Are We Doomed?

    Aren't we already doomed, hasn't our generation already killed and destroyed good journalism by wanting to look at sexual crap and reading about celebrity's and their lives? WE ARE DOOMED!! We come up with these really unbelievable stories and even the most random-est and stupid story can pass and go on the telly, newspaper, magazine, or especially social media websites.

    We all know the big story that came out a few weeks ago about the actress Angelina Jolie and her preventive double mastectomy she got to lower her chances of getting breast cancer. Admittedly there was buzz about great she is and then stories about Brad Pitt and how he protected and was by her side every step of the way surfaced. More and more stories spinned off from this one story and became more about her boobies then about what a remarkable, and courageous thing she did and to share her story for other women to be inspired and start thinking about breast cancer is a very again courageous thing to do. We make these really significant stories into these twisted unimportant, uninspiring things because we take them to a level where they just don't need to go.

The Most Read Stories in the last 72 hours on People.com

1

Kenny Chesney: The Moment That Changed My Life Forever

READ IT

2

Wow! Ireland Basinger Baldwin Shows Off Bikini Body in Hawaii

READ IT

3

PHOTO: Rob Kardashian's Slim-Down Revealed

READ IT

4

Robert Pattinson, Katy Perry Wedding Rehearsal Crash Was 'Extra Exciting'

READ IT

5

Katie Holmes & Suri Cruise Spend Memorial Day Weekend in Florida

READ IT

 














    You can even go on social media sites and see the most random-est stuff ever! For  example CNN Breaking News website you would think is a pretty political  and worldly channel/website, right? Well, not so fast you get the one story  of a lifetime; Beyonce get's her booty slapped! Really? This is CNN where  we get world breaking news from and we get stories on Under pressure, Facebook says they'll do more on Hate . That is a real social issue on which  tons of people are trying to stop, hate and bullying on social media websites, but we still get these booty slapping stories because that's the kind of stuff people want to see and watch. Newsrooms are going by the social media sites and the more, and more by the public then by their own investigating and real reporting.

    We're more interested by other's and their lives then our own and what's happening in the world. Since celebs are such an easy target we take their lives and we get interested in them and we write stories on these famous people and since they entertain us and gives us music and films and books we think it's okay to just bash and praise them as we, please. Jay Rosen's Pressthink last year posted something on today's journalism and says, " Journalism will improve when it is made more useful to people." and " The profession of journalism went awry when it began to adopt the View from Nowhere." Maybe those things are true? We seem to get are opinions these days from nowhere and with all this crappy "journalism" people find no reason to watch the news, or tune into the real important facts.

 

    When your a little kid your learning what is right and what is wrong. By the time your six or seven years old your becoming an independent adult and you start making your own decisions. When you little though you go be example of your parents and you listen to what they say and observe what they do. You get their own personal opinions on controversial things in the world and for awhile you agree with them because that's the only thing you. Then you grow up and you to school have a few adult conversations and your decisions or stents on these controversial topics changes.

    In journalism we have our own personal definitions of what is right and what is wrong, but when does that get in the way of our decision making process on writing a story, or even printing a story and do they even change our influences around us? I think that your emotions and personal definitions do get in the way of right and wrong decision making. It all comes back to you and how you now take these controversial topics. We all have loyalties to someone or a group of people and you want to respect those loyalties because they're all people, or someone you know personally and you want to back them up. Values are another big thing in this right, or wrong decision making, you have certain values you get from childhood and maybe they change, maybe not. As a human being thought you generally stick to those values since your childhood and those values plus loyalties shape your decision making.

    Now, we get into conflict of interest. Should journalists be allowed to put their personal opinion in their story? I feel that this conflict of interest and right or wrong really go hand in hand because you get your personal opinions from the right or wrong and then sometimes your personal opinion slips into your story that maybe your passionate about. You usually wouldn't do a story that your connected to, but sometimes it happens and I think journalists shouldn't be allowed to put their own personal opinion in their story.

    Let the people have their own stents on the issue at hand, don't push your own opinion on them because your want to, for example legalize gay marriage. I think people get to wrapped in their own opinions when it comes to delicate topics like that and sooner then later people start believing the crap that's out their instead of listening to themselves. It is true that our generation has become to dependent on others and the news for their decision making. People go with the crowds and have others make their own story when they could be making theirs on their own. Reporters can take advantage of this because they can feed their own opinions to these people who have others lead their own opinions and get them to join them in their opinion.
 People avoid their personal morals and have others write them for them, or sometimes people leave their personal morals, values, and loyalties and lead others.

    Give us the people the facts on the situation and from the facts we can start to form our own personal opinion, this is editorial decisions. The question is should reporters give the facts or what people want? I say give us the facts, give us the facts because if you give the people what they want then your only going to get one side of the topic. With one side getting all the attention you're not going to get the others to see the other side, and people will lean more towards the one side of the topic. Needless to say, you have your own values and morals, and loyalties and those things can go in hand with your personal investment with the story and from there you will only be giving one side of a story, not all the sides of the story.

    Deception is the act of deceiving and to deceive is to be false, so when we say someone is using deception in their story in their investigative reporting they are, or are they? Journalist everywhere has an opinion on this hot topic and it has't to be an old-aged topic among journalists. You’re going undercover and you end up finding really important revealing information and it may bring justice, or it may not. The information may bring the truth to the American people and isn't that what we want anyway? To know the truth behind a situation to know our journalists are being truthful to us and working the hardest to bring us the truth, so we're not blindsided.

    When considering using deception in your story you can get and use multiple guidelines that other journalists have wrote, so you know what to do when using deception. When thinking of it though sometimes you can't get the information you want, or need unless you go undercover. Still you have people who are totally against it and think it's morally wrong, but for a story to be deemed okay deception must be the only thing that he/ or she as a journalist could do. Now there's a new prescriptive in this whole deception thing. So the people who just did deception are really being deceiving and others who did are because they had no other way to find the information out?

  What Would You Do? Is a telly show that broadcasts on ABC network and the show picks hot topics for actors to stage a scenario concerning that hot topic like a lesbian couple in Texas with kids and very verbal waitress. You get reactions from everyday people and then after a while the telly crew and the host John Quinones introduces him and the show etc. Deception? Not deception? How else would they get people’s reactions when people know the telly crew is there in the restaurant? You wouldn't get a southern man to thumbs up the waitress for kicking out a married gay couple and their kids because he doesn't want that televised so his friends maybe co-workers can see, his reputation would be damaged and he wouldn't want that, no one does.

    In newspapers you have to tell the absolute truth, or else it's called unethical journalism, or you were fabricating with information. This makes sense because the newspaper is local and you don't people going around not thinking the truth about someting because then bad things could come of that. The Star Tribune you have people every day here in Minnesota reading it about the news in the Twin Cities and around world at the same time. Then you have more political newspapers like the New York Times where you have a larger number of people reading that paper, but you can also follow both of these on Twitter so you get an even bigger audience. People reading the newspaper are going to be getting information about what's going locally in there city, town, or state and they read big stories that are in the headlines too about politics, for example during election time you always have stories on the candidates, and as a person who is voting you want to know the true specifics behind their plans for the country because your living in this country.

    Deception is a hard thing to absoutly know if it's ok or not to me, you got to think about it for awhile. Does it make sense for one to decieve people because they want raw hardcore investagative reporting? For the telly, are they just trying to make it entertainment for people at home, and trying to get views for the network? To me deception and using it is sketching because if you catch someone in deception they could make an excuse as to why they're using it and say the right thing instead of the ugly truth and sometimes you can hurt people with deception.

    Journalism is a very important part of today's world.  It tells people the news and latest stories of the United States and around the world.  People go look to a newspaper, magazine, or news website because they want to know what's going on.  Then you have down right stupid people who think they're journalists when they're not and spill a bunch of junk that is not even true on the internet.  Some people are drawn to the graphic images and videos that always leak to the internet when a tragedy happens, others not so much. The question of what should exactly be shown on the news, written about in the newspapers etc. Should we really let people see the gory photos and videos of people? Is a little fuzzy and I myself am 50/50 on this.

    I think the media's job in a tragedy is to focus on pin points of the tragedy and write stories on those pin points.  With the Boston bombing I think for a lot of people it would have been better for them to see the stories of the heroes who helped others that tragic day because let's be honest now, we know they're are going to be different news websites who are going to focus on the gory things of that day.  For the local news I think putting those hero stories out there and maybe some graphic pictures for the local people to hear would be better because they're getting some kind of effect of that day and seeing a little bit of what those people went through. Focusing more so on the overcoming of the injuries and such would be good here to because people still want to know what's happening.

    For parents who want to let their child see this and let them see what happens in a tragedy or for another reason I think instead of the gory pictures, show them the picture of the guy helping the injured women and teach them what they can do in a time when everyone around them is in total panic and let them see the good out of that day. At the same time you want them to know that what these men did was not ok and they hurt, killed a lot of people. I would show the faces of the guys and have them see who people are looking for in Boston and that they have no caught them and people are safe, but let them know they're some thousand miles away they are safe here in Minnesota, and no harm will come. 

    For the people in that tragic situation living in that town, or city at that point and time I don't think they should be getting gory and graphic stories.  Only the stories on heroes and the good that somehow came of that day because that can maybe let them see the upside of that horrific day.  I think the main headlines of that day and the manhunt only on their telly's would have been better because they're living in that city and they are the ones who are in that situation and going through that, not the people of Minnesota or Colorado. Another thing that would have been good is letting them know people are praying for their safety and well being in this time. People want to know others are their for them, all people want that when we are going through something shocking and tragic.

    People can take the Boston's bombings in different ways and people did that with their stories and photos.  I would have focused more on the heroes of the event, the people who helped others and saved people's lives, and the people who are now over coming their injuries.  There is a women who was a dancer and because of the bombs she had to have her foot amputated, now she is determined to get back to dancing even after losing her foot.  Stories like that I think people can feel a little less worried and scared and see the light at the end of the tunnel, the overcoming of this terrible event.  If you're more interesting in the injuries and what kind of injuries people got and just seeing the pictures of what people went through, I think you can go on a website and look for those things, but people don't need to publish them for the world to see on the telly becasue you're focusing on the bad of the situation, but what about the good and overcoming? As crazy as it sounds I think good still did happen that day.

   Consumers on the media of today have a divine right and choice weather they want to see the bad stuff of any tragic event that has happened.  You have many journalists independent or working for some big news station or newspaper that will choose to do the good stories, or the stories that focus on the killings, kidnappings, or abductions.  In some cases it is good for people to see the graphic and gory stuff when it comes to learning something important from that, or it's a situation where you could help find him/ or her, or them, but I think in times when the situation has nothing to do with us here in Minnesota we don't need know the bad details.

    January 9, 2003 students from a Ohio school distract sued their school distract; Wooster City School Distract on the grounds of violating their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press. The plaintiffs attended high school at Wooster High School and were editors at their school newspaper the Blade and the school distract stopped the distribution of the newspaper because it was believed the newspaper contained a defamatory article.

     The students filed for a First Amendment case and while in court these students pushed for a temporary restraining order and seeking for the release of the newspaper for distribution. They were denied the temporary restraining order because they lacked factual information. Instead the judge filed a stipulated judgment and the two parties agreed to distribute the newspaper December 20, 2002. On January 15, 2003, the Distract distributed the modified Blade issue.

    This Blade issued an article on the Boards' underage drinking policy and accused the Board of violated the policy by giving preferential treatments to athletes that have been caught drinking. The Blades' advisor approved of the articles' publication and they made their standard 4,500 copied the issue featuring the story. An involving on the people quoted in the article who was drunk and interviewed for the article made the superintendent have the principal stop the press run of the newspaper.

    I think this case is interesting because the students were writing something about their school and it was truth, but the school board didn't want to caught. In my opinion I think this shows how much control a whole school distract has over the school newspaper. It controls the stories we print and put out for all the see.

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier


    From this case I learned a lot about freedom of speech and how limited we are as students in school to say what we want and feel, even in a school newspaper. Finding out that public schools can limit our freedom of speech in school, but not the government, doesn't make sense to me. Hearing the other cases I learned that the 1st Amendment is everywhere and somehow really our rights to the 1st Amendment has gone down because of our socitey and the world we live today. It was interesting to hear someone say, "I love my country, but hate the goverment." Learning this all means... I know my limited rights in school and out in the world. I know as a journalist what my limits are when I write a story and put out in the world for all to see.

    Limitations that have been paced on the media are I think for the most part right. As a journalist you wnat people to look at your story and read. You want to be published in a newspaper, or tabloid and ultimately people want money. So you'll see any one do what they need to do get the job done so they get their cash prize at the end of the month. In other cases I think the media as in papparizzi need more restrictions, as a person I put myself in that celeb's shoes and I know I wouldn't want a camara man in my face every five seconds walking down the sidewalk. As for articles and writing I think there it's fine because writers can wrtie and update people on the controversal issues of today's times and people can read and see all sides of the a story.

    For school media and limiting us with speech and having the right to take out a story, or whatever, I think we need just a little more freedom. I think if we weren't so restricited then we could talk about bigger and more controversial topics and students oculd read them and hopefully get a reality check, or just open their minds. We do have the right ot freedom of speech and to take part of that away is wrong. In the Hazelwood case the principle decide he didn't like the topics of teen pregency and divorce that were written and instead of telling the students he just took out the stories. At least tell them; is what I think and through going to court and the Supreme Court it was ruled that though government may not have a say in speechin pubblic schools, the school does.

 Finding a job for college students in the "off" season

 I think this story is really important for all students to think about for college and getting a job while your in college. It gives you some free tips on what they expect to see at an college interview; behavior, clothing, and what to go in the interview expecting. You also get a few tips on the transition from college to career and that you should focus on professionalim and to go in the interview with realistic expections on how much responsebility you will get in the first week of your time working at a place.

  In the interview they gave people espically people who are seniors in high school and in college free tips on how to get a job more so correctly. You got to see a few slides with the info so you could write them down and not forget. The producers brought in Paul Timmins from the Career Services director for the U of M's College Libral of Arts and they did a interview with him and he answered questions and going into great details.

  In the beginning they had a survey by CareerBuilder.com and gave statics of the umemployment rate in the majority of U.S cities. They tell you that college studnets are jobless or under employed meaning that if you graduate in May or June you go find a job when the job market is flooded or "off" season. With that they tell you that students should check with their studnet services and take advantage of those services.