Read & Respond – Week 2

First, an overview of how these will typically work. Just about every week has an assigned reading from the Mark Briggs textbook, Journalism Next. In addition, I’ll typically put up a post here (usually by Wednesday) with some links to online readings. You are required to post a response to these readings no later than noon on the Monday before class; you’ll post your response as a comment in reply to the Read & Respond blog post (like this one).

Your response must address the majority of the online readings AND the Briggs reading; if you leave out one or the other, you’ll only get half credit. They don’t need to be huge, but they should be substantial. You’ll know it when you see it.

Now on with this week’s assignment.

As the syllabus says, you’ll be reading Briggs’ introduction and chapter 1. As you work to develop your blog’s focus, Briggs offers some suggestions. Note his point from innovator Greg Linch: “It’s not about you.” What can you write about that gets beyond yourself and meaningfully adds to the ongoing conversation?

Briggs also touches on RSS readers (we’ll cover these this week), and you should all be looking for blogs to follow. Your audience already exists – who’s writing for them, and how are they doing it? After Briggs, check out this link from 10,000 Words on ideas for RSS feeds. What potential ways to develop your blog’s content do you see these offering you?

(Briggs also offers also a simple HTML coding exercise on p. 27-28 that you can try, which you can get a head start on with your Codecademy account – you’ve all signed up for that, right?)

Things like RSS feeds and Twitter allow us a lot of control over the information we receive. Is that a good thing? Vetern newsman Ted Koppel has some thoughts on the subject in “The Case Against News We Can Choose.” Although Koppel’s more directly addressing 24-hour news stations,  his ideas certainly are relevant to the online world of information. How do his points inform our work in this class?

So have at it! You will need to respond to these readings in a comment on this post no later than noon on Monday, Aug. 26. A few things to make sure of:

  • Post as your WordPress identity so I know who you are.
  • Specifically address the readings, but don’t just summarize – build on them!
Advertisements

31 Responses to Read & Respond – Week 2

  1. kevinmduvall says:

    Ted Koppel’s editorial made me think about my own media use quite a bit. Frankly, I do some of the things on Twitter and Facebook he criticizes audiences of 24-hour news stations for doing.

    One of Koppel’s main points is that the customization of news gives people great options to choose what they want to read or watch. The flipside is that it also allows people to filter out what they don’t want, and sometimes there is a difference between what people want to read and what they should read. When I signed up for Twitter, the first two news organizations I followed were not the Associated Press and the New York Times, but Grantland and Comic Book Resources. Rather than the hard, important news I should know about to stay informed about the world, I followed the two sites that entertained me the most. As with RSS feeds, Twitter (and most popular websites) was very easy for me to customize.

    However, I am not at a loss for important news, because of the connectivity social media allow. Although I do not follow a great many news feeds, I follow people who do, so I see many retweets on local and national news stories. Additionally, simply seeing other people talk about an event or checking the trending topics allows me to learn about breaking news if I have not heard about it already. This scenario is an example of Briggs’s assertion that collaborative journalism works. Social media allow people to interact and give each other information about news stories from a wide range of perspectives. Collaboration certainly has its drawbacks, but there is much potential for news development in two-way communication.

    • aaaaaargh says:

      Useful comparison of RSS and Twitter here. I annually wonder whether to continue emphasizing RSS in here because Twitter increasingly serves a similar (but not identical) function; with the loss of Google Reader, I’m even more conflicted. Your idea about Twitter serving as a connector is something we’ll be talking about too. Like the example from class of my Arizona friend Mark, I don’t NEED to follow Arizona media because I follow him.

    • I agree Kevin. Koppel’s editorial really made me rethink my use of social media especially on Twitter and Facebook.

  2. ryanglaspell says:

    The introduction and first chapter of “Journalism Next” is very encouraging to read. The idea that journalism is not dying, rather it is being reimagined, sits well with me. It makes sense, though. The world is constantly producing new technology, and the technology people use to communicate is a crucial aspect to journalism. When Briggs quotes David Cohn saying, “Journalism will survive its institutions,” he is only stating that journalism rolls with the punches. Its institutions are drastically changing due to the spike in media exchange via internet. Journalism is forced to change, or else it will be like a person trying to hunt deer with a sling and some rocks.

    I also think it is important that Briggs mentions, “I’d venture a guess that you won’t get a first job without your ideas.” Just knowing about new technology, like RSS feeds, won’t cut it. It is how we put them to use that makes a difference. The “8 Creative Ways…” article displays ways people were innovative with the use of an existing device. According to Briggs, a journalist is a “merchant of information”. Therefore, it is our job to objectively and innovatively provide this news. The Washington Post article stresses the need for the objective and truthful news.

    • aaaaaargh says:

      Good insights. We weep a lot about the death of newspapers, but it’s entirely possible that it’s really just the “paper” part we have to worry about. Try to plumb a bit more depth from the online readings.

  3. It seems the biggest movers and shakers in journalism believe that we should move forward and embrace the industry’s technological future, and I agree with them. At this point, journalists are experimenting with different kinds of journalism with varying degrees of success. An easy way to join the conversation would be to blog about these journalistic experiments. One could identify what works, what doesn’t, what looks good and what looks like crap. Injecting your intellect into the mix would help further the evolution of digital media, as what you say could have an effect on a journalism entrepreneur.
    To join in that digital community, you could make an RSS feed of other commentators and bloggers who are discussing journalism’s future. They already have a community, and the best way for you to get noticed is to join them. That’s also a good way to develop your blog’s niche in the community – if you try to copy someone who is already massively successful, you’re going to have a hard time. Reading everybody else’s work is an excellent way to learn about the dynamics of your blogging community.
    There’s a problem, of course. As is common among right-wing bloggers, having an RSS feed that fills your reading time with only one specific subject or viewpoint creates a siloed community. Different points of views and opinions are easy to avoid now that one can modify their own news streams, which is detrimental to the progressive behavior of academic debate. Therefore, while you’re setting up your RSS feed, it’s important to remember: just because you don’t like someone’s ideas doesn’t mean you shouldn’t respect and consider them.
    Of course, that only applies if their argument is actually valid. I suggest you print off this list of logical fallacies (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/) and paste it beside your computer, that way you can spar with even the most rabid anonymous commenter you will eventually encounter.

    -Bryan

    • aaaaaargh says:

      That graphic guide to logical fallacies is one of my favorites – we’ll be using it this week in Law & Ethics. I like to see you making suggestions and providing additional info like this. One question I had for others as well: With Twitter, do RSS feeds still provide significant value? How, if at all, do they differ?

  4. I think the idea of “It’s not about you” is interesting. I’ve seen countless blogs (mostly from Facebook friends) that are all about their lives, their kids, etc. It’s more like those family-update Christmas cards than an informative blog. I guess the point is not to claim to be the expert. That’s not to say that bloggers shouldn’t use examples from their lives, but if a blog doesn’t contain research, interviews and all sides of the story, who really cares?

    I honestly had no idea what RSS was, so I googled it and came across this: “RSS Rich Site Summary (originally RDF Site Summary, often dubbed Really Simple Syndication) is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format.” (Thanks Wikipedia!) After learning that, I read the article. My favorite ways from 10,000 Words are numbers three, five and eight because they offer new ways to keep up-to-date with my RSS Feed (particularly the last one–I never even thought about listening to posts.) New ideas like this expand blogging into something more than just posts on a webpage. They open it up to all forms of media.

    “The Case Against News We Can Choose” was pretty interesting, too. I’m sure it’s pretty easy to get into the groove of posting biased articles–the feedback will almost always be the same and the readers will stay comfortably supportive. But as journalists, aren’t we supposed to post the news and not just what others want to hear?

    • aaaaaargh says:

      Good points here. I should be clear that there’s nothing wrong with personal/diary blogs (not like those bloggers would care about my opinion anyway), and good journalism CAN be carried out in that format. When you’re starting out, though, it can be difficult to manage the subjective and objective, which is why I lay down rules like “no movie reviews.” Well be looking at examples throughout the semester that incorporate personal voice and experiences vividly and potently, but you all will be putting down a firm foundation first.

  5. zvoreh says:

    To save you time i have not purchased the book yet and as such didn’t read the introduction chapter of Briggs, but i did read the online articles.

    In the first online reading the link from 10,000 words it discussed some potential uses for RSS feeds, some of these were interesting while others were a bit dull in my opinion. Being able to essentially filter your twitter account for post that are more interesting is a nice feature while having my feed sent to my email just seems like more junk i would need to sift through in my inbox.

    As for the second article “The Case Against News We Can Choose” , I agree with Mr. Koppel’s view that much of the news media has become a money making venture over what many journalism purist feel should be an outlet of truth and not opinion. I particularly remember a quote he used from Daniel Patrick Moynihan “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” i feel like this article illustrates well that to often viewers judge a news station based on which one best feeds their ego , over which presents them with true facts.

    • aaaaaargh says:

      Short reply: Get the book!

      I think I agree that some of those tips are a bit wonky, business reserved for power bloggers; the point is likely that if you WANT to become a power blogger, here are ways to really get the machine rolling so you can focus on the stuff you want to do. Certainly it’s not the starting point for many student bloggers, but it may serve better once you’ve found a footing.

  6. We live in a generation in which we grew with technology, and the progression is easy to see when looking back over the years of our lives. That being said, most people today are well informed when it comes to using the Internet, or at least they think they are. I think that one of the main ideas that I gathered from this week’s reading is that there is much more to the computer than what meets the eye. Who knew that you shouldn’t send an attachment that is larger than 1 MB? I thought I knew a lot before, but I’d actually never even heard of an FTP program. Overall, in order to become proficient as a communicator, it is essential that we study the different methods of communicating with the computer. This will make life easier for us and our messages more accessible to our readers.

    After reading “The Case Against News We Can Choose,” I had mixed feelings about how much I agreed. It is obvious that our major news stations are biased. That is how they are making money. Of course, this does make things a little more difficult for viewers to make an unbiased, and well-informed decision, but if we really want to do so we can simply use our remotes and change the channel to see both sides. This is not to say that the issue does not need to be addressed, but instead of putting the blame on the networks, we as viewers should utilize our resources fully before formulating opinions.

    • aaaaaargh says:

      That’s a tricky situation. It makes sense to say that viewers should change the channel if they feel like they’re not being served, yet what if viewers lack the media literacy (due to low quality of media) to KNOW that they’re not being served? It’s a bit circular, but it leads to a question of responsibility. Surely individual audience members have a responsibility to seek the media that serves their needs, but there’s also a question of responsibility (not necessarily blame) owed by media organizations as well – they provide a lot of those resources we use to make decisions, after all!

  7. dkrotz says:

    After reading the Introduction and Chapter 1 of Briggs’ book, I was glad to hear that the world of journalism is not coming to an end. For several other classes, I’ve had textbooks which seem to not want to embrace the advancing state of technology and the evolving landscape of journalism which goes along with that. It’s encouraging, to me, to hear that Briggs believes journalism can not only thrive, but can be better than it ever has been with the use of technology. He suggests that some journalists have taken technology for granted and that,” if we take online technology for granted, we can miss some important opportunities to leverage it to gather information better, to communicate better and to create better journalism.” I, like Briggs, believe that the new technology should be the journalist’s best friend and, when used properly, can make for great journalism.

    After reading Ted Koppel’s piece, I have to both agree and disagree. Not having been born yet for this “Golden Era” of journalism makes me not quite as attached to the way things used to be. The major news networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), I believe, still provide the opportunity for viewers to see the real news. If a viewer chooses to watch MSNBC or FOX News and buy into the biased talk, then that is their choice. These stations are based on profit, and they know that they can attract a large base of either liberal or conservative viewers who agree with their points. However, these shows don’t necessarily report the news. They simply regurgitate the stories with a biased spin in the way that their viewers will want to hear. The problem with having so many options when it comes to getting the news is that too many people limit their personal news gathering to only one outlet. While it isn’t necessarily a horrible thing to watch a TV show in which a person speaks about news and politics in the way you like to hear, it is important to stay balanced as a news reader and get both sides of the story. That is what I try to base my news reading upon all the time.

  8. I thought the Briggs text was encouraging to journalists. Often times I think we get caught up in the fact that journalism is changing so often and so quickly that we see it as a problem, when in fact, it may be changing for the better. Yes, we’re forced to adapt much more quickly, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. Briggs mentions that new media is like digital Darwinism (Journalism Next, p3), and he’s right. As journalists, we’re used to working on deadline. The difference now is that this deadline is constant. But in order to maintain credibility and viewership, we must continue to produce innovative stories and delivery methods efficiently and effectively.

    Before reading the 10,000 words article and the Briggs text, I had little knowledge of RSS feeds aside from knowing what they do. I think being able to tailor news to meet a specific person’s needs is a good concept because it can really draw in a viewer, but I do think only using an RSS feed for important information has it’s drawbacks. Simply relying on someone to retweet an important piece of news rather than going to a reliable source may not always mean you get the most factual information. Personally I choose to have a broad view of everything because I’m very picky with the sources I choose to rely on.

    That being said, I found, “The Case Against News We Can Choose” very intriguing. As I child, I remember much more foreign correspondance than occurs today. Being in TV, I understand it’s all about ratings. Being an ethical and somewhat skeptical journalist, I think news organizations should deliver the news people need to hear in addition to what they want to hear in an unbiased way. I think it’s doing viewers a disservice to color their opinions of the facts. It’s a delicate balance, but it can be achieved. Unfortunately the facts tend to get skewed more and more each day, and I think a 24 hour news cycle has a lot to do with that because people are trying to meet multiple deadlines more quickly and often than before.

  9. samanthacart says:

    As you have probably noticed from my updates to my “About” section, I tend to identify as a late adopter on the technological curve. I’m ashamed to admit (although a little less so since Briggs wrote that it is not uncommon) that I did not know the specific function of an RSS feed until after reading this chapter. Last fall in my Mass Media and Society lecture, we had many class discussions on the dangers of personalized news. Both Koppel and Briggs mention how simple it is to customize your news and effectively be your own gate keeper. However, that (without fail) always leads to the discussion on what people want to hear/read/see and what they need to hear/read/see. There is a huge debate on where the responsibility falls- the mass media (media literate, educated professionals) or the individual- to produce and consume news that is needed rather than wanted.

    Koppel said that people favor an “idealized reality.” All you have to do is take quick look around to know that’s true. Every news outlet allows us to play into our own reality: partisan news stations, RSS feeds, who we follow on Twitter or like on Facebook and even (in some places) the two competing newspapers.

    We have what I feel like is an obvious duty as journalists to be well informed, despite how we tailor our Twitter feed. However, responsibility aside, the idea of RSS feeds can really help us as bloggers. By following blogs about similar topics, creating our own customized RSS feed and tapping into the resource that is social media, we can cultivate a following for our blogs that already exists. On page 15 of chapter 1, Briggs points out that the more feeds you add, the more feeds you will discover as you follow links to blog posts and news articles. Once we have found this existing audience, we can use the information we gather from the RSS feed to add to the ongoing conversation. This, I think, is the perfect example of Briggs’ idea of collaborative journalism.

  10. ebuchman5 says:

    I really enjoyed reading the Ted Koppel article, because it seems to fit in most with the current state of journalism. I’ve written and researched this quite a bit in my own studies, and Koppel is right. I think we, as a society, are always looking for instant gratification (in this case, meaning we look for news on the internet because that’s what we’ll get the fastest). We are certainly able to customize our news feed and what we take in to a tee, but sometimes this isn’t always for the best. Sure, it’s upsetting and depressing to hear about crimes all the time, but on the same hand, shouldn’t we know if our neighborhood is seeing increased crime rates? You would think we should want to hear that!

    I do think that being able to filter out what we need to hear vs. what we actually hear has both pros and cons, but I believe Koppel is right when he says “when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and out politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster.”
    I have to admit, I didn’t know much about blogging and RSS feeds, but when I was reading the “10,000 words” document, the “catch only the best tweets” headline caught my attention. I’ve often run into this problem with my own twitter, especially when news is breaking. I find that when something is going on, everyone re-tweets the same thing, so I end up seeing the same tweet dozens of time before I find any new information. I like the idea of an internal online tool that would automatically organize tweets of a similar nature and put them into an online newspaper- how helpful! It’s less leg-work for the user (me), and also more informative and organized.

    I whole-heartedly believe journalism is changing at a non-stop pace, and the only thing we, as journalists, can do, is adapt. We have no choice. I think that is what Briggs is getting at in his introduction in Journalism Next, by saying “Now that anyone can be a published with a few clicks, trying to be everything to everyone is a recipe for failure,” and he has a good point. By trying to be everything to everyone- are we really good at anything? Journalism itself is changing, but changing to what is the unknown question.

    That’s what is so exciting about journalism, we have the ability to set our own path, but it’s also scary at the same time, because there’s no blueprint of what we should do next.

  11. iamoore says:

    The introduction to the Briggs text was incredibly uplifting to me. We are constantly hearing about how journalism is a dying art or how it cannot survive in the digital age. I found it refreshing to hear the positives of the evolution of journalism. one piece of information that especially struck me was the point Briggs made about the 123% growth journalism experienced in a twenty year period early in its history. He also brought up the question why couldn’t this happen again? I truly do believe that once journalism has completed its transformation into the modern age that the public will continue to rely on us as heavily as they ever did because people still crave the news. overall i found this section of the book very hopeful when Briggs said “it’s an industry that stands a great chance of making it to the other side and dramatically improving along the way.”

    As someone who would consider himself fairly technologically literate, I was shocked with how much I learned I really didn’t understand while reading chapter one of Briggs. All of the terms that I casually throw around like URL and RSS, when I began reading I realized I really have no idea how any of this stuff works. This section of the book along with the 10,000 words article posted, made me really intrigued by how much I could do with an RSS feed and has convinced me that I need to set one up to keep up to date with all of the news I find important and interesting.

    I strongly agreed with the article written by Ted Koppel about how the news you can choose is harming the institution of journalism. Over the years I have grow so sick of the talking heads who do not provide their audience with any facts, but however share opinions on news that the viewer agrees with and can loudly proclaim later without truly understanding the story. I also very strongly agree with Koppel when he says that this idea of “news you can choose” is not at all good for the republic. In my opinion this profit driven biased journalism has created a country of people who are unflinching in stating their opinion of the news as fact. Sadly I believe Koppel is right when he says this transition is irreversible, but I still hope that one day we as journalists can salvage some integrity of our great journalist forefathers.

    Ian Moore

  12. mikeymartinny says:

    I enjoyed this week’s readings in the Briggs textbook because it was sequenced, organized and that made it an easy read. Relating journalism to the everyday made it easy for journalism students like us to understand what he was saying. Explaining the career of journalism was a very unique angle that Briggs took. Most people will sit and talk about the opposite of journalism and say it is dying, but Briggs reiterates how it is growing and has a “bright future”. It was nice to see someone take that angle because it gives us journalism students a lot of hope.

    The online sites were easy reads. I enjoyed the “8 creative ways to use RSS feeds” because I am very big fan of RSS feeds. The site gave a lot of great options and ideas to organize RSS feeds.

    • aaaaaargh says:

      Try to include some concrete details in your responses. After reading your assessment of Briggs, I still can’t tell which parts you’re referring to – what’s his “unique angle” on journalism careers? Why does he argue it has a “bright future”? Show me you’re doing more than skimming. Likewise, WHY are you a big fan of RSS feeds? What makes them useful to you?

  13. frostedtsaar says:

    It’s nice to know that my family and friends’ occasional snipes at the dying world of print journalism are even more unfounded than I at first believed. The assigned Briggs sections were not at all what I expected, and the practical roadmap to entering this new age of journalism made me realize that this is probably not going to be a book that I sell back at the end of the semester.

    Regarding the “It’s not about you” section of text: this is a problem that I come up against constantly. I don’t think I’ve ever thought that my own experiences were so noteworthy that I expect thousands, or even a dozen, people to read about them, and personal blogs make me groan. When I studied abroad last year, I was expected to keep a personal blog for class, and really struggled with finding material I thought was noteworthy. I want to find those meaningful subjects and get those conversations going.

    A good way to get those conversations going is to make it really simple for people to get engaged, and RSS feeds do that wonderfully. I use them daily for both my news and fun, stupid stuff on the web. On the other hand, I rarely use Twitter. I very much want to start using it more, as I realize that it is a powerful and necessary tool for journalists in this day and age, and the fact that these texts focus on making us versed in it in encouraging.

    As for Koppel’s article, I wholeheartedly agree that this echo-chamber news society that many of us are in is unhealthy. The first news site on everyone’s RSS feed should be the one that one disagrees with most. Ideally, news networks and people should be working to widen this tunnel vision that Koppel describes – and that I see every day – so that discourse can be encouraged.

  14. acampb22 says:

    I appreciated that the introduction immediately addressed the question of the future of journalism. I found it interesting that Briggs addressed ways in which journalism has overcome evolving technology in history. He describes the way in which the invention of the telephone revolutionized and changed the industry much like the Internet is doing today. Another point that I found interesting is that Journalism needs a fresh approach. The Internet is filled with pointless tweets, spam, and noise. What journalism needs is a push to rise above all of that and new methods to achieve success in a virtual industry. Journalism needs somebody to discover where exactly it fits in the Internet and mobile devices, and without a paper version.

    Before reading the first chapter I did not know exactly what RSS was. I think the idea of being able to customize how you receive and read the news and information on the Internet is very interesting. I think that this can be beneficial to online news organizations and sites as readers can develop their daily news rituals just how older generations developed the ritual of the morning paper. However, I also think it could be a disadvantage to the online journalism industry and to society if people are constantly filtering through news and only exposing themselves to what interests them.

    “The Case Against The News We Can Choose” was an interesting article. I think the most important point about the article is the risk in the journalism industry becoming focused on profit. While technology continues to evolve and improve it is important that journalists remain dedicated to delivering the news regardless of whether or not it draws in the ratings. Journalists have an obligation to deliver the hard, ugly news even if audiences don’t want to hear it.

  15. ryanfadus says:

    What Greg Linch was getting at with his quote is that when you write not only a blog, but a book or a pamphlet it is all about connecting with your readers. If you can’t connect with them then they won’t have any reason to read what you have written. For example, some people don’t have a great sense of sports, but if you are a sports writer and you know a lot you should probably keep your articles simple. However, you should also make them informative so that the more sports savvy readers will be informed as well. It is all about appealing to your readers, since without them a writer wouldn’t be anywhere. That’s not to say you can’t throw your two cents in on a topic. By doing this it generates buzz and it could end up getting up post or article more hits online.

    When using RSS feeds both Briggs and the article by 10,000 Words made some good suggestions. One that really stood out was featured in the book; it explained how you can organize your feed so that you can put the most important blogs first. It is explained that this will help you keep track of the information that is most important to you. Another good idea for making your blog more interesting was mentioned in the article on 10,000 Words. The idea that was mentioned was adding certain Twitter users to your RSS feed, this way it will automatically update. If your blog is about a specific topic and you include tweets from people in that area, people may be more drawn to yours since they want to see what you and other people are saying about that topic. Plus they could even give their opinion to the Twitter users through your blog.

    Koppel made some interesting points in his article and I realized I do a lot of the things he had problems with. However, when it comes to writing for this blog it will be important to remain as unbiased as possible so I am able to attract readers from both sides of the spectrum. I know right away I won’t appeal to everyone, but if they can give good reasons as to why they don’t agree with me then that could make for a most interesting post later on. Plus being a journalist is not showing just one side of the story, although in Koppel’s article it basically says that it depends on who you work for.

  16. After reading these insightful readings about the future of journalism, I see how they all connect to one another. Firstly, Briggs begins his book in an encouraging and (honestly, very awesome) thought-provoking way. He gives the readers a new way to view the future of journalism and how to adapt to it. Author Jeff Jarvis states it simply, “The key to survival is reinventing what we do.” These readings would have been beneficial for me to read since they focus greatly on the subject of my blog. Brigg’s text expands on how news is not going anywhere, but only expanding with the advancements of technology and the ever-expanding access to news outlets. He references such social medias we’ve been discussing: Twitter, Tumblr and devices like the iPhone and tablets.

    Furthermore, the use of Twitter and RSS feeds mentioned by Mark Luckie allows us to creatively distribute news. We can learn to design and filter the news we want, how we want and how we want OTHERS to view it.

    This is where Ted Koppel’s article further touches on useful information. The use of Twitter and RSS feeds allows us as readers to pick and choose what we read or consider as news. Koppel uses television as a way to show this. He references biased news stations that very clearly sway one way or another as to attract a “type” of people and to continue the reliability of the views, thus keeping a steady profit. Therefore, we choose to avoid news from one particular station and focus on another one- one where we respect the bias a little more, at least.

    All of these readings connect to each other in some way about the future of journalism, or as Briggs says, the current presence of journalism. As journalists, we have to find ways to establish ourselves by adapting to the expanding use of technology and figure out ways to distribute information we see as relevant and useful so people will feel inclined to view the material.

  17. rachelwvu says:

    Briggs mentions that “Journalism 2.0” had to be revised to accommodate the ever-changing “digital age”. As journalists, we must be capable and willing to keep up with the pace. Getting accustomed to the latest technology and learning new skills can be intimidating; however, Briggs gives hope to future journalists.

    I’ll admit that I was familiar with most of the concepts, but chapter one taught me that I thought I knew more than I actually did! Prior to reading, I thought, “What the heck is an RSS feed?” Briggs thoroughly explains the ins and outs. Knowing how to organize RSS feeds and utilize FTP programs can put journalists a step ahead of the rest.

    The article, “8 Creative Ways to Use RSS Feeds”, provides ways that the feeds can be organized. The option to enhance your email or twitter with RSS feeds is a convenient option.

    On the other hand, being able to create web pages with html coding is power. Knowing how to code can also put you ahead of the game in such a competitive field.
    Briggs says, “It’s all there; you just have to want to learn it”. Like any other job, if you don’t want to do it, you probably won’t do it well. Granted, digital reporting and publishing isn’t for everyone, but one can never learn too much!

    Koppel points another aspect of journalism that has changed. He says that “talk is cheap” and that news is no longer a “public service”. In other words, news outlets and networks are now making money, and to make money, they have to be competitive.

    As with other areas of journalism, television news also had to “go with the flow”. Society likes news that relates to their lives—like everything else. It’s no wonder networks like Fox News and MSNBC no longer try for “absolute objectivity”. However, the fact that Koppel points out these flaws in the news is peculiar since he gets paid to air his opinion on the news. Since he does contribute to the biased news and can still see the problem leads me to believe that that’s just how it is now—exactly why I don’t want a career in journalism.

    • aaaaaargh says:

      So where DO you want a career? Are the issues you present not a problem there, or just a more manageable one?

      • rachelwvu says:

        True! My major is television journalism, and I feel that another area of journalism would be more fitting for my principals and values in life–or maybe a different field completely. I would rather help people, rather than always trying to compete for the upper hand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: