Blog Assignment 5

After reading John R. Henderson’s tutorial on how to recognize reliable websites vs. junk, I realized that many of my own web searches aren’t formatted properly. Research is far more efficient when you begin at a library website, rather than typing keywords into Google just because it is easier. Also, paying attention to the details of a website, currency, graphic presentation, good grammar, and correct spelling are easy things to look for that show the reliability of a website. Paying attention to the authors of the website is important, too, since these are the sources delivering the information.

After reading the tutorial, I visited a few websites to question whether or not the sites are reliable. Some sites seemed to be authoritative, like History.com’s “The 1960s.” I think this website can be held reliable for the information it publishes because the History channel is a well-known source for having accurately produced documentary and content. In addition, the content on the website was not out-of date. Also, the website has a sophisticated, advanced layout and a neatly organized graphic presentation, which seems to me was produced by an official webpage designer, not someone sitting at home in their basement. 

This was the vibe I got from “ThePsychedelic ‘60s.” Though the website URL says it is from Virginia libraries and is a “.edu” website, the layout seems to be very handmade, and has cheesy rainbow-colored graphics. Also, the links to information are labeled with strange headlines like “Illicit Drugs” and “Hippies,” and the descriptions of these are almost stereotypical and include curse words. Though the site appears to be from a reliable source, I probably would not trust the information according to Henderson’s tutorial.

Another sites headline, “Flower Power: An America 1960sMovement,” comes from www.proflowers.com, a site that I have used before to browse flowers online and send to a recipient. The flowers are nice, but is the content? The article “Flower Power” was written in 2010 by a source that I have never heard. However, the article does link to several different sites about the sixties. I am unsure if these websites are reliable, but as far as this particular webpage goes, I would trust that the information is probably right, but I wouldn’t base my research off it. Once again, this seems to be a commercial website, though not as cheesy as the “Psychedelic ‘60s,” this site seems to be using content to promote the sell of flowers rather to inform an audience.

“The American Cultural History” seems to be a reliable site because it is from a school library and is a “.edu” site. The information seems to be up to date, though it is mostly historical information. I think this is one of the few sites I would use to base research off of. The webpage is organized and the graphics seem appropriate for the webpage, and I don’t seem to recognize typos, which Henderson recommended we look out for.

“The Sixties” is also a school library website, fromMiami. This is a “.edu” website, so at first glance, I would think it is reliable. Then, I analyzed the graphics and the presentation of the website, which is organized and up to date. The website has the author’s names published on the first page, and very clearly. The authors are all recognized as “Dr.,” and have categories next to their names (History, English, and Biology) that reassures the viewer that the content of the website is coming from a reliable source. I would also use this site for research purposes.

The last website that I analyzed was “The SixtiesProject.” This website is from a Virginia school (another .edu website), that is headlines “Sixties Survivors,” “Scholars,” and “Casual Surfers.” The website seems very laidback, which makes me not trust it at first, but then the website provides links to bibliographic material, filmographies, primary documents, and book reviews- all of which appear to be reliable, trustworthy sources. The website doesn’t look professional and seems to be mostly directed towards commentary and audience interaction, which doesn’t always leave a lot of room for trustworthy texts. I would explore this site, but I would make sure the information I site seems trustworthy. 

Meghan Allen on the Future of Journalism

Meghan Allen, a UMass Amherst journalism major, tells why she got into the field and what she thinks the future of multimedia journalism is.

Blog Assignment 4

After reading “For More Pianos, Last Note is Thud in theDump,” by Daniel Wakin, and watching the video content that went along with the story, I was very pleased with the product.  It is an interesting story in text- pianos on death row after expiring and being replaced by the more affordable, fixable digital pianos that don’t need nearly as much caretaking. The article points out that thousands of pianos are going to their graveyard, and now, piano-movers find themselves moving anywhere between five and ten pianos a month, to the dump!

The text of the article summarizes that perhaps the economy is to blame for the pianos demise. People no longer can afford to furnish their homes with such magnificent pieces of entertainment in world where nearly every source of entertainment, even pianos themselves, and be made digital. Or perhaps it is cuts in musical education within schools, or the feel of competition in other subjects that distract from the very historical practice of learning music.

However, I don’t think the article would be nearly as interesting without the video footage. We see pianos smashed in pieces, we hear the trucks backing-up into the dump to drop pianos at their final resting place, and we hear someone speaking about the tragedy of it all while soft music plays in the background. The video is very nostalgic, and it seemed to me more like a reminder of the beauty of the past rather than the amazing progression digitalization has had over the past few decades.

The video focuses on Bryan O’Mara’s job- to deliver pianos to the dump. What I like most about the video is the soft piano music that plays in the background, while still hearing the crushing wood of pianos inside a construction truck. I found the video to be very well conducted. I think having O’Mara’s interview, soft piano music, and the sounds of trucks delivering and crushing pianos as the only audio sounds in the video, makes the article come to life.

The article puts into text a brief history of the popularity of pianos centuries ago, and how pianos were basically a necessity for entertainment in many homes. The article then tells how pianos are becoming more digital because they are cheaper to manufacture and don’t need as much caretaking or restoration as older pianos. Because of the thousands of moving parts, pianos are expensive to repair and finding a laborer for the job can be just as difficult. This was the main theme I saw in the article, but I don’t think it is possible to write an eye-catching story about music or instruments unless the story is accompanied by noise. Here is where I think the audio in the video is most important. I watched the movie after I read the article, and I was able to get a feel for just how sad this story actually is. It is not about the progression of affordable music making, but rather the sad death to a musical classic.

The video was effective because it puts the text of the article into a reality, and the package as a whole is very compelling. In this sense, I really like that the video shows pianos going to their graveyard as slow piano tunes play with the crushing noises of their destruction. Additionally, the package as a whole was effective. Without the text, I would just think few pianos go to the dump yearly and that they are still a beautiful furnishing to a home. The text makes the reader realize the magnitude of the issue behind the story. 

Blog Post 3: The Use and Ethics of Social Media

As journalists, it is imperative that we understand the correct way to use social media. Social media includes sites like Twitter, Facebook, and even our own blogs and how we interact with other blog forums. The McAdams and Briggs readings summarize what I think to be a very important point in the world of social media journalism. This point is that social media is an important part of today’s world of journalism; it serves as a medium to connect with other reporters, a way to communicate easily with readers, and permits a much larger audience. Social media is now more productive than it has sever been, but how great is it? Where do we as journalists draw the line? Is “retweeting” on Twitter something really as simple as reposting a previous thought, or does it open up a platform for all types of scrutiny? Are our biases revealed through what we “like” on Facebook? Social media stirs up a series of questions that have the potential to jeopardize a journalist’s reputation but must be taken seriously in order to avoid as much conflict as possible. Though conflict on social media sites is nearly inevitable.

Though social media can be dangerous for journalists, it also has many advantages and is an important tool for what we do. Social media is great for getting information out as fast as possible, but making sure that information is accurate the first time we post or retweet it is even more important. Journalists should use Twitter at the same time that they would publish something. I think news is only worthy to be published and then spread, tweeted, and shared when all the researched information is gathered and the report is reliable.

It is also important as a journalist to keep personal opinions out of your Twitter and Facebook accounts. If it is a personal account, people are free to say what they want, how they want, and when they want. But this comes with a lot of responsibility and a lot of backlash. This is why it is important to separate the personal and the opinion from the factual and the newsworthy, when it comes to news writing and reporting. Unbounce, an online blog, discusses this is more detail- read and leave comments and what you think is "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Social Media."

In terms of Facebook, the pages you like and the stories you share, even status updates, have the ability to affect what your audience thinks of your writing. As journalists, we are supposed to be objective, and our opinions have to remain to ourselves when we are discussing topics on such large forums with broad audiences.

Journalists have to listen to the issues that they are reporting on, particularly when they are reporting within social media sites. The context of the event has to be paid mind to, as “Fox’s Social MediaGuidelines” points out. “Don’t be a Dumbass,” as Fox says. Know that what you are saying has the potential to be seen by a lot of people, and that there is a responsibility to having such easy access to this privilege. When it comes to privacy settings, journalists have to pay attention to what they are exploring. Whether or not something is shown publicly on Twitter or Facebook does not make it eligible for public content within a story that the journalist writes. A recent article from CNT discusses how privacy settings are becoming even more unclear for users. There is a lot of grey area when it comes to this subject, since what we see on social media is can easily be assumed to be public knowledge. But is it ethical to spread this information if the content risks raising danger to the subject? Journalists have to be able to recognize that social media is simply an outlet, and that anything can go into it and will remain there until filtered out. 

But most information remains in the limbo of the grey area, whether in a Tweet, a retweet, a Facebook post, status, or a liked page or group.  I’m not sure if there will ever be an established set of ethics within social media reporting. And even if there were a set of rules, the decisions made are ultimately determined by the journalist themselves.

Blog Post 2: California School Hosts Mock Massacre

A recent article published on DailyMail.com caught my attention as it presented that a California school hosted a federal funded mock massacre to try to teach students and staff what to do in the case of a school shooting.

The article, titled "Terror stalks America's Schools" includes video footage of the mock massacre, during which students run and scream from two actors posing as gunmen, who shoot at students during their lunchtime break.

The mock massacre aims to inform students and staff how to react in the case of a mass shooting in the school environment, but the film has created a lot of controversy as the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting still remains a painfully fresh memory for many American's. Of course it is only right to be prepared for these kinds of events from now on. Sure, drills should be revised and practiced within schools, but creating a dramatically truthful mock massacre film to practice these measures seems to be a bit too much.

Students in the video are seen being shot to the ground and covered in painted-on blood as police and swat-team actors flood the scene. The film will soon be distributed to schools and law agencies nationwide.

The article interviews some people who contributed to the video as stand-in victims or student posers, and some their reactions were just as strong as if the situation were real. Those involved in the mock massacre tape described their experience as "heart racing"and said they "felt helpless."
I think this story sheds light to the measures we as a community need to take after the recent Sandy Hook shootings, but there is also a much larger problem here that the article does point out. Does creating a mock massacre film serve as a possible imitation stunt that can actually encourage such crimes, much like violent video games and cinema movies are accused of doing?

The controversial debates following the Sandy Hook shootings blamed gun control and children's exposure to violent video games and television. Many are questioning the good and bad of exposing students and staff to a mock massacre, and whether or not the footage will really make a difference during a time of such fearful panic.

My beliefs are that the media is responsible for most of what is going on in today's society. Television programs, video games, and even some journalism articles (like my last blog post about ethics in the media) have incorporated too much violence. Massacre trials for school shootings seems to me to be too disturbing for children and adults. If anything I think the footage serves as a stepping stone for bringing the fake film to life.

My question for these mock massacre movie makers and to you viewers is this: does video footage of a fake school shooting serve as prevention for future incidents, or does it serve more dangerously as a catalyst for violence in schools across the nation? Leave your comments on what you think.

The Ethics of Online Journalism Revealed through Tragic Story

A few weeks ago, readers were shocked by publication of a news story of DailyMail.com involving a mother who brought her three-year-old son to get tattooed. The incident reportedly occurred in Cuba, but that remains to be determined. 

This story caught my eye immediately because I was appalled to see that the online news source published multimedia footage along with the story. Originally posted on Facebook, two minutes of video footage showed the young child screaming in agony as he was restrained during the tattooing, and later the video went viral on Youtube. It seems almost inevitable that in today’s world of journalism, where nearly everything can be and often times is published online, that stories about children won’t get thrown into the mix, but how far is too far? 

The story had many comments from readers who were “disgusted” or “sickened” by the story and even more so by the footage that was included with the story and shared on YouTube and Facebook. Many argued that if the incident had occurred in America that the mother would be brought up on many chargers. But I think the bigger argument is that we as journalists post this kind of footage of children being tortured onto the worldwide web, where it then becomes available to anyone and everyone with access.

I think the media took this story too far, in terms of the safety of the child and the security. As journalists, the ethics of the media are determined by us. There needs to be an effort to distinguish which stories journalists pick up and with what footage, if any. Of course a story will gain a lot more viewers by including video footage, since the story itself seems unimaginable and the footage makes it real. 

Surely one of the most important parts of a journalist’s job is to let the world know that these sorts of things are going on, even if the story sheds negative light on children. But including video footage of such vulgar and disturbing content is unnecessary to give the media...though video proof of the story sure does make for tons of viewer trafficking.

Finding the fine line within the ethics of media in terms of the security and safety of children is hard and does seem obvious at times, but ultimately is blurred and comes down to personal beliefs. Take a look at the story and view the video footage and comment here what you think is right.

Check out the comments left by more viewers, which speak a lot of truth to whether the footage should have been published in addition to the story.

And make sure to visit mediaethicsmagazine.com about the ethics of journalism in the media.