Dianne de Guzman

Animals caught in the fire

2008-11-19T23:48:15Z

You hear them before you see anyone. The incessant barking can be heard in the lobby whenever two double doors to the side open.

Welcome to Northeast Animal Shelter, the rescue center for animals affected by the fires. Finished with construction in July, this shelter has remained closed due to recent budget cuts. With the recent fires, this has become a place where animals can be taken while homeowners figure out what to do after these natural disasters.

It's been interesting to hear what the different stories are behind these animals. One man's four cats are being kept here, while he stays at his in-laws house. Visiting everyday, he's still in the process of trying to build an outside enclosure for his beloved pets or look for a new apartment.

He used to live at the Oakridge Mobile Home, where everything was destroyed.

]]>
Normally, this shelter could hold 400 animals, but with a staff of six, this shelter wasn't ready to handle the volume of animals coming in from the fire. Relying on volunteers from other shelters, Northeast is doing okay with their volume of pets but hoping to open with a full staff in July of 2009.

Dogs like Jade and Tyson (on the left) have been dropped off and will be picked up after two weeks at this shelter. Some dogs are lucky enough to be taken here by their owners, while others are found as strays, their owners nowhere to be seen. If the pet owners contact the shelter, they can try to hold the animal for a longer period of time. If pets aren't picked up in two weeks, some of them will go to a pet rescue - which means a longer time to be boarded and picked up by the owner before being put up for adoption. If the owner cannot be located and no rescue service can take in the pet, then they will be put up for adoption.

Each animal had a story of how they wound up here. Peering into the cages at the howling dogs or quietly shivering cats, it's hard to imagine what they've been through to get to this shelter and what an amazing journey it's been.

Animal rescue has also been out to the wreckage of the fires, looking for stray animals. One woman's granddaughter from one of the mobile home parks was looking for four family cats, who she couldn't find before she was evacuated. Fortunately, her trailer didn't burn down and animal rescue found the four cats unharmed and brought back to the Northeast shelter. The girl came down to see if they were her cats and was happy to find her grandmother's cats safe and sound.

Covering a felony court story

2008-11-16T20:03:32Z

A Compton man on trial for murder testified Thursday that he played no part in the killing of a father and son, but that two other defendants in the case were responsible.

Reyon Twain Ingram, 23, told the court that he was standing at a car when he heard the shots that killed Derrick Kellum and his 10-year-old son, Octavius. Ingram's two companions, Earl Arthur Lee and Calvin Dennis, came running back from the direction of the shots before the three men drove away, he testified.

]]> "'You ... better not say nothing,'" Ingram said one of his companions later told him.

The shooting occurred on 134th Place and Slater Avenue in Compton on Oct. 2, 2006, when two men approached Kellum's parked car and opened fire.

Another son of Kellum's, Derrick Kellum Jr., 11, was also in the car at the time of the incident but was able to run to safety.

Kellum was believed to be at the intersection in hopes of retrieving his missing wallet, which had been stolen a few weeks beforehand.

Sgt. Steve Rubino told The Compton Bulletin that detectives believe that Ingram contacted Kellum that night prior to the shooting.

Both Lee and Dennis are standing trial alongside Ingram on charges of murder.

Ingram's testimony about the shooting concluded Thursday. So far, the trial has offered conflicting accounts from the defendants about what happened in the slaying of Kellum and his son.

According to a sources, police found that two different guns were used in the shooting; Derrick Jr. was not able to identify who the two shooters were in court during his testimony earlier this week.

Lee, one of the other defendants, had identified Ingram as one of the shooters in earlier testimony, said the source.

Lee testified that "Ingram had pulled out his gun" and that Lee "let [his] boy do [his] thang,'" said the source, indicating that Ingram was directly involved.

Much of Ingram's testimony also focused on his evasion of the police when officers attempted to arrest him.

Ingram was arrested after falling out of an attic when police came to his door, according to testimony.

Ingram cited a fear of the police as a reason for running. Ingram had earlier testified that he planned to turn himself in to authorities with help from his parole officer.

Lee and Ingram are facing the death penalty if convicted. Dennis faces a life sentence without possibility of parole if convicted.

*****
The following was written for an assignment to cover a felony court story. The story is dated November 11.

A Lesson in History

2008-11-09T07:03:12Z

Nailbiting. That's all I could do.

At four p.m. in the afternoon -- having already cast my votes earlier in the day -- I was sitting in my apartment and was, frankly, a big mess. Papers strewn across the floor, laptop open and repeatedly hitting "refresh" on my nyt.com election map, CNN on my TV and friends instant messaging me for election results and assurance (one status message read: "I don't want to look."). I was sending my sister funny links to single-serving websites on the event, with web addresses like isobamapresident.com and ismccainpresident.com, as well as howisobamadoing.com and howismccaindoing.com -- which have now since been updated.

I was hopeful that Obama would win, but the early returns didn't look good.
]]> I instead paced around my apartment and got ready for an election night party at The Edison. I was so nervous and out of it that I actually prepped two hours early and sat around in heels and a dress until it was time to leave.

At the Edison, the air felt electric. There was a buzz: electoral votes for Obama were steadily climbing, while McCain's votes had slowed to a crawl. There was a nervousness for the election that was palpable; this was an Obama crowd, to be sure.

Finally, the news everyone wanted to hear happened and the bar erupted: Obama was announced as the projected winner, with MSNBC (the station the bar was tuned to) calling it for him -- and us -- at the bar. It was amazing; everyone was hugging everyone. I hugged my friend, I hugged strangers, I hugged people I had just met. Everyone was on their cell phones in an instant, calling friends and relatives. We were cheering and yelling and whooping. This was unreal.

Minutes later, McCain came on the air and made his concession speech. People watched, but mostly people drank, listening but impatiently waiting for our new president-elect.

When Obama came on, the crowd was riveted. The entire bar watched his speech, moved by the night's events. My earlier nailbiting and nervousness from earlier was gone; this president moved with an air that was calming and reassuring. Camera at my side, long forgotten in the feverish atmosphere of the night, I took 10 pictures of the scene at The Edison.

It's not much, but I'll keep my memories.

Presidential Debate #2: Obama-ites Spin McCain's Words

2008-10-11T18:14:01Z

The Internet moves swiftly when it is miffed, and if the sites I read are any indication of the internet-at-large?

The Net loves them some Obama and they're not gonna put up with McCain-isms.

I was online during the debates, watching Hack the Debate over at Current, keeping up with those who were on Twitter and those liveblogging (What can I say? I have MTV to thank for my attention span). As McCain wandered around the stage, saying "my friends" this, and "my friends" that, I was inundated with tweets like this during the debate:

A couple of hours after the debate, I spotted the following shirt for sale online (created by Derek Powazek, who explains his creation on his blog):

Obama supporters are a force to be reckoned with online -- especially after the debate on Tuesday.

Obama-ites were a Twitter'ing, blogging, "My Friends" remixing/YouTube clip-posting, McCain criticizing blur of motion.

Obama supporters are young, Internet-ready and were not taking the debate lying down.

Oh, and I'm assuming that you've already heard the story about "That One"...

]]> "That One" resounded across the Internet and livebloggers and supporters responded quickly and swiftly, not letting the McCain comments slide so easily. The following is from the CNN liveblog with Newsweek.com editors Arlyn Tobias Gajilan and Patrick Enright.

What may have easily been dismissed before the Internet, "That One" literally exploded ~~overnight~~ [scratch that: INTERNET INSTANTANEOUSLY]. "That One" became a website, a Facebook page and even t-shirts.

While Barack Obama hasn't publicly responded to the "That One" comment himself (if he has, please feel free to correct me), Michelle Obama made her rounds on the news shows, downplaying McCain's comment on CNN's Larry King and The Daily Show.

This was such a great example of how swift the Internet moves and for all of the Net's faults and foibles, it was great to see a movement build from moment of impact (debate) to its inevitable explosion of spin and reclamation by Obama supporters. Perhaps nothing was meant by the McCain comment of "That One," but it really helped take the pulse of the Obama Movement: how Obama-ites react, how they spin, how they really believe in Obama. These are Internet grassroots at its greenest and most vibrant. It was truly breathtaking to watch unfold.

But then again: did you hear about the one where McCain snubbed Obama's handshake at debate's end?

Sigh.

Los Angeles Art District

2008-10-05T11:19:10Z

Being new to Los Angeles, I have become interested in finding little pockets of neighborhoods. I live near the Los Angeles Art District and became interested in the juxtaposition of the artists who are living in this area, with the rapid development of lofts and new housing.

I don't know much about the area, but from what I can see there are lots of everything: fencing, barb wires and vacant lots. But along with that are areas where artists are putting their stamp on anything standing still. From political posters to graffiti on the walls, stickers on stop signs, the artists seem to be trying to make this neighborhood their own.

It's odd to pair such a freewheeling enterprise with the expensive housing that's starting to crop in; while walking around, I noticed signs advertising apartments or lofts for either rent or sale. ]]> Although there are a few central areas of human activity -- particularly around Groundworks, the local coffee shop -- the neighborhood is usually empty. There are often tons of cars around, but not many people walking about. On the weekends when the local architecture school isn't in session, the area seems like a virtual ghost town. The vacant lots feel emptier, the streets more barren than usual. This neighborhood is both vibrant and dull, filled with rich and poor -- which makes it all the more interesting.

[song: "Paid In Full" | Eric B & Rakim]

My slideshow's finished...

2008-10-05T10:22:15Z

.. but if anyone could help me figure out how to upload it from a Mac to USC, I'd be truly grateful.*

*It's currently hosted on an outside site. Thanks!

Twitter + Current = Bringing debate audiences together

2008-09-27T21:54:30Z

Although I'm usually the first to complain about "digital gluttony," I was extremely excited about a new take on the Presidential debate. Current TV -- one of the best television channels that no one seems to be talking about -- and Twitter -- an online application for users to broadcast 140-character messages to friends and strangers -- teamed up for what they called "Hack the Debate." [Here's the promo vid created by Current TV]

Hack the Debate was to air live on Current, complete with Twitter users' messages -- known as "tweets" -- that would appear at the bottom of the screen as the candidates debate. This was done to encourage dialogue about the candidates and the topics being discussed.

The Internet was abuzz with the possibilities of this endeavor; Hack the Debate went beyond just a few people talking about the debates in a chat room -- Current was moving the online discussion into a different medium. Television.

]]> Although I was excited about Hack the Debate, I was also worried about the tendency of the internet to devolve into inane Twitters in a matter of seconds. For every well-spoken person on the internet, you have dozens of people who create content like lolcats, Chuck Norris facts and Rickrolling that makes the internet difficult to (sanely) navigate. My suspicions were that Hack the Debate was either going to be brilliant or downright horrible.

Despite the setback of discovering that Time Warner does not include Current TV as part of their basic cable package, I pulled double duty by watching the debate on TV and streaming it live off the Current website. While there were a few dumb tweets, mostly centered around Twitter drinking games (the most popular being taking a drink whenever "Main Street" was mentioned -- broken by Sen. Barack Obama about one minute into the debate before being gleefully tweeted about), Hack the Debate was what I had hoped for: an intellectual conversation about the debate in 140-characters or less. [Here's a video of how the debate looked at Current TV]

Hack the Debate worked because it was what the internet masses needed: an outlet for everyone to vent their thoughts and opinions in a public forum. The tweets were a picture of how everyone felt about the election, these candidates and the issues closest to their hearts. What people came up with was surprising, funny, relevant and amazing. Watching the debates alone in my apartment, I felt part of a larger community and not alienated from the debate taking part on TV. I was able to comment along with everyone as the debate happened and it was awesome watching the debate unfold in this way. While it was a little bit of information overload, it did enhance the viewing experience and I am looking forward to Hack the Debate II, with the vice presidential candidates on Thursday.

[Photo by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid]

Digital Satisfaction / Digital Gluttony

2008-09-21T06:02:35Z

There's a thin line between love and hate, as the saying goes, but that thin line -- the one that is often crossed -- goes for a lot of other topics, too.

Take for instance the difference between being satiated by food or stuffing yourself silly. All it takes is that extra bbq wing or cocktail to push you from happy to overstuffed.. and it didn't take much, did it?

Our digital world is much like that today. We hear about the Sarah Palin - Katie Couric interview and "Google it", land at the LA Times "Dish Rag," which links to Sarah Palin stories in the LA Times, which links to Daily Kos, which links to a YouTube video of Sarah Palin in church with her crazy pastor.

Wait. What was I doing again?
]]>
Two sites that I've been taking a look at are Spinspotter and NewsTrust. Both aim to take news stories down to their essentials but try to achieve this in provocative ways. Spinspotter has an interactive red pen, in which readers are asked to mark news stories in order to "[expose] news spin and bias, misuse of sources, and suspect factual support." NewsTrust goes another route by asking readers to review news stories through comments and starred ratings on categories from accuracy to trust. Is this really informing how we live, or are these adding more to the noise?

While the concept of Spinspotter is innovative, I wonder who is truly using it and for what reasons. As readers, Spinspotter asks us to recognize the spin and mark up news stories to "bring transparency to journalism." I wonder how well that'll work. Right off the bat, readers are asked to identify spin according to the Seven Deadly Spins, created through Spinspotter's Journalism Advisory Board and the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. In my opinion, this would require the tenacity of the fellow in the comic XKCD (pictured at left). While citizens often need to police media, I question how involved readers will want to be in taking a digital red pen to The New York Times; I'd expect this more to be a technological tool that other journalists would use when reading each other's work, than a layperson without particular knowledge of journalism would read it. It is difficult to understand/use if you are not a particular sort (a news junkie, if you will) and I think this site alienates a lot of people from using it.

NewsTrust does what Spinspotter is trying to do, but in a simpler way: rate the news and have readers discuss its trustworthiness and other factors in a news story. A bit lackluster in comparison with Spinspotter, but accomplishes its task in an easier way. Most people are used to commenting, and this is an extension of that -- especially in a way that brings about a conversation -- that goes beyond the usual inane chatter and back/forth between opposing commenters. I like NewsTrust as feedback to the story I'm about to read as opposed to Spinspotter, where I am expected to trust in someone else (or myself) spotting spin. NewsTrust has reader accountability for what people write about an article, while Spinspotter is just a bunch of red marks on a digital page. Innovative (to be sure), but not enticing enough -- in my opinion -- to lure the common reader.

All of this though, makes me wonder if we're crossing the line into digital gluttony with everything at such a high interactivity level. Or, maybe I'm always the writer -- afraid of what a little red ink may tell me.

The Politics of the 2008 Presidential Election... Journalists

2008-09-13T22:26:24Z

Forget about hyper-partisanship. Let's talk about a different kind of hyper: the hyper-journalism of this 2008 Presidential Election.

Journalism has gone beyond being neutral and has found many political journalists waving their pro-Obama or pro-McCain flags everywhere. Not that this is a problem, but political fighting has gone beyond the candidates and into the news arena. Instead of reporting the news, journalists are being drawn into battles of words, quick video edits and blogs.

And it isn't pretty.

]]> Take for instance the controversy surrounding a recent column written by Cynthia Tucker in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In the piece, Tucker hits at Bill O'Reilly's contradictory opinions on teenage mothers. On Jamie Lynn Spears' teen pregnancy, O'Reilly blamed the parents, but has recently gone on record to be nothing but supportive of the Palin family. Even The Daily Show picked up on the inconsistencies with O'Reilly and used it as part of a news segment.

Of course, O'Reilly has to hit back hard, so what does he do? He talks about both Tucker and Daily Show host Jon Stewart on his show and sends a reporter to Tucker's doorstep to get answers on why she is "comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears."

Of course, this sets the blogosphere on fire. With the arrival of reporters on Tucker's doorstep, O'Reilly is only perpetuating the hyper-journalism that is surrounding the election: the audience is treated to a saturation of coverage. News is extending beyond newsmakers and onto the news writers. We are thrust into media mudslinging on an appalling amount of platforms such as blogs, television, newspapers -- if you couldn't already tell from the multitude of links I included.

What makes hyper-journalism controversial is not the journalistic infighting, but the effect it is having on society at large. The drone of journalism seems to be reaching fever pitch in these elections, with fights such as O'Reilly and Tucker adding more noise to the cacophony.

One interesting side effect of hyper-journalism, however, is (what seems to be) a rise in commenters on the opposition's web site. One (of many) comments against Tucker appeared in her own paper's website, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Cynthia Tucker has no business being an editor. She displays the sloppy, left wing journalism to promote the liberal agenda that is a big problem with major newspapers these days. The AJC has no reason to be proud of this editor.

Where do we go from here? Well, if we're to look at the recent firing of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, then you're meant to believe that networks may be trying to make the trek back to "neutral." MSNBC seems to be doing a lot of backtracking for remarks made by Olbermann, that often betrayed his true political tendencies. In an Associated Press article by David Bauder, Olbermann "sarcastically dismissed GOP pundit Pat Buchanan on the air after Buchanan said the GOP had been enlivened by the entrance of a conservative Republican."

The trek back to neutrality is not a bad idea in the midst of all the journalistic/political mudslinging -- in theory, at least -- but this thinking may be faulty. Can television truly be a neutral medium? With moving images to supply additional info to support a story, can't a new organization create a slant to a story unnoticeably? As a film studies major, I learned that cameras can suggest certain things by angles and lighting; O'Reilly already pointed out that The Daily Show used several edits when juxtaposing the two O'Reilly opinions. Already, we are media savvy and realize it's necessary to be attentive to details like that.

So where are we left, in terms of hyper-journalism? Although the journalistic infighting may be a byproduct of the escalating ratings war on political coverage, hyper-journalism is here to stay. We are now facing a media that is an endless hall of mirrors, each reflection a response to the last. Whether this will strengthen journalism's image or ruin it remains to be seen.

To Yelp or Not to Yelp...

2008-09-05T23:42:50Z

Ethical transparency and neutrality issues can come up at the oddest times.

Take for instance a recent visit I took to a friend's wine bar. I had a wonderful time, great food, drinks and service but at the end was implored to "please write about us on Yelp, just don't mention you know us."

Immediately, I bristled at the request. And who wouldn't? Not that I necessarily felt my "journalistic integrity" would be compromised by a nice review on the popular social networking site (which I might have voluntarily written anyway after proclaiming I knew the owners), but I instinctively felt wrong about the deception. Even if we're all anonymous strangers on the internet, I still didn't think it would be right for me to disguise my alliance with the business.

Others didn't agree with me. Sneaking a peek at Yelp, I saw the familiar names of friends crowding Yelp with positive anonymous reviews (which the restaurant definitely earned, but solicited); in the end, I declined to review the bar. I felt that all of those positive reviews would be taken in a negative way if it was ever found out how the reviewers knew the owners.
]]> Overreaction? Maybe, but it felt right. Neutrality and transparency are techniques legacy reporters and bloggers use to maintain an ounce of credibility. Instead of writers sneakily inserting their own viewpoints into a slanted article - often intended to form a bias on a certain topic - transparency and neutrality help readers feel more secure in what they are reading.

Ethical neutrality is most often linked to legacy reporting, in which reporters try to maintain distance from the topic and restrict their writing to "just the facts." This is increasingly difficult to do, given modern politics and issues and the rise in platforms such as blogging which encourage the freedom of opinion. Instead of neutrality, most bloggers looking for respect in what they write often adhere to the idea of "ethical transparency" and proclaim all of their bias up front. Instead of working under a falsity of being neutral (when in reality the site is not), bloggers would rather be up front about their viewpoints and avoid the problems of subversive writing.

A blog by the name of Occam's RazR, written by blogger Ike Piggot, created the Venn diagram at right. Although the article is more about PR and how it easily slides into new territory when its goals overlap, my main concern is with the green "transparent" circle. As a transparent writer, it is easy to turn what we write into that of just a "reviewer" or a "customer evangelist" when we allow our writing to mesh with our advocate or professional tendencies. Most don't like this thought, however, and take great lengths to separate ourselves from having ties with what we write -- or at least proclaim them up front to avoid any confusion.

Ethical neutrality and ethical transparency are similar, despite the ways they treat their respective viewpoints in a news piece. As mentioned earlier, both maintain their respectability by admitting any prejudices towards a subject or by steering clear of any prejudice at all. One doesn't happen upon Daily Kos without instantly figuring out what their political slant is. Similarly, (one hopes) that they wouldn't run into the same political bias on a newspaper such as The New York Times. But whether they have that extreme slant or not, the reader is made aware of this, and that is important. If a site such as Daily Kos began spewing pro-McCain, pro-Palin articles, most would question who's writing these articles and their intentions: suddenly, their viewpoint has changed from their original intention. As a reader, I definitely wouldn't like it and I instantly wouldn't trust them.

The ideology of ethical neutrality and ethical transparency are also similar in that they both suit their respective platforms. "[P]ress freedom is itself shared territory. It belongs equally to the amateur and the pro," says Jay Rosen in his article, "Migration Point for the Press Tribe." In the blogosphere, opinion reigns as the choice way of expression, and most bloggers won't hesitate to claim their points of view. Legacy journalism leaves little to no room for opinion, but traditionally readers appreciate an unbiased news writer that allows them to form their own opinions.

The differences between ethical neutrality and ethical transparency, however, go more into the distinctions between blogging and legacy journalism. Oftentimes, ethical transparency can still slide into becoming propaganda and slant reporting, both of which are looked down upon in traditional media. In the article "The Decline of News," Neil Henry writes, "[The] craft of reporting the news fairly and independently is very much endangered and more susceptible to political and marketing propaganda, cant and bias." Although opinion is not a bad thing, bias can often bog down a piece and disintegrate a well-written story into 'Rah-Rah, Go Obama!' journalism that hides any negative opinions/facts towards a subject.

On the other hand, transparency keeps readers from feeling alienated from the writer. Oftentimes, traditional news is written with such a dry hand, readers feel legacy journalism is bland and unattractive. "[Traditional reporters] are content-focused, not people-focused. After all, that's what the job's been all about for the last century or so," says writer Roy Greenslade in the article "Why Journalists Must Learn the Values of the Blogging Revolution." People are often weary of being spoken to not with, that it's easy to mistake an article as meaningless drone.

Whether by neutrality or by transparency, a journalist's best way of winning a reader's trust is to announce their intentions or stay away from intention at all. Transparency versus neutrality is always a question when writing, but to use neither would be a mistake.

But, forget all that: let me tell you about the best wine bar I've ever been to...

(Photo of Obama poster by Flickr/Steve Rhodes)

Journalists: Scribes in Modern Times?

2008-09-04T03:33:42Z

The role of journalist is dead.

I am a journalist and this scares me. I am also relieved to see this happen. While I still believe in "legacy journalism," I am excited by the prospect of the journalist as a human. The New Journalist writes the straight copy, but can also have an opinion of their own -- even reactions to news events.

We are the picture takers and the news writers, but we are not cruel, emotionless people.

We write the stories, but that doesn't mean we're not affected by what we report. If we report good stories, heartbreaking stories, we go home and lament the world, too.

Yet, this is what we journalists have been billed as: vultures feeding on society for our next story.
]]> What we really do (and what I like about this evolving profession) is engage society in conversations about our world. We're changing how we "discuss" things -- by blog, newspaper, radio, etc. -- but despite format, journalists are finding ways to express ourselves, too. Especially through blogs.

The mass platform for anyone to broadcast their thoughts these days are blogs. While there are "professional blogs," the major complaint about blogs are not their personal and conversational tones, but the accuracy.

Ahh, the accuracy; it's something to seriously question when reading a blog. What is great about a blog (and bloggers) is how they make readers think -- much like traditional journalism. In the Sarah Palin "Who's Trig's real mother?" scandal, the facts presented by blogs were definitely screwy. But it took bloggers to point out the oddities in Palin's background to bring the press scurrying to find out why, exactly, did Palin seem off. Bloggers kicked up a storm with Palin's background and rightly so. Is America really ready to help elect a once-Secessionist, pro-lifer, book banner? These are all rarely things a politician would admit up front -- at least without the legions of devoted Internet background sleuths and reporters at Palin's front door.

So where is political writing heading these days, with big bad blogs on the horizon, (some true, but mostly false) whistle blowing and policing candidates? Are journalists on their way out, much in the way of scribes?

I mentioned at the beginning of my post that journalists, as we know them, are dead. I said this to shock and to get people thinking of journalists and journalism as an evolving profession. If we stick with Shirky's example of scribes -- who couldn't evolve past their lifelong duty of writing manuscripts -- if journalists were to stick merely to what they know, who's to say our profession won't be completely dead in a few years? In this new world of citizen journalism, what we lack is a business model to compete, but most journalists have a sense to know that blogging is not the death of journalism. As long as we keep a dialogue going about our society, journalism will live on.

(Photo of Sarah Palin by Flickr/scriptingnews)

What Does Journalism and Journalists Mean in Society?

2008-08-31T03:17:49Z

The role of traditional journalism and journalist is shifting. In this state of new technology, most journalists are worried about what should define their role in journalism. This is similar to the situation scribes found themselves in the 1400s. In Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, Shirky describes the disappearance of the scribe with the arrival of the printing press. If journalists were to compare themselves to scribes in the wake of blogs and online news journals, there would be reason to worry indeed.

On the disappearance of scribes, Shirky writes:

"The entire basis on which the scribes earned their keep vanished not when reading and writing vanished but when reading and writing became ubiquitous. If everyone can do something, it is no longer rare enough to pay for, even if it is vital." (79)

Journalism, however, is not as simplistic as just the ability to read and write. Journalism is the ability to report the truth in an unbiased and ethical manner. The form journalism takes is less noteworthy than what journalism does; whether news comes in the form of an online article, a newspaper or radio show, most often it is its truthfulness that most people look for. If journalism retains that, then it will remain a source people turn to find out what is happening with the world.

In the article "Good Decisions and Great Journalism: The Marriage of Ethics and Craft," Bob Steele defines what obligations a journalist has:

The primary obligation of journalists is to seek the truth and report it as factually, contextually and fairly as possible, and, given consumer and public interest, as quickly as possible. That responsibility is not simple.

The responsibility of the journalist truly is not simple, which is why many journalists worry about who should be identified as a journalist. The integrity of blogging is often called into question, as many bloggers post items quickly, often eschewing research and lacking an editorial check that most reporters rely on to keep from mistakenly reporting a lie. If bloggers are regarded as journalists -- even without thoroughly checking their facts -- then the profession of journalism can be called into question.

Bloggers, however, should not be dismissed as factless journalists. While journalists try to be as transparent as possible when reporting (which is often best when reporting fact), bloggers have the ability to allow themselves to be human and react to things on a personal level; this is an important thing when trying to reach readers on a different level. Instead of a barrier such as a news desk keeping viewers from watching the news, blogs allow people to hear reactions from reporters and interact with the writer instead of simply being told the news.

So where does that leave journalists in this evolving media? At a crossroad, so to speak. While inclusion of bloggers as journalists may take away from the journalistic credo of always telling the truth (since not everyone with a blog can be expected to uphold this journalistic standard), it is still worth establishing the blogger as part of the definition of journalist. In fact, it adds a wonderful new dimension to journalism never before discussed. In the article "What Journalists Can Learn From Bloggers," Steve Outing writes:

The popularity of bloggers is leading to a new way of thinking about news. [Jeff] Jarvis said in an e-mail interview that the most profound thing he learned when he started blogging is this: News is a conversation, not just a lecture. The story doesn't end when it's published, but rather just gets started as the public begins to do its part -- discussing the story, adding to it, and correcting it.

A journalist, at their most formal definition, was once defined as a person through which truthful, ethical and unbiased reporting is done. While this is important, I think the definition of a journalist should be someone who starts a dialogue on topics happening in the world and engages people in thinking and discussing events and news. While accuracy in reporting is always key, blogs should not be dismissed merely for inaccuracy (if any should occur); instead, they are important in their role to incite discussion and possible action.

A true journalist should inspire the people to look at what's happening in our world and get them talking about what we don't like in our news and (furthermore) to do something about it. Lofty ideals of what a journalist should do aside, this is what a true journalist does in its simplest form -- whether by blog, news article, documentary or radio show.

Wrestling with Jamiel's Law

2008-08-26T14:00:00Z

Ask Cynthia Buiza of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) or radio talk show host Doug McIntyre about their thoughts on Jamiel's Law, and they'll tell you. Each will overwhelm you with facts and examples, offering their well-argued standpoints on the issue until you find yourself agreeing with both sides -- despite their opposing views.

McIntyre, host of "McIntyre in the Morning", exemplifies the attractiveness of KABC and their sleek studios in his manner of talking (which is nonstop) and how he expresses himself. Standing behind the radio host's desk, McIntyre postulated about his feelings on Jamiel's Law and Special Order 40. A supporter of Jamiel's Law, McIntyre sees Special Order 40 as being "designed to protect an illegal immigrant community." McIntyre believes that by repealing Special Order 40, known illegal immigrant gang members can then be deported, making streets safer and avoiding another incident such as the killing of Jamiel Shaw, Jr..

"Every murderer off the streets is good. We have enough homegrown murderers without importing new ones," says McIntyre.

While McIntyre peppered facts into his statements to further his purposes, Buiza draped herself in facts and sought to make our group well-informed of the issue. A video documentary was shown, handouts were given; the media from CHIRLA sought to educate, but betrayed the fact that immigration rights were an uphill battle -- so much so that their presentation almost seemed to be overkill. CHIRLA is prepared to handle the task of being pushed against the fence by anti-immigrant groups, providing rebuttals to every argument against immigrant rights.

"[Special Order 40] is a small buffer between LAPD inquiring about immigrant status," says Buiza. "It's a whole slippery slope when you let LAPD [stop and question immigrants on immigration status]."

While not an issue that can be easily resolved, immigrant rights is a difficult debate fraught with emotional stories from those either against or for Jamiel's Law. There seems to be no "right" answer as to whether Jamiel's Law should be passed. Instead, the only move seems to be forward and whether voters decide to pass Jamiel's Law, only time can tell whether the move will be a positive one or not.

My Place in Journalism

2008-08-26T06:35:54Z

What do I intend to do in the world of journalism? Discover everything horrible and wonderful about the world and document it. Yes, this is a lofty and vague answer, but that was the most encompassing statement I could come up with for such a broad question.

The long answer is that I enjoy writing and journalism and have many things I'd like to do within journalism. I hope to be busy writing for a magazine, hopping on a plane to check out a new variety of beetle discovered in South America one week for an article, scheduling a documentary shoot on child workers in the Philippines another week. The plan is to learn something new and interesting, then report on it.

Wildfire chasing and court case coverage never really held an interest for me. What I'm intrigued by are human interest stories, or stories that take you beyond what you already know. If someone can step outside of their own reality and understand an experience beyond them self, then I would consider my writing/documentaries (my career) a success. What I hope to bring to journalism is a different perspective, whatever route -- or form -- that may take.