Americas's Finest News Source

          In my last post, I talked about how I thought that radio was a two-way media. People could call in, get to ask their questions or request a song, and life would be good. Rettburg, however, has proved me wrong. In chapter four of her book Blogging, she starts off talking about how letters sent in and calls would be monitored and only select ones would be featured. This opened my eyes yet again on how media can control us. No matter what we say or send in, whoever is publishing that content can exclude our opinions. They pick the best of the best of who says good things about them. They are obviously not going to put in a negative review about themselves. Do you think that some media should find a way to publish all things sent in? Why or why not? What would come out of it?

          Later on, Rettburg explains a few ways in which blogs coincide with journalism. One point in particular really struck me. She explained that "blogs can give first-hand reports from ongoing events, whether wars, natural disasters, or crimes" (86). I watch a show called "The Newsroom" in which they recently reported on the Genoa case. They were struggling to find a reliable source, when a twitter feed came up. There were several tweets from one individual who was there, and he 'reported' what he saw. They used this information to justify their case against Genoa and to authenticate it. Later on in the chapter, it is mentioned how blogs are able to give immediate news. I compared this to the news site project we just completed in class. Those sites gave twitter feeds and showed their most recent articles that were posted. Blogs give a more immediate connection to those people who were directly involved. Instead of the information coming through a journalist, the eyewitness gives that information themselves. Rettberg finished the chapter with the very accurate statement that "blogs need mainstream media, and that today, the mainstream media also need blogs." (110)


          Kovach and Rosentiel talk about several things that journalists need to conform to. Those things are: "1. Never add anything that was not there. 2. Never deceive the audience. 3. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives. 4. Rely on your own original reporting. 5. Exercise humility." (78). I think that although these point all should be a given, they need to be declared. Many journalists, I think, need to be reminded of these morals. They should not try to deceive their audience, because that would lose them credibility and with that, readers.

          Later on, Kovach and Rosentiel talk about fiction as nonfiction. This reminded me of mockumentaries and docudramas. For instance, when I first stumbled upon The Onion, I had no idea that it was all completely made up. I believed some information about it and proceeded to tell my friend about this awesome story that I read. Later, much to my humility, I found out that it was all fake. I believe that media that does this should have a highly visible disclaimer, either at the end or the front of the page. What do you think? Should mockumentaries and docudramas have a disclaimer? Why or why not? Benefits? Costs?