We're going on a field trip Thursday...

Instead of meeting in Sturm, we're going to attend this panel on broadband access at Denver Open Media on Thursday. There is a panel from 2:30-3 on the development of broadband access projects supported by the Federal Government stimulus plan.
So we'll meet at the DOM studio--700 Kalamath/7th by 2:30. We'll talk details in class.

You are Invited to a Panel and Discussion Sponsored by Open Media
Foundation, Colorado Common Cause, and the Media and Democracy
Coalition:

“Bringing Universal Broadband to Colorado”
Thursday, January 28, 2010, 1-3 p.m.
The Studios of Denver Open Media, Denver, CO


Forty years after the invention of the Internet in the United States,
many regions of our country do not have access to affordable,
accessible broadband Internet. What was once a luxury service is more
and more indispensable to our lives – like a utility, like electricity
or water.

Please come to hear about plans to assure lower rates and fast service
for all Coloradans, and hear from the community organizations that are
working to make this vision happen through the federal broadband
programs.


Presenters:

Denise Atkinson-Shorey, Centennial Board of Cooperative Educational Services
Ken Fellman, President of the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
John Conley, Office of the Governor’s Office of Technology
Tony Shawcross, Executive Director of the Open Media Foundation
(more to be added)


PLEASE RSVP TO hmiller@media-democracy.net or call (215) 888-8036

Location: The studios of Denver Open Media
700 Kalamath Street
Denver, CO 80204

Panels will also be live on Channel 56 and rebroadcast on 57 and 219
(digital tier). For more information, contact Hannah Miller at
215-888-8036 or email hmiller@media-democracy.net.
Open Media Foundation: www.openmediafoundation.org

Cosponsored by the Media and Democracy Coalition
www.media-democracy.net

1991 v. Today

Tomgram

Maybe it is the cynic in me, but when I read the third paragraph quote from John Nichols, "On the eve of his recent sojourn in Europe, President Bush had an unpleasant run-in with a species of creature he had not previously encountered often: a journalist.” I started laughing. While I do not have any beef with GW Bush the man, I am about as opposed to his policies as one can be. Furthermore, I don’t have anything against conservatives in general, but reading about his administrations suppression of the media disgusted me. But hearing how the media responded to being kicked around without doing anything disgusted me more. It made me think of a dog cowering in front of an abusive owner in the hope of receiving a few scraps of rotten food.

What I feel even more than disgust is fear. The fact that, as supported by Andrew’s articles, major PR firms can leverage our elected officials and news media to get their way is very disturbing to me. What scares me even more is that we elected, twice, a man who invades countries because God told him to. Not that I have anything against God fearing Americans… I just don’t feel that one incapable of basic articulation and fact-based judgment should be President of the United States.

I read one article related to this topic from the Washington Post. It deals with a 20 million dollar contract put out in 2006 in an effort to get some positive PR from Iraq. The argument is that media was unfair in its coverage and only put out negative things from Iraq. I’ll leave it for you to consider.

Is it ethical for the government to pay PR firms to try and paint a positive picture to retain support? Or should their actions speak for themselves?

And now... my thoughts on some of Andrews questions (warning: I got a little preachy here)

Controlled News Coverage and Its Impact on the Public

-Should the public matter more in the creation of news? Should there even be creation of news in the first place? Rather than an objective telling of the facts, a great deal of what was reported as “news” in the first gulf war, especially that surrounding public support for the war, was, if not entirely fabricated, spun to the max. I do think that the public should hold more sway over what does and does not get reported. That said, it is only because there is a marketplace for smut that the issue of creationism in the news even comes to the fore. If the public could diverge its attention away from the gossipy world of “breaking news” (especially about young boys in balloons) and immerse itself in the work of good investigative journalism and fact-based reporting, the news media institution itself would have to shift its focus.

-How do the spiral of silence and rally around the flag theories interact? What do they create? Because of media reach in today’s society, I think it has a tremendous impact on what is perceived as popular and important. The rally theory supports my view that it is standard in times of war for citizens of a given country to inhale a deep breath of nationalism and exhale patriotism; the news media is not excluded from this movement to support for ones leaders. The desire to be included in a community is part of human nature. Therefore, if the majority supports one opinion, those who like to consider themselves part of the majority group will join them. Individuals who do not join, and consider their opinion to be unpopular will often remain silent, and the pattern will repeat, thus the spiral of silence. This polarization of full support or dead silence allows for the creation of an artificial power. The majority group can push its agenda because most who hold opposing views stay silent.

-What difference does new media make with regards to war? An individual’s ability to fact-check online and post questions is a key difference. Additionally, the ability of citizens in a war zone to report the goings on creates a new kind of accountability. Just recently, when German soldiers blew up a gas tanker that had been stolen in Afghanistan, people immediately began taking pictures with phones and posting them online. At first, Germany said that they had killed mainly militants, but the pictures told a different tale.

PR in the First Gulf War

Have PR firms and politicians managed to take hold of news and information? Successfully? I think PR has taken control of the news and the politicians. I am less inclined to think that all of our elected officials are lobbyists. The comprehensiveness with which PR firms built support for Desert Storm is staggering and confirms the strength of their hold on the media. I found the bit about t-shirt very interesting in this article. As a student, I do not tend to worry about who may be behind my free clothing.

Tomgram

-Have politicians found an effective way to control the press's check on government power? By keeping their hands tied, and their eyes covered, the government has done a tremendous job of curbing the press’ ability to hold them accountable. I do not think that it would take very much for the press to break their restraints and do some good reporting. Furthermore, I think that the Obama administration’s move toward more transparency will allow the press to ask more of the hard questions that were forbidden during the Bush reign.

-How did acceptance of the Bush doctrine lead to a problem in the media? It led to a loss of quality journalism. The media readily reported facts from the Bush White House without doing even simple fact-checking work. They got lazy and allowed themselves to be pushed around. The fear that doing good journalism would get them excluded led many papers to settle for mediocrity and inaccurate information.

1991 Gulf War v. Iraq War (Andrew Evans)

Gulf War: Controlled News Coverage and Its Impact on the Public ***please read***

I. Public Opinion
-The public opposed the Gulf War as late as the day it started.
-This image was not shown by the news outlets.
-Less than one percent of news outlets claimed there was opposition to the war (257)
-After the war started debate ceased and the nation supported the war

II. Press
-News Outlets framed the war positively
-did not report the opposition
-continuous coverage of war attached with "primed messages"
-characterized congressional dissent unfavorably (275)
*independent coverage= difficult as access was limited
*The Pentagon Achieved high media control
*stories during war were often changed to reflect message

III. Military control
-directed media message (271)
-technical jargon created confusion and influenced the press's message (278)

IV. Technology
-continuous coverage reiterate bias
-live coverage backed up message (272)

V. The Press and Theories
i. Rally around the Flag: present during the war
-supported Bush's policies rather than those of the Public
-The public changes its opinion based on the bias of the press. The more biased, the less/more favorable an opinion will be (262)
-need for strong support of the president lead to favorable opinion of the elites and of George H.W. Bush (262-263)
-people accepted the media and reverberated its message once the war started

ii.Spiral of Silence: pre-war with influence during the war
-public opinion is influenced by self-censorship and a limited number of messages in the media(263)
-media and individual= create opinion (263-264)
-with the media supporting a positive message and the individual supporting other ideas, the apparent gap between the majority and the individual widens (265)
*representation of a majority consensus acts as a gatekeeper: people create stereotyped worlds and the media forms them (266)

X. Questions
-Should the public matter more in the creation of news?
-How do the spiral of silence and rally around the flag theories interact? What do they create?
-Should the media find other routes for information?
-What opportunities did the media have to obtain unbiased information?
-What difference does new media make with regards to war?
-The authors suggest that such factors can play a role in creating opinion of the war. Was this true of the Iraq War or the Afghanistan war at the turn of this century?

X. PR in the First Gulf War ***please read***
i. control of politics
-PR firm Hill and Knowlton, contracted by the Kuwaiti government, lobbied to obtain politicians support
-directed their efforts at key Republicans, and notable Democrats
-chief of staff connected to Bush
-input of information at conference on Iraq's human rights
-Bush repeated story supplied with firm involved

ii. press
-Hill and Knowlton tried to direct public opinion through media
-created dozens of PR videos that were played by major media outlets
-during war military tried to control image
-released information and videos that toned down civilian casualties and played up reasons for attacking
*created the illusion of a clean war when over 100,000 civilians are killed

X. Questions
-Have PR firms and politicians managed to take hold of news and information successfully? How does this effect the press's check on government?
-Do the large media outlets exaggerate the effects of these politicians and PR firms.
-Do traditions allow for media to latch on and further fabricate an image?


X. Tomgram
I. Bush
-fundamentalist who relied on faith-based intelligence and truth
-disregarded medias "quest for truth"
-critical of media organizations that did not support his policies
-controlled access to information

II. press
-in time of crisis
-large media outlets supported Bushes views in a need for acceptance by administration
-only started to bring skepticism back from the margins after the Iraq war started to go badly

III. Effects
-press seen not as legitimate but for entertainment value
-hampered the medias check on government for a time

X.Questions
-Have politicians found an effective way to control the press's check on government power?
-How did acceptance of the Bush doctrine lead to a problem in the media?
-What other factors are involved in large media outlets current crisis?
-Thinking back to class discussions. Why were media outlets more effected in this war than the Gulf War? How did new media play a role in that demise?

News Turns from a Lecture to a Conversation and The People Formerly Known as the Audience

The title given to this week’s discussion is “Rethinking the Public.” I think that we’re not so much “rethinking” the public as we are including the public. Rosen refers to news changing from a lecture to a conversation, which means two-way communication, a back-and-forth between not only journalists and an audience, but now between members of the audience as well. A shift has occurred from a top-down, vertical hierarchy of delivering news, to a horizontal flow that encourages participation. People have always reacted, discussed and debated the news and its coverage, but did so in private realms between known acquaintances. Now, that discussion is available in a public, online forum.

In response to one of the discussion questions, I think neither the audience nor the media has more power. I think it is now shared. Rosen calls it a “shift in power.” He relates to two comments that describes power moving away from the “centroids,” large, media outlets toward the individuals who are considered to be on the edge. These "edglings," or the public, share and participate through open technology. I personally don’t think one group or another has control, that control is moving, or even that it’s shifting. I think it is expanding to encompass all, the entire world community, including media giants, journalists and ordinary citizens alike. News and its power is no longer exclusive, like Rosen writes, but inclusive. The things that the news industry has lost, so to speak, from this evolution is its exclusiveness, monopoly, and primary decisiveness in choosing and publishing the news. The public doesn’t wish to control the media; they just want to be an active part of it, by “taking part, debating, creating, communicating and sharing.”

Both Rosen and another article I found mention that some of the fears of journalists and news organizations is that blogs will take over the news industry, drive it out of business and that journalism isn’t considered journalism if it doesn’t undergo an editorial process. The article I found said that neither is the case, nor will it ever be. The author of the article, J.D. Lasica explains that most viewers will get their “fix” from traditional news stories and that blogging complements the original coverage in more depth, with more analysis, alternative perspectives, and sometimes first person accounts (p. 73). It used to be that once news was printed, it was finished. This is no longer true, thanks to the creation of an active audience through blogs and threads on news articles allowing for comments online. The role of the press now is to encourage the conversation by prompting it with a particular story.

Another discussion question asks if journalists should feel threatened by the emergence of bloggers. The answer is no. Lasica also addresses something that was mentioned in one of Rosen’s blogs which is competing for readers’ eyeballs. Instead, journalism and blogging, as mentioned before, complement and play off each other and intersect. Blogging has expanded journalism’s role by making it more accessible and interactive. I think blogging makes journalism richer because news is constantly being updated and evolving through dialogue and it reaches a wider audience.

I think things have just evolved, not simply changed. Mentioned in the leader's blog, the publisher-audience relationship still remains, it is just now a loop, not a pipe. I think this change should be welcomed, in order to ensure a sense of community involvement. By encouraging this level of shared and active participation, I feel like it opens more opportunities for the public to be informed, especially when they can discuss, question, and learn about what most interests them, not what news media outlets think is important or interesting.

Questions:
1) What is the role of a blogger? What should it be?
2) What does it mean to be a member of the audience? Can there still be an audience even though they now are sharing and publishing their ideas?
3) Lecture is to audience as conversation is to __________?

Top Ten Ideas of ’04: News Turns From a Lecture To A Conversation

Themes

· News begins once its printed.

o Used to be that the news was finished once it was printed.

o New Journalism has feedback from audience that advances the story.

· Conversational vs Authority.

o Blogs put pressure on journalists because of the demand for news to be “conversational”.

o Audience’s demand for news to become more conversational is a result from a “shift in power”.

· Shift in Power.

o Puts more tools, choices, and media capacity in the hands of the people formerly known as the audience.

· Consumers use the internet to become active participants in the exchange of news and ideas.

· Bloggers.

o Post eyewitness accounts and photos about news events

o Help newspapers get more local in their coverage.

o Tell big media what the people are thinking.

Questions

1) Should journalists feel threatened because of the emergence of blogging?

2) How should big media adapt to the ongoing feedback from new media?

3) Aside from the writing format, what are some distinctive differences between bloggers and journalists?

The People Formerly Known As The Audience

Themes

· Blogging, Podcasting, Television, which was all once controlled by Big Media, has shifted partially to the audience’s control.

o Blogs extend freedom of the press to a wider audience.

o Podcasting lets people here each other’s opinions.

o The web lets people telecast their own video’s.

· Jeff Jarvis- If media control is given to the public they will use it, if it is not given to them then the big media will loose control.

· Tom Curley- users decide what point of their engagement will be in the new media what application, what device, what time, what place.

· Audiences want media to be better than it is, so they broadcast and publish independent work themselves.

· Dave Winer- Once control is given to the audience, they will never give it back.

· New Media has made the public more real, able and less predictable.

· We are each other’s audience.

o Communication between citizen-to-citizen (horizontal flow), is as real and consequential as the hierarchy of power (vertical flow).

o Publisher-Audience relationship remains, but it is a loop, not a pipe.

Questions

1) Who is more in power, the audience or media?

2) How does the big media try to mediate the audiences crave for power?

3) What are active audiences?

4) Do weblogs restore trust back into the media?

Andrew Evans Response Questions

I. Freedom of Expression

The zone for freedom of expression in America is much more complicated than Schudson hints at and has developed to include protection of speach within certain large perameters. The first amendment was originally interpreted in a restrictive manner. Cases ruled along the lines of William Blackstone's idea that speech should be promoted as long as it does not interfere with government activities, for which everyone was held accountable. This meant that the government and courts, while not resorting to the outright denial of printing rights, could take extensive action against the press. Eventually, the courts began to change their opinion of the first amendment and thus the law. The bad tendency test, which relied on the ability of speech to create harm, was proceeded by the clear and present danger test. Subsequent cases began to accept such developments. Due to these developments, freedom of expression means many different things. Under the tests and even cases that will need to be retried from previous interpretations, freedom is greatest among adults and dissipates with relation to age and situation, say government employment and media. Prisoners have the least rights. In the interest of the media, they are allotted nearly the same rights as government employees. Which means that media can print as long as it does not harm others, make false accusations, or commit various other acts such as violating statutory law. The supreme court has dealt with media extensively. The zone for freedom of expression is constantly changing and for media the current zone includes some limitations, many reasonable.

Against this backdrop, which developed with the development of the press and continues to do so, more freedom of expression basically means that anything that could potentially hinder the ability of the state to govern or even harm others. This would mean granting the media the ability to keep sources secret and operate with almost complete freedom. While sensationalism is great, harming others can be dangerous. For media and government relations, the freedom of expression currently granted has posed a problem. The Plame investigation has forced the government to tighten its control on information. Granting more freedom may jeopardize many even more. More freedom of expression would mean reducing limitations that allow government to continue unhindered and could greatly damage members of society.

II. Fair or Free

The idea that media can be fair or free relies on a spectrum created by either printing beliefs in a biased manner or accepting both sides and printing information that pertains to both. Either the journalist prints what they want or compromises and gives adequate treatment to both sides.

III. Form
Form is the style used to write a news report, either in the hard news style or feature format. It is the way in which the story is told. This comes in several different formats can be mixed but have, as Schudson mentions, authorized the journalist as an expert explaining which facts are most important (Schudson, 185). While many journalists do not see themselves as experts, they must be knowledgeable about what they are describing due to the need to present fact, leading to the connection between sources and experts.

IV. Culture
Cultural anamolies, events, people, or anything against the cut and dry idea of society, are present in the news. The relation between the widely held belief that Americans are too litigious and an anti-tort sentiment stemming from the idea that Americans are hard working individuals is present within the media. The Plaintiffs are often presented as trying to bilk defendants out of money. What Schudson claims is present with homosexuality is present with tort cases as well. Cultural anamolies do exist.

Beyond anamolies, the media has remained incorrectly silent during times of security, danger, and tragedy. It is my opinion that the media needs to be active. Times such as these see great government activity that takes away freedom in the sake of security. After September 11, the media stood by and watched as the patriot act was enacted and advocated for the war in Iraq. The opportunity was present to criticize the activities. As long as they do not interfere with legitimate efforts, they should do so. These times deserve media attention since journalists are willing and capable of criticizing the government.

V. News, Emotion, and the Attention Span

Humans definitely develop an emotional attachment to news. Schudson remarks that the personality, voice and looks of the local anchor mattered most in television news (Schudson, 172). This meant that an emotional connection was made to the person. Researchers note that not only can newspapers connect with individuals but that even advertising can promote a response.

VI. Changing Papers

Catering to an audience of readers, extensive or mixed, means providing what is necessary and safe. In this instance providing relevant and substantive information is important. This allows for the time-filling function to exist while providing relevant information to the small number of individuals who need it. It also allows for the harm of sensationalism to be reduced. This type of news can change public opinion. While this can have obvious implications of society it also destroys the newspaper by advancing claims of cynicism. Newspapers can change to provide what readers want and reduce harm to themselves and society.

The People Formerly Known as the Audience: Rethinking the Public:

Chapter 9: The Audience for News

• Themes:
• Any news consumer has a range of consumption habits
• This includes TV, radio, newspapers, and now internet sources such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and various online news sites.
• There are no news consumers apart from the news
• This theme highlights the debate over whether journalists should cater stories to a specific audience. The chapter claims that this is not essential because without the news first shaping the stories, there would be no news consumers.
• Intensive v. extensive readers
• Intensive readers were the readers of the past who had a few and erhaps spiritual texts memorized and reread often
• The invention of the novel and newspaper led to the extensive reader who has read multiple books and papers less deeply but from a broader range of topics
• Emotional connection to news sources
• Often a newspaper or new anchor will develop an emotional relationship with the consumer rather than a disconnected, surface level relationship with the consumer.

• Questions:
• Should journalists reach for sensational stories or stories with substance?
• How should news sources adapt their delivery to still provide the public with news if the public has such a short attention span?
• Do we have an emotional connections with news sources? Or any other media outlet such as a magazine, television show, or Facebook?

Chapter 10: News as Literature and Narrative

• Themes:
• A news story is both news and a story
• Most journalists claim they just report the facts without recognizing the storytelling aspect of their job
• Implicitly or explicitly the writer learns to tailor the fact to a form and format in which their relationships will come to make sense
• Re-enforce morality issues and anonymities –
• For example: homosexuality in the news used to be an anomaly and example of a morality issue, now it is more common to see gays and lesbians covered in the news without commentary on morality
• There are different zones of journalists domain in terms of telling a story:
• Both sides (political argument)
• A culturally criticized group (sex offenders)
• A shared value category (sports).
• There are times when a journalist abandons the neutral stance- during tragedy, danger, natl. security and feel aligned with the general public
• For example, September, 11^th when tragedy, threatened national security, and danger were combined.
• Sometimes an urban symbol gets more media attention than a suburban community piece
• This is because it is a symbolic capitol and represents a community that doesn’t exist on the ground
• Questions
• What is form?
• Do we see morality issues in the media today that utilize cultural anomalies?
• Is it ok that journalist’s abandon a neutral stance of reporting during times of tragedy, national security, and danger?

Chapter 11: The Law, Democracy, and News

• Themes
• When a society enjoys an elected legislature and an independent press the consequence can be great, but there is no automatic link between press and democracy
• In history, very oppressive regimes had a press that endured censorship or was only a tool of propaganda
• In capitalism, publishers can sensor based on what will sell
• Debate over whether the government could constitutionally enhance public debate and discussion only by staying out of media regulation altogether?

• Questions
• This chapter claims that the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” does not provide the best environment for freedom of expression. If this is true, then what does?
• This chapter proposes, “News can either be fair or free, but not both.” Is this statement true and why?

leader and respondent schedule

Nate I moved your respondent date to March 2 because there was no leader for the date you were set to respond.

19 Jan
Leader Bianca
Respondent Andrew
21 Jan
Leader Nathan
Respondent Alyssa Weeks
26 Jan
Leader Andrew
Respondent Riley
28 Jan
Leader Alyssa
Respondent Joshua
4 Feb
Leader Alyssa
Respondent Josh
Leader Alex
Respondent Kacey
16 Feb
Leader Joshua
Respondent Alex
18 Feb
Leader Elizabeth
Respondent Bianca
23 Feb
Leader Alyssa
Respondent Jenna
25 Feb
Leader Riley
Respondent Elizabeth
2 Mar
Leader Kacey
Respondent Nathan
4 Mar
Leader Jenna
Respondent Alyssa

Comparing Articles: "Publisher Lays Out Plans to Save Newspapers" and "End of Journalism as We Know It"

In comparing and contrasting the framing of these two articles, it is clear that they both have two different  ideas of what the end of journalism means for publishers, journalists, and readers.  The first article, Publisher Lays Out Plan to Save Newspapers, written by Eric Pfanner, was published in the New York Times.  The second article, End of Journalism as We Know It, written by Kevin Marsh, was published in a UK blog titled The Guardian.
       The first article, written by Pfanner, is centered around Axel Springer, the founder of the German newspaper publishing business named after Springer himself. Written in a rather formal way, Pfanner explains that in this day and age, many people assume that online news should be free.  Springer says that he wants publishers to get paid for their work on the Internet.  Christoph Keese, Springer's head of public affairs, is quoted in the article by taking a jab at what he seems to be reffering to as the lack of quality in journalism today.  "A highly industrialized world cannot survive on rumors.  It needs quality journalism, and that costs money."
      Pfanner continues to frame the article around other people who believe that a change must take place for valued journalism to survive.  Pfanner uses strong words when talking about Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp.  "Rupert Murdoch...has been telling any one that will listen...." Those remarks suggest Pfanner does not care for Pfanner or has a strong opinion of him that may not be positive.  Later in the article Pfanner talks about Springers plans with Google and within the same sentence angles Murdoch in a bad light once again.  Pfanner writes, "...with Google, a company that Mr. Murdoch has accused of 'theft'." 

      The ongoing theme in this article is the idea that journalists should be rewarded for the work they are doing.  Pfanner writes that Springer and other people in his position agree that something must be done and a change must be made so that quality journalism can continue to be written.  The bottom line is that people should pay to read the news online
      The second article that was published in The Guardian, also talks about the change that is happening to journalism.  Marsh uses words such as "grim," to describe the collapsing world of journalism.  Yet he takes both the journalists stance and the stance of an average citizen by saying, "But, as citizens, we sometimes seem to like the idea that journalism is in trouble.  We are liberated from the dictates of a trade..."  The quote goes on, but clearly Marsh sees both sides of the story.  Marsh also mentions the public sphere wondering whether the "disaggregated web will support our acts of citizenship better?"  The article goes on to use the words "Powerful illustration" when Marsh talks about legislators and journalists in regard to their reactions about "self-published citizens."  The ongoing theme in this article was about the differences and struggles between "real" journalists and that growing population of "self-published citizens."  Where do these self-published citizens fit in on the web?  That is the question that Marsh tries to answer. 

Paper Prospectus

Paper Prospectus-Due Feb 4
The research prospectus should serve as an outline for your research paper. It should be 3-4 double-spaced pages and should include:
1) a clear statement of your research question;
2) a description of specifically what you are going to look at;
3) an outline of the literature that will inform your work;
4) a preliminary bibliography.

Final Paper
Aim
The purpose of this assignment is provide a case study of the changes taking place in journalism due to the proliferation of digital tools and networks. You should choose a topic that is compelling to you and aim to contribute to the overall understanding of the current journalistic environment.

Choose a networked journalism product, organization, idea, trend, or treatment of a particular story and evaluate it by comparing it to traditional newsmedia products and norms.

Structure
Your paper should be between 5-7 single-spaced pages and should use either APA or MLA style of bibliographic reference. All papers must build on literature in the field and include a literature review.

a. A thesis about what this comparison tells us about the networked journalism environment and how it builds on or challenges some of the ideas and theories introduced to in this class.

b. Historical background of the specific media product or outlet. For example, if you are studying a particular Website this section should include the history of that site—who started it, why, etc.

c. A description and analysis of the “text” or phenomenon.

d. A description and analysis of the social/cultural impact of this “text” or organization. In other words, why does it matter? What are its aims and what role does it play in local, national or global politics and culture.

e. A conclusion that discusses how this study contributes to our understanding of the networked journalism environment.

schudson discussion qs

Ch 4
1. What is the public sphere?
2. What does Benedict Anderson mean by the term "imagined communities" and how is news a kind of "performance art that enacts nationhood and national consciousness"? (68)
3. What is objectivity and when and why was it first adopted as a central tenant of journalism?
4. What are the costs and benefits of commercialization?
5. How did new technology influence the news in the early 1800s? (77)
Ch 5
1. What are two central criticism of journalism?
2. How does "Monicagate" exemplify the changes that have taken place in the news environment?
3. Do you agree that news media today are too critical?
Chapter 6-8
1. What are some of the constraints the marketplace imposes on journalism?
2. What can be some of the benefits of commercialization of news media?
3. What is pack journalism?
4. What's the problem with journalists and politicians belonging to the same "microcosm"?
5. What does Kernell mean by "going public"--why did it happen and how did it change the presidency?

Framing the attack on Togo

On January 8^th, the Togo national soccer team was attacked as it traveled by bus to the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola. The shooting happened in a contested part of Angola, Cabinda, which is separated from the main body of the country by the Republic of Congo. Shortly after entering Cabinda, militants opened fire on a bus carrying the team, killing two, and injuring many more. I chose two articles that took tremendously different approaches to the topic, though they were both written at roughly the same time on the 10^th of January.

The first article I will discuss can be read here.

This article takes a very opinionated look at Soccer as an institution. The title of the article is A Big Part of Life, and Now Death. The opening of the article states pointedly that world sports can no longer presume that they “are immune to terrorism.” The article continues on to defend the decision of the Togolese teams exit from the Africa Cup of Nations and draws a comparison with an incident involving an attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in March of last year. The article then segues into the author’s main theme. He begins discussing that today’s terrorist is no longer avoiding innocent populations at sporting events, but targeting them instead. Attacks on such large and public gatherings of people will focus world news coverage on the organization responsible. With the World Cup coming to South Africa in June and July, the articles framing is particularly relevant.

The second article can be read here.

In contrast to the other article, this article, originally published by BBC, is much more informational. The title is Togo leave as Nations Cup begins. The title says it all… the Togolese team withdrew from the tournament and went home though the tournament was still being held. The articles framing takes a more “play through the pain” rhetoric. By using lines like “last-ditch efforts to persuade Togo to stay and play on came to nothing”, the article establishes its perspective as one of quiet discontent. The author counters with a quote from the Togo sport minister saying “we can’t be in a period of mourning and at the same time be in a festival of sport.” The article makes a point of mentioning the support other African teams are offering the Togolese but also reinforces its recurring theme of discontent with their withdrawal.

Both articles are clearly framed, but I was surprised to see the US article take the high opinion stance even though Soccer is hardly a passion for most Americans. The BBC covered the story of the Togolese departure and has since moved onto covering the rest of the tournament. The BBC took a much more balanced approach to the topic by presenting both positive and negative opinions of the departure.

Examining the framing taking place on the Bill Ritter news coverage

Bill Ritter not running for re-election story:
Denver Post Article:
- Part of the obvious framing is the emotional element, pathos, stresses in making the reason for Ritter backing out of re-election being his reason to spend more time with his family
o Ritter is faded out in the photo his wife and daughter are in focus, both smiling at each other
- Opening line: “A confident and visibly relaxed Gov. Bill Ritter seemed lighter than he has in months as he announced Wednesday that he will not run for reelection this fall, citing the toll public life has taken on his family.”
- In terms of sources, the observational adjectives used make this article appear like a firsthand account of what the reporter saw happening as Ritter made the announcement.
o “Packed with supporters and beaming family members, the Capitol foyer erupted into raucous applause as Ritter entered shortly after 11 a.m.”
9NEWS Story Coverage:
- Very bare, basic, and factual, emphasizing logos, as opposed to the emotional appeal to strengthen their article
o Opening line: “Governor Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) formally announced Wednesday he will not seek re-election this November, confirming earlier reports.”
- Sources appear to be gathered news, there was a press conference and 9News claims to have confirmed facts with Ritter’s staff
- Virtually no commentary in terms of adjectives or emotional feeling
Rob Prince’s Blog:
- Takes in a majority of articles and in a more critical tone calls out the public to see what is really going on
o But what was missing from virtually all the commentaries, left, right or center …was the absence of any serious discussion of the political motives for what amounts to Ritter’s resignation. It’s as if the state’s media is all in league to fall in line behind a kind of non credible `party line’ accepting the governor’s stated rationale of wanting to spend more time with his family. I don’t doubt he wants to spend more time with his family, but please….
- Sources are varied as Prince cites that he has read most new stories on the subject, and cited the Westword for example.
- Prince clearly has the ability to make comments and observations that a typical news story would not, for example:
o “Bill Ritter is not a `bad guy’. He was a lousy governor.”
- This type of commentary is from both a personal perspective and includes vulgarity
o “I am already sick watching the way in which the discussions of who might replace Ritter as Democratic Party candidate for governor. It’s all the same backroom horseshit which has typified Colorado politics seemingly since the beginning of time (at least Colorado time).”
Overall here, the news coverage of Bill Ritter’s decision is framed in varying degrees of ways. The 9News story is very factual, lacking emotion and delivering the bare facts. It seems to represent the news in a bare way to lend ethos and credibility to the objective story, despite the quotes and sources being all supportive and lending sympathy and dignity to Ritter’s decision. In the Denver Post, the framing takes place in a highly emotional way including a visual picture of the Governor’s family in focus while Ritter is not, and a story heavy with ethos and adjectives to lend understanding and excitement to the story. In Prince’s blog, there is good dissection of the issues and some personal commentary that comes from Prince’s reading of several sources and extensive background knowledge of Colorado politics.

Framing of Palin Articles

The news story that I found was about Sarah Palin joining Fox News network as a political commentator. Both articles came from the same media source, online articles from news networks, but it was interesting to note the different frames between CNN and Fox News.
I thought CNN framed the article in a way as if to mock Palin for joining Fox News. The angle of the story was describing Palin as just another “Republicans-turned-TV talking heads.” Instead of discussing her background or what experience or commentary she can offer the network, they focused on listing other republican correspondents of Fox. The image used in this article was of Palin promoting her new book, which they mentioned in one sentence at the very end of the article. I feel like this demonstrates that CNN doesn’t view her as a political figure, described only as a “one-time Republican vice presidential nominee,” as much as they see her as an author just out to make money. This is demonstrated by one source they quoted came from Paul Begala, a CNN contributor, who said her decision is “indoor, lucrative work.” CNN also quotes Begala’s cynical joke about Palin “quitting” as Alaskan governor. Also, CNN doesn’t quote Sarah Palin or her written release about her new role at Fox. All of these types of framing demonstrated the CNN wasn’t really describing what Palin’s role at Fox News will be, but rather almost mocking her by congratulating her on her new “TV gig.”
Fox News, on the other hand, as the news organization Palin is now working for, framed the article in such a way as to glorify Palin. First, the image they add to the article was one of Palin during her resignation speech. I feel like by choosing this particular image, Fox is framing Palin as a legitimate and influential political figure and speaker; demonstrating that she is an obvious choice for their network to offer her political commentary and analysis. Contrary to CNN, Fox News writes the story from the angle of her political background as vice presidential candidate, governor and mayor, again defending that Palin is a great choice. Fox quotes Bill Shine, the executive vice president of their programming network and he says that Palin’s “dynamic voice” will add a lot to the news lineup. Fox also quotes a written release from Palin herself about her excitement to be part of a network that “values fair and balanced news.” Also, when this story was published yesterday, it was one of the stories posted on the website's homepage.

Frames Analysis: EPA Proposes Stricter Standards

The New York Times recently carried an article titled EPA Asks for Stricter Rules for Pollutants Causing Smog by John Broder which reported on the federal agencies proposal for tougher restrictions on smog causing pollutants. The article frames the proposal through a benefits trumping costs, environmentalist, and humanitarian standpoints. The article includes many key phrases that forward the humanitarian argument. Whereas a similar AP article does not mention the total estimated savings that could be acrued through health bills, Broder wrote that they would be between 13 and 100 billion dollars. In addition the article explains the health problems associated with smog. These include the development of asthma and premature deaths. The article makes the claim that as many as 12,000 premature deaths could be halted if the standards were enacted. In addition to the humanitarian standpoint, the article frames the EPA's proposal in a manner that promotes the benefits and limits the costs. Border downplays the cost in his sentences by following them with information portraying the benefits. This happens when he claims that "the new standard would force dozens of counties to meet the current law to take costly steps to get back into compliance" and follows immediately with the statement "still, the leader of an association of government air quality agencies welcomed the proposal." A similar statement is made when addressing the cost to oil and gas companies. After stating that the proposal would cost the companies between 19 and 90 billion dollars, Broder reported the total savings to individuals due to health costs. The environmentalist standpoint is also presented. Broder makes the claim that "smog is worse in the summer because of heat and sunlight, and can travel hundreds of miles from its source to pollute wilderness areas. Broder promotes the proposal through humanitarian, benefit over cost, and environmentalist frames.

The way that the article is written and its visuals further promote the EPA's proposal. The large visual at the top shows a smog covered city. This frames the proposal as beneficial with the hope of eliminating harmful clouds of pollutants as those pictured. Broder also buries a statement by the oil and gas industry and critics in the last paragraphs of the article. After explaining the science behind smog, Broder advances the claim made by an oil and gas representative that there is "no new scientific basis for change the standard." The New York Times article furthers the frames presented through the placement of paragraphs and visuals in the story.
The same story presented in the New American frames the proposal as costly and destructive to cities across the state of Texas and the oil and gas industry. The burden of the EPA regulation takes center stage in the article as opposed to the humanitarian and environmental stance forwarded in the New York Times. The article, written by Rebecca Terrel, claims that the cost of tighter regulations would cost the manufacturers between 19 and 90 billion dollars. The author included statistics about the effect of new EPA regulations on the small town of Waco Texas, a city akin to the size of those that many of the readers leave in. Terrel wrote that the town's ability to recruit industries would be greatly hindered. She went further by including a statement by Texas governor Rick Perry who stated that the regulations were based on false science and would have little benefit. He also claims that such a move should belong to the states. The cost is made even more important with the statements and facts coming from local leaders rather than oil and gas executives who made the same statements. The information is also framed in a way that makes it more relevant than the EPAs own supporting statistics. The EPAs statistics only include the amount of money that could be saved in health expenses dispersed over a large population. Statistics such as the possibility of stopping premature deaths are not included. Rebecca Terrel's article frames the EPAs proposal in a way that makes it appear overly costly.
The difference in evidence, visuals, wording, and the quality of information and sources help to establish the different frames. Both used information that supported their views. Whereas the New York Times article utilized scientific research as supporting evidence, the New American utilized statements by local and state politicians in Texas. The quality of information also establishes the frames. The politicians in Terrels story and the science in Broder's article help to firmly establish the author's views. The wording firmly implants the viewpoint that the quality of information and sources and difference of evidence forwards. Broder calls the Bush administrations proposal "too weak" and remarking on the positive progression of the EPAs ability to enforce air quality standards (Broder. Terrel's article remarks on the costliness of the proposal with buzzwords and phrases such as "increase costs to industry and local governments dramatically" (Terrel). Visuals further the point as well. Whereas the New York Times includes a large graphic of a smog filled city and a smog map, the New American has an almost noticeably tiny graphic of a smokestack directly to the left of the first paragraph. The differences between the articles firmly establishes the different frames.

Migrants leave Italian town

The two articles that I compared were the outbreak of violence over the migrant workers in Italy. The two sources that I drew the arguements were from CNN and FOX News.

The first thing that I noticed while looking at the article obtained by CNN titled "Migrants leave Italian town amid violence" is the picture. There is a picture of a clean up process, with gravel sprawled everywhere. The article then depicts the threat that thte Italian community had on the Africans, stating that if they did not leave, they would be killed. After reading much of the quotes and discriptions, it is apparent that CNN's main focus is the poorly treated migrants, and how the migrants did not provoke this violence. It gives an example of how an African man was shot, and the policeman did nothing, stating that it was the Red Cross's job to help the man. The article also describes the police's tactics for the violence--using tear gas and arresting the people. It the goes on to speak about the exploitation of the migrant workings and the working conditions they were forced into. CNN also focused on the idea that, even the new locations that the migrants traveled to, they were still not entirely safe from the violence. With most of the quotes being on the violence towards the migrants, it really showed how the migrants were clearly the victims of a situation that they did not provoke.


On the other hand, FOX News's portrayal of this story is radically different. Not only is the story much shorter, but there is no image like there is with CNN. By no visual, it either shows how the story lacks importance, or that the only images of the violence are not parallel with FOX's framing of the story. FOX News does not use as descriptive language. FOX News also claims that "Despite the migrants having forced open the gate, the Interior Ministry said in a statement that the migrants are free to leave the center, so police did not intervene." In this article the violence is less extreme than in CNN, and there are not as many quotes and characteristics to the scene as there is with the CNN article. It seems as though FOX News chose not to frame this story as delicately as CNN. A major factor that seperates the two articles is the fact that FOX News uses the term "illegal immigrants" and CNN uses the term "migrants". FOX News takes a different standpoint, stating that the residents do not what their country to be associated with illigal immigration, and that it should be restored to a tourist destination. FOX News also describes portrays the migrants responsible for this violence, and they also state that "The conservative government of Premier Silvio Berlusconi has been cracking down on immigration, which many Italians link to crime." Once again, this alludes to the idea that the migrants are not of any importance and that they provoked the violent actions against them, when CNN just about completely disagrees with this idea.