the other media outlets were too liberal in their views and that those two media outlets were not as biased. I think you know where the next part of the story is going, right?

 So then I asked 10 people of whom I felt would be more liberal in their views the same question I asked of the conservative group and got more staggering results. I was stunned to hear that 9 out of 10 said that they either watched or listened to anything but FOX News. The typical answers were CNN, MSNBC and of course the always reliable answer of “I don’t care; they’re all a bunch of liars anyway”. All of this says what about the media and the public’s view of them? It says that perception is reality.

The whole theory of bias in the news media, to me at least, is no more apparent than with the first election of Barrack Obama some of which can be read in this interesting article from the L.A. Times.  The campaign of hope and change was inscribed into the national spotlight with a barrage of massive media blitzes and high dollar affairs.

 Obama's backers were a who’s who of America's elite and his campaign was masterfully orchestrated to reach the younger voters. This is when the “biased” battle lines seemed to be drawn a little deeper in the sand than ever before. It seemed to pit the younger more open minded generation against the old guard, more staunch conservatives wondering where the good old days of Mr. Reagan had gone. Yet one thing sticks out to me as much now as it did then. In keeping with the “time for change” theme, once Obama had been elected, he was hailed as the first African –American president of these great United States of America. The more accurate headline could have very well read “Obama, America’s bi-racial president”. Yes, his father is an African –American from Kenya, but his Caucasian mother is from Kansas (a fact usually left out of discussions).

I don’t think that there will ever be a totally bias free media. I think in today’s world of vast resources, we can talk ourselves into just about anything we want to believe in. The main reason there may never be a totally bias free media is: Perception is reality.

  

The Evolution of Ethics

Samantha Schilder
ss469613@ohio.edu

Today we ask ourselves, "what is the purpose of journalism?" Does it carry the same meaning it had over 300 years ago when you heard press through song and story? Today the story can be heard via hashtag, Instagram,  Twitter, Snap chat, Facebook post etc. The list can go on and on; why?

We are evolving. We are currently living in the generation of the future. What we learn today will be something new tomorrow.

As we evolve things that were once considered rational are now considered to be irrational. In regards to my generation. An ethical dilemma that has had an impact on me was the recent scandal on the Alabama Alpha Phi Recruitment video.

The video received attention from a wide platform, US magazine, ABC news, The Huffington Post and many more; including social media.

Courtesy of US magazine

The chapter was criticized because the sorority was 'objectifying' recruitment and women as well as showing no form of diversity. As a sorority member here at Ohio University, our Formal Recruitment is taking place this coming weekend. The Women's Panhellenic Association strives to make each member coming through recruitment  feel as comfortable as possible. To look at the attention Alpha Phi has received, I question the feedback we could potentially receive as any Greek member across the nation.

As time evolves, our opinions can be easily heard through news outlets out of our hands. With a simple click you can actively become a "journalist."

A journalist is here to inform and provide, but above all things; provide truth.  Many people feel entitled to their own opinion which is important. In regards to the Alpha Phi recruitment video the women of this chapter received backlash mainly from past generations, the generations that didn't grow up with social media or "e-readers."

As a generation Y; I ask myself, "Is the 2015 Alpha Phi recruitment video getting attention because past generations aren't evolving over time?"

Is ethics something that has lost its meaning or has the meaning just grown into something that we "the majority" can relate to. Did this video go viral with over 700,000 clicks in less than 2 days because of the sorority stereotype? We could form hundreds of questions that could have hundreds of different answers. That's what keeps journalism media in business, it leaves you wanting more, you receive information and spread the word.

http://quotes.lifehack.org/quote/viggo-mortensen/i-like-stories-that-leave-you-wanting/

The norms of journalism are always being redefined but the problem we carry as a whole is we aren't redefining with the change we see.  The traditional platforms of journalism will always remain, although it may not always be black and white, we will continue to spread the word through professional platforms and "professional tweets." As we grow more and more greedier to receive information as quickly as possible, we also grow to accept the information we receive with a little more acceptance. As for ethics goes, remember, the next time you only have 140 characters to voice your opinion, those 140 characters go a long way.

Can Ethical Responsibility Be Organic?

Tracy Brewer

Tb289493@ohio.edu

Many believe that common sense is innate.  People either have it or they do not.  Can ethics be placed in the same category?  Or is being ethical something that we are only taught?  Is it more than knowing right from wrong?  And how is today’s ethics different than our parent’s generation?

Courtesy of picturequotes.com

In our reading it’s mentioned “every generation creates its own journalism.”  I bet our parents didn’t see these creations coming!  “Blogging,” “tweeting,” “facebooking,” “snapchatting” and the list continues to grow almost every day.  The way we consume the news is fast and furious.  Once upon a time you watched television for the news and those offering it were trusted and reliable.  What happened to that trust?  What causes someone with so much credibility to decide to fabricate or embellish a situation?  Is it the pressure to “go viral?”  Is there so much competition with the noise of other “journalists” that you need to differentiate yourself by stretching what happens to you in certain circumstances?

Courtesy of The Huffington Post - A favorite news source for me.

We assume that Brian Williams had a class similar to this, when he was in college.  We can also assume he knew the consequences he would face with adding a bit more drama to his recollection, right?  Shouldn’t he have been taught this?  Or maybe we feel he was one of those with common sense and he would just know right from wrong. Changing gears from being the go-to source for news and competing with 140 character tweets that run 24/7 can be a bit …threatening. 

Bloggers and Vloggers have changed the landscape of journalism.  No longer do you have to work for a company to have a valid voice.  People have created their own way.  People have defined themselves, marketed their own niche and gained HUGE followers.  Some have been taught.  Others have an organic charm that helps their message attract followers.  Then there is a mixture of the two.  So where do their “ethics” come from?  How do they know how to “act” when everyone is watching them or hanging on their every word?  I found an interesting video about ethics in blogging by an international blogger.

To hear how (almost every) blogger begins by sharing personal accounts as a way to just find some individuality… to growing that voice into an actual company, is amazing.  One way that pepper.ph sustains ethics is through transparency.  Attempting to let the audience know if a post is sponsored is a great way to keep the trust up. 

But what if your blog grew from controversy?  What if everyone or everything you spoke about wanted to sue you for giving your opinion?  As Perez Hilton found out when he began his unique blog, he was known as a Hollywood troublemaker when he started. 

Everyone wanted to press charges of his use of their “photos” as he shared them on his blog.  Little by little, these people realized the old adage “there is no bad publicity” and the attention they grew from his opinions started to give him a valid (as much as it can be in Hollywood) voice.  So, whose ethics changed?  Was it Perez’s ethics?  Was it the celebrities?  How about the readers and followers of his messages?  Was what he did just breaking a new mold and the internet realized that this was a new norm.  This method was a new “gossip mag” format that they just needed to accept?  More and more celebrities are taking the shock out of it and just posting such “scandal” themselves (Hello, Kardashians) to get the attention first. 

So without the filters, the people deciding what we follow, watch or find “newsworthy” how do you define ethics in journalism. Because, how do you define journalism?  We can’t blame the networks when we’re offended anymore because we’re going to see it or hear about it on social media.  If you can’t figure out how to use social media correctly, then how you can blame it when it shows you something unethical.  I hear time and time again people are made at something that comes up on their Facebook wall.  Well if you knew how to manage your wall, follow, list, categorize and operate all of the functions available to you, then maybe those “unethical” images/videos/posts would not appear.  You can’t complain about a FREE social media service and then turn around and gripe about it when you’re not using it correctly!  Take a class, read a tutorial, ask a friend…but don’t rant about how it operates when you’re not operating correctly. 

People have almost limitless choices for journalism today. Traditional mediums are still around (maybe temporarily…it’s yet to be the end of the newspaper) and ethics in all mediums are still very important.  But the way ethics is defined has also changed.  People are more “tolerant” (for lack of a better word) towards what is acceptable because we want to KNOW everything immediately.  We will follow a story and repost it ourselves, without checking facts. We want to be the FIRST one to share it.  Heck, we’ll just go check snopes.com later to see if it was a “real” story.  So has our requirement for ethics softened?  Are we going to tune into MSNBC and watch Brian Williams for the news or to see how he handles being back on the air? How does our attitude towards journalism define our own ethics as a consumer of media?  Maybe that’s the better question to ask since we are truly in control of our journalistic behavior. 

Journalism: Where Are We Going?

Jake Zuckerman

jz673213@ohio.edu

@jake_zuckerman

In 1964, a Canadian professor named Marshall McLuhan wrote a book titled, “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.”

The book landed McLuhan a spot in the annals of humankind as the pioneer of media studies; today, as the digital revolution sweeps the planet, it might be high time we pull it off the shelves and use it to figure out how to save journalism.

Marshall McLuhan - Source: Aldea Villana

McLuhan’s most oft quoted – and pithiest – line is, “The medium is the message.” Meaning that content is not what’s important; what’s important is how that content is accessed.

While a pure McLuhanian approach is a bit radical for journalism (the news does) matter, there are still lessons to be learned from his book. Namely, the way people access the news is changing. If journalists won’t change how they package the news, they’ll become obsolete, a forgotten relic of the early 21^st century.

One key player to saving the news is one of the media titans often accused of killing it: Google. Critics of Google’s say that the site is butchering news-gathering because it plays into the human psychology of the availability bias. However, according to an article by The Atlantic, this is dead wrong. They argue that Google exists in a symbiotic relationship with quality journalism; if one loses value, so does the other.

In an op-ed withThe Washington Post, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt wrote, “We send online news publishers a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than three billion extra visits from our other services, such as Web Search and iGoogle. That is 100,000 opportunities a minute to win loyal readers and generate revenue—for free. In terms of copyright, another bone of contention, we only show a headline and a couple of lines from each story. If readers want to read on they have to click through to the newspaper's Web site.”

Eric Schmidt - Source: The Guardian

Just as Google needs the news, the news needs Google. More specifically, the news needs to find a way to sell itself within Google. They need to know where their audience is coming from, and now how to pull them to their site from said medium or platform.

The American Journalism Review also published a similar article, saying journalists are going to need to adapt. Their ideas: journalists considering and marketing themselves as service providers, not content providers; a focus on social media (where most their site entrances come from); better market segmentation; and better website metric analyzing software to track user behavior.

The pathway forward is unclear, but what needs to be left behind is. Journalists are no longer men sipping whiskey at their desks, clickity clacking on typewriters, smoking cigarettes as they race to make deadline.

There is no more deadline, because deadline implies an end. Stories get updated, they get shared, they’re a forum for discussion below­ the article.

Bob Dylan once sang, “You better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times they are a’changin’.” It’s time for journalists to start swimming, otherwise we’re all going to sink like stones.

What's The Next Big Thing?

Raquel Richards
rr150811@ohio.edu

When it comes to the next big thing, it sounds like everyone has it. Apple recently released the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus claiming it's "Bigger than bigger."Not too much earlier, Samsung released the Galaxy S 5, saying "The Next Big Thing Is Here." These two brands seem to be taking over the cell phone industry, but it doesn't stop there. Apple is much more than a cell phone, and Samsung is starting to expand into new areas. Everyone wants to be the next big thing.

In the news world, we are constantly looking for the next big thing. Marketers have looked beyond radio and television, and looking for the newest way to target audiences. It is no longer about being the front page of the newspaper, or the first commercial after a show, it has become how many followers you have and how many people you can reach out to.

I am going to look at my local radio station and how they are using the latest social media, and making it the next big thing for their advertising.

WEBSITE

WQMX is a local radio station in the Akron area. Their website is booming with opportunities to enter in contests, win prizes, meet the hosts, and see local events going on that the station sponsors. Right on their front homepage, they have a link to all of the other social media they reach out to, and their phone number so you can call to be on air or request a song. It is rare these days for companies not to have a website, so while this wouldn't be considered "the next big thing," they have utilized it to gain more attention in their new forms of media.

TWITTER

Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/949WQMX

WQMX uses their Twitter to personally connect with listeners and make them aware of opportunities to win tickets. As you scroll through their feed, you can see how they retweet their audience, respond to some of their comments or requests, and support country singers. Blake Shelton is a judge on The Voice, and you can see WQMX retweet things about him and his team, and even encourage listeners to vote for his team. WQMX has used their Twitter in a new and dynamic way. With over 9 thousand followers, they can be quite effective.

INSTAGRAM

Retrieved from: http://instagram.com/wqmx

When you look at WQMX Instagram, you can see the fun way they interact with their audience. The employees will post personal photos at the concerts and events they sponsor, they promote upcoming events, sometimes they post a "Quote of the Day," and they'll even post pictures of listeners who got to meet country singers. Their fun approach to their Instagram is obviously effective with over 1.6K followers. The opportunities they have to connect with their audience is endless, and this is what is becoming the next big thing.

WQMX is also on Facebook, Pinterest, Flickr, and YouTube. They are taking the right steps in becoming the next big thing in news in media. By keeping up with the latest trends, they stay up to speed with their audience, and ahead of the competition.