1. What (if any) are the ethical dilemmas faced by both filmmakers when shooting these documentaries?
*Do these people know how they are being portrayed? In Grey Gardens the women did not see that they way they lived was different from anyone else.
* In the titicut follies is there anyway for these men to really give their consent? The men shown had many kinds of mental illnesses. There is no way they would know what was going on. In both films the filmmaker probably struggled with weather or not their subjects knew what was fully going on.
2. Should they have used all of the footage or only some of it? How should that be determined?
*When doing a documentary everything is fair game. If the subject is doing something in front of the camera then it can be used.
3. What would you do as a journalist or documentary storyteller?
* In both of these films there was a very interesting yet sometimes disturbing story. As a journalist or documentary story teller, I think that a story should be told, but because documentaries are seen as art they can sometimes go further than a journalist can. As a journalist I would do feature stories, but because of a money and time factor the whole story may be hard to discover. A documentary storyteller has more time to learn about their subject.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Frontline
I was surprised to see that the creator of rocketboom did not think of himself as a journalist. Viewers and critics of the show put him into that catagory. This kind of situation can be dangerous. If viewers think a blogger or vlogger is fair and balanced, but the creator does not see themselves as a news source, people could be getting slanted information that they think is unbiased.
The producer of the daily show said somthing like he does not think the media is doing there job. I agree with where he is coming from. It seems like the media is tenative to report the government sometimes for fear of backlash. It is sad that any media outlit has to be cautious about what they print or report on.
CBS and ABC both have areas on their websites for viewers to add the content. I like the idea of people being able to report on things they have seen, heard, or experienced. Being a participant instead of just a consumer. Having these large media corporations facilitate these spaces allows information to be checked. I think that Americans can contribute a lot to our media today, reporting now does not have to be somthing that only a select few are allowed to do.
The producer of the daily show said somthing like he does not think the media is doing there job. I agree with where he is coming from. It seems like the media is tenative to report the government sometimes for fear of backlash. It is sad that any media outlit has to be cautious about what they print or report on.
CBS and ABC both have areas on their websites for viewers to add the content. I like the idea of people being able to report on things they have seen, heard, or experienced. Being a participant instead of just a consumer. Having these large media corporations facilitate these spaces allows information to be checked. I think that Americans can contribute a lot to our media today, reporting now does not have to be somthing that only a select few are allowed to do.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Mayor West
1. When referring to the allegation that Mayor Jim West was pursuing underage boys online, why do you think editor Steven Smith differentiated between a legitimate news story and one that is not legitimate when he said, "If he's [Mayor Jim West] engaged in this activity … we need to know that. If he's not -- there's no story" ?
*Steven Smith made this statement, because news is what actually happens not rumors about what happens.
2. How did reporter Bill Morlin justify the use of a concealed identity on Gay.com as part of The Spokesman-Reviews and the FBI's "sting operation"? Why didn't Morlin himself create the assumed identity to engage Mayor West online?
* Bill Morlin justified using the sting operation by saying that the Spokesman-Review has rules which do not allow him to lie about who he is to conduct the sting. He then said that there are no rules about hiring someone to operate the sting. Morlin could not conduct the sting because it was against guidelines that Spokesman reporters must follow,
3. Why do you think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties?
* After thinking about the decisions the spokesman review made concerning Mayor West, I can only deduce that they wanted to sell papers. This story was a big scandal, but I still do not think West was charged with any of the things the spokesman-review accused him of. If West has no charges against him, then why was this such a big story?
4. In the final analysis, who benefited from The Spokesman-Reviews decision to expose Mayor West and his alleged improprieties? Who was hurt? Do you think the outcome was worth it? Explain your reasoning.
* The Spokesman-Review benefited, because they made some money. The mayor benefited, because he does not have to hide that he is gay any longer.
*The Spokesman-Review was hurt because they did not really break anything except that the mayor was gay. He was not charged with rape which is what they accused him of, and he was not charged with molesting children, the FBI even stopped their investigation. I think that this story hurt their credibility, because everything they accused the mayor of was found to be false.
5. The Spokesman-Review has been criticized as conducting a "witch hunt" in its reporting on the private lives of some city officials. Below is a link to another recent article on Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch. Do you think that there are any ethical problems in the reporting in this story? Why or why not?
*Yes,a community should be able to trust their elected officials. If West did molest boys in the 70's then he should have been tried in court. The community should know about sexual predators. After the accusation West was never convicted, the paper should have reported on that just as intensely as the did the accusation. Sometimes when people vilify someone it is hard to be fair and balanced, but that was the journalists job. Ultimately I feel the journalist and editor failed at looking at all angels of the story.
*Steven Smith made this statement, because news is what actually happens not rumors about what happens.
2. How did reporter Bill Morlin justify the use of a concealed identity on Gay.com as part of The Spokesman-Reviews and the FBI's "sting operation"? Why didn't Morlin himself create the assumed identity to engage Mayor West online?
* Bill Morlin justified using the sting operation by saying that the Spokesman-Review has rules which do not allow him to lie about who he is to conduct the sting. He then said that there are no rules about hiring someone to operate the sting. Morlin could not conduct the sting because it was against guidelines that Spokesman reporters must follow,
3. Why do you think The Spokesman-Review ultimately published so many articles on Mayor West's alleged improprieties?
* After thinking about the decisions the spokesman review made concerning Mayor West, I can only deduce that they wanted to sell papers. This story was a big scandal, but I still do not think West was charged with any of the things the spokesman-review accused him of. If West has no charges against him, then why was this such a big story?
4. In the final analysis, who benefited from The Spokesman-Reviews decision to expose Mayor West and his alleged improprieties? Who was hurt? Do you think the outcome was worth it? Explain your reasoning.
* The Spokesman-Review benefited, because they made some money. The mayor benefited, because he does not have to hide that he is gay any longer.
*The Spokesman-Review was hurt because they did not really break anything except that the mayor was gay. He was not charged with rape which is what they accused him of, and he was not charged with molesting children, the FBI even stopped their investigation. I think that this story hurt their credibility, because everything they accused the mayor of was found to be false.
5. The Spokesman-Review has been criticized as conducting a "witch hunt" in its reporting on the private lives of some city officials. Below is a link to another recent article on Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch. Do you think that there are any ethical problems in the reporting in this story? Why or why not?
*Yes,a community should be able to trust their elected officials. If West did molest boys in the 70's then he should have been tried in court. The community should know about sexual predators. After the accusation West was never convicted, the paper should have reported on that just as intensely as the did the accusation. Sometimes when people vilify someone it is hard to be fair and balanced, but that was the journalists job. Ultimately I feel the journalist and editor failed at looking at all angels of the story.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
International News: Exploring News Beyond the U.S.
1. How effective do you think the Internet will be for Al Jazeera as it attempts to reach a U.S. audience?
I think the Internet will be very effective for Al Jazeera. I am just speculating, but I think that most people are turned off of the broadcast because of the name. The Internet will give people a chance to see what Al Jazeera is about. I don't think I would know about the station if I were not in this class. I wonder where people will learn about Al Jazeera online.
2. Based on your own observations, do you think that Al Jazeera English should be allowed to broadcast in the U.S.?
There is so much going on outside of the U.S I don't think they have to. When I watched the station there was information about War and Genocide that I had never seen in the U.S papers. I like how they don't focus on things that are going on here, because we have so many papers and broadcast stations that focus much of their news on the U.S.
3. What, if anything, do you notice about Al Jazeera's approach to telling the news? How is it different than the U.S.-based TV news outlets that you have experienced?
One thing I noticed is that the journalists were in the area's that they were reporting on. One reporter was shown talking to a man in an African prison, and also in an African Court Room. I feel like in the U.S news this same story would be shown with images and a voice over, but most likely not shown at all. I also experienced more violence than on U.S news stations. Right now so much of our news is about the U.S economy, I haven't heard much about other struggles people around the world are facing.
4. While on the Al Jazeera site, be sure to check out the network's published Code of Ethics. Based on your own observations, do you think they are adhering to them?
Yes, the stories I watched were diverse and seemed to be reporting on what was going on.
Russia Today
This station reminded me a lot of U.S news While I watched they discussed the upcoming Olympics, and also the NCAA tournament. They did have A U.S DJ talking about how Obama is a liar. I was surprised, I haven't heard anyone in the U.S openly talk about their distaste for Obama.
After watching these for 1.5 hours livestream would not re-open on my computer.
I think the Internet will be very effective for Al Jazeera. I am just speculating, but I think that most people are turned off of the broadcast because of the name. The Internet will give people a chance to see what Al Jazeera is about. I don't think I would know about the station if I were not in this class. I wonder where people will learn about Al Jazeera online.
2. Based on your own observations, do you think that Al Jazeera English should be allowed to broadcast in the U.S.?
There is so much going on outside of the U.S I don't think they have to. When I watched the station there was information about War and Genocide that I had never seen in the U.S papers. I like how they don't focus on things that are going on here, because we have so many papers and broadcast stations that focus much of their news on the U.S.
3. What, if anything, do you notice about Al Jazeera's approach to telling the news? How is it different than the U.S.-based TV news outlets that you have experienced?
One thing I noticed is that the journalists were in the area's that they were reporting on. One reporter was shown talking to a man in an African prison, and also in an African Court Room. I feel like in the U.S news this same story would be shown with images and a voice over, but most likely not shown at all. I also experienced more violence than on U.S news stations. Right now so much of our news is about the U.S economy, I haven't heard much about other struggles people around the world are facing.
4. While on the Al Jazeera site, be sure to check out the network's published Code of Ethics. Based on your own observations, do you think they are adhering to them?
Yes, the stories I watched were diverse and seemed to be reporting on what was going on.
Russia Today
This station reminded me a lot of U.S news While I watched they discussed the upcoming Olympics, and also the NCAA tournament. They did have A U.S DJ talking about how Obama is a liar. I was surprised, I haven't heard anyone in the U.S openly talk about their distaste for Obama.
After watching these for 1.5 hours livestream would not re-open on my computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)