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?

To Blog or Not to Blog?

          While reading chapter 4 of Brian Carroll's Writing for Digital Media, I thought that it was really cool that I actually hyperlinked my sources in my first blog post. He talks about how important it is and how adding hyperlinks to primary sources gives someone's site more credibility. I actually only hyperlinked them after seeing that someone else had done the same. Realizing that it could be done, I played with my settings on Blogger and found out how to do this!

          Another thing that I thought was pretty coincidental is that Carroll referenced Jeff Jarvis in chapter 4 while talking about his golden rule of hyperlinking: "Link unto others' good stuff as you would have them link unto your good stuff", and that I had embedded a video of Jarvis speaking about the decline of newspapers in my previous post! I think I am definitely on the right track with this whole blogging thing, according to Carroll at least.

          Later on in the chapter, Carroll compares websites and what he thinks are good headlines as well as general layout of the site. I thought this was specifically interesting and relatable since Furman University (aka the school I attend) has just redone their website. It is incredibly more visual and aesthetically pleasing compared to the past site. My friends and I used to joke that to get anywhere within the Furman site, it would be easier to just google it rather than search using the site. With the new design, the website seems to be much easier to navigate as well as keep the attention of any user that is on it. Should websites cater to this new era or stay with their roots? Why or why not? What are the benefits of each side?

          Later on, in chapter 7, Carroll discusses the evolution of the blog and the advantages that it has. Specifically, he discusses the debate between journalists and bloggers. Are bloggers journalists or vice versa? He uses the analogy "is anyone with a camera a photographer?" (146). I own a camera and do take pictures. I consider myself a photographer. I may not be the best, or even an amateur, but I am a photographer. I believe the same to be of bloggers. Journalism, to me at least, is a level of blogging that some people aspire to be. They are journalists in the big world, who work for newspapers and big companies, but they all had to start somewhere. I think that journalists are people who are employed, while bloggers can earn money too, they are just self-employed if they devote that much time to it. Why should bloggers be considered journalists or vice versa? Should there be a standard?