Frontline: Commentary and Observation

My first observation was that there were plenty of opinions as to where media is going in the next few years. However, I think the commentators all agreed on two things. One: there is, and has been, an inevitable shift in the way media functions. Two: we are living in a a time where "news" is being redefined (if it has ever even really been defined).

Jeff Jarvis was talking about how in this explosion of online media tools and Internet access "anyone can do journalism." The Latin root for the word for journalism basically means "day" or "daily." Being able to report on the events of a day is now open to anyone and I think his statement is so true these days if people have the equipment and passion to document. Not only are we now able to report on the events of a day, thanks to all these media outlets, but can get hourly updates or even minute-ly updates. However, I think a lot of more renowned journalists were focusing on how this info-snacking type thing reduces quality and originality of information. This is definitely something to take into consideration. I also thought it was interesting how the producers of The Daily Show said their product is an indication of other people's failures, not their success. It really made me think about the news situation in this country.

Also, a lot of the speakers brought up the concept of niche. I think the buffet of news is great. There is plenty of news to go around, but readers just need to make sure they are being conscious when consuming content. Maybe a big corporation's story on a topic is better than a small blogger's. But maybe not. Maybe bloggers don't even consider themselves journalists (like that one group featured in Frontline). Regardless, I think in every career people get stuck with the "way" of doing things in their corporate culture. But it's the corporations that are constantly coming up with new ideas and taking risks that end up most successful. This is certainly the time to be creative and original with stories, design, and media tools.

Virtual Class 11/10

While we watch a typical hour of Al Jazeera English, consider the following and post your thoughts on your blog:

1. How effective do you think the Internet will be for Al Jazeera as it attempts to reach a U.S. audience?

I think it will be a little difficult for Al Jazeera to gain U.S. followers because people in the U.S. probably aren't used to the worldview the corporation presents. However, the internet will, indeed, provide a way for those who do want that contrasting outlook, to obtain ta non-U.S. perspective on the U.S. and the world. People are going to have to be open to another worldview if this ever goes to general cable broadcasting.

2. Based on your own observations, do you think that Al Jazeera English should be allowed to broadcast in the U.S.?
I think it would be beneficial to have something like this in the U.S. It seems like a good resource for world news, something I think the U.S. doesn't tend to cover a lot of in comparison to other countries (like the BBC, etc.) when it comes to out-of-nation stories. While watching some of the live streaming, a correspondent from The Washington Post said something like, people are going to avoid content they don't agree with and find a source that fits their outlook. I think that if it was ever broadcasted it would just be another option people can have in an an era where news is already fragmented.

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?
It talks a lot more about world news. Their reporters seem to be a bit more on the scene in Middle Eastern countries, I think. On CNN.com stories include the cargo bomb that was to be set off over the eastern U.S., women in U.S. Congress. It's important to know what is happening in our own country, but Al Jazeera's front webstie focus includes several areas including the U.S., Jordan, Iraq, the U.K. and China.

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?

Not perfectly, but I think they are trying. But I also don't really think any news corporation, in America is completely unbiased/sticks to their moral code either. Global Village commentaries, (or something like that) was a really biased segment, however. The webcam submissions were all journalists and they all had the same opinion: that commentary needs to stay out of the news and people can't sift through all the "garbage" of personal commentary and bashing campgaing ads.

I'm really glad we got to explore these sites. Besides the BBC, I hadn't ever really taken the time to watch other countries news stations. I also like the fact that this just streams right online. It's a convinent way to consume news. I think people get to set in "The American Way" mindset and sometimes forget that there are other world events out there going on. They even talk about world sports (cricket, soccer, etc) but also include sports familiar to Americans. I enjoyed the way they covered a variety of stories in an interesting way. It seems contemporary and forward.

Also, I don't know what I think about this, but when I watched they used three anonimity sources within about 30 minutes.

Soundslides

Organic produce the new Ritalin?

I found this Huffington Post article today on the

Washington State University news feed.

Dr. Walter Crinnion asks if organic food is the new ritalin...

Check it out here. What do you think?