Don't Diss the Printed Press

The Pew Research Center recently did a study to determine the outlets that the people were getting their news from. It concluded that people go to different sources depending on the topic they want to know more about. For instance, TV is most popular for weather, traffic and breaking news. This surprises me. I would think that people would go to the radio for weather and traffic. Or at least traffic. But I guess both radio and TV are a form of broadcast news.
Written papers and their websites are most popular for local government updates and crime reports. I think the key part of that statement is "and their websites." It very much goes to show that technology is moving write along and written papers are getting lost. Obviously people are still reading those papers online...it's more convenient that way. But in a world that is so 'green' conscious, why not just nix the actual newspapers altogether?
I have to admit, there is something to be said for the sensory input associated with a newspaper. But it is cheaper and faster to look online. I can search what I want to know more about in Google and find every news source that has info on the topic, instead of flipping through an awkward to hold paper that I had to pay for and I might only have time to read certain sections.
Now the study also found that word of mouth (which in this generation means twitter and texting) is the second most popular for local news. Uhm Duh. That's not surprising. People want to know what their peers are talking about. It also showed that young adults rely on the Internet more than TV or papers. Well I could have told you that.

But by far the most atrocious thing that this study found is that the public does not trust their media sources. They believe that the media is heavily influenced by powerful people and groups, that they only cover one side and that reporters try to cover up their mistakes. That is entirely unacceptable. The public should be able to trust reporters and the media.The loyalty of the media lies first and foremost to the citizen. So why are we putting up with this? There were revolts back in the day when the media was controlled by the government. If we're not happy with the way out media is telling the news why don't we do the same? Is it because of power?

All I know is that if I ever make it into the field of journalism and become a reporter, I will have a code of ethics, I will be loyal to the citizen and I will be a reporter people can trust.

Loyal Journalists

A big part of being a trustworthy news source is being loyal to the readers, watchers, and listeners.First and foremost we have to, as our book explained, 'Commit to the Citizen First'. This means that as a journalist I need to report news in a way that is completely truthful and doesn't hurt any person's rights to privacy. It isn't right to tell a news story that breaks a law or code of ethics in order to make money.

One example of this is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch unlawfully hacked into a girl's phone to get information. Not only did he work the information he received to give it the twist he wanted, but he even harmed families effected in 9/11 in the process.

He is the perfect example of what not to do when it comes to loyalty to the citizens. We talked a lot in class about how in order to be loyal we need to have a code of ethics. Many major newspapers do and they are available for the public to look at. The New York Times is one such paper. I really think it awesome that they created a code for their entire company to live by. That way the company can be unified in purpose and stick to the same ideas in whatever they do. The more we talked about having a code ethics, the more I realized that I should create one for myself. Not only for my job as a reporter and a journalist but also in my life.

A new study shows that people get most of their news from their televisions but there are still certain topics that people go to their newspapers for. It just goes to show that no matter what field of journalism a person is in, and whether or not the print newspaper dies, it is still important for a journalist to be loyal to the citizen, the consumer, the reader and not harm their rights in the process of giving them the news. Even if it was just one person reading or watching or listening to the news program, it is enough to be loyal to that person and the person that the news involves.

The Truth the Whole Truth and Nothing But.

A Journalists first obligation is to tell the truth. The readers, viewers and listeners are counting on the journalists to provide them with truthful information. As soon as a journalist stops telling the truth or starts stretching the truth the public can no longer trust them. And when a journalist loses their audience base...they lose their job.

But what is the truth?
News and truth are not the same thing. (Article)
News signals and event and the truth brings something to light.

There have been times in certain places where the government regulates what 'truth' is told.
But a community loses their power when they lose their voice. They need truth to bring them together and keep them strong. There are advantages to government censorship like rights to privacy and preventing plagiarism. And then there are disadvantages: for instance Hitler censored the news which is why many people still refuse to believe that the Holocaust actually happened.

But where is the line?

The line between the truth the public needs to know and the things that need to be censored seems to be very thin. And who gets to decide? The government? The news station? The reporter?

I think that the reporter really just needs to be out in the world and very observant. If the reporter is spending time out in their community and listening to what people are interested in then they will know what they need to report on. They can then decide what the public needs and wants to hear. And there is a way to present it so that no copyright or laws are being broken and still get the full story told.

The Future of News

During the Industrial Revolution people lost jobs because they created machinery that could do the work that people were doing by hand. Now as technology is evolving at such a rapid pace, journalism and the news must do the same to keep up.

This is an excellent video that we watched in class that shows just how quickly the world is changing. If Journalism does not keep up with the changing world, it will become a thing of the past.

The new technology might mean that things have to change, but in many ways they are making it more convenient to read the news. I have an app on my phone for CNN, New York Times, and ABC. I have the opportunity to read the headlines of each of these news sites whenever and where ever I want. I most likely would not read these news sites otherwise. So this technological advance to mobile phone applications is good for these news stations because more people like me are reading on their phones who otherwise would not.

Twitter is another example. I just got a twitter account for my communications class. The next thing I did was started following all my favorite news sites. Then I downloaded the handy dandy Twitter app to my phone. So if for some reason my news apps were not working on my phone, I could scroll through my twitter feed and find out from that.

If you ask me, all this technology is a beautiful thing. Especially for my generation who was born with a cell phone in their hand updating their facebook status about the birth experience. (Obviously I'm exaggerating...facebook wasn't invented in the early 90s. But you get the point.)

But with all good things comes the opportunity to do evil. With the internet people have the opportunity to edit and change thing to try and deceive the people who view it. Take this picture for example:

Someone took this picture from the top of the World Trade Center and then edited it to make it look like it was taken right as the plane was about to crash into it.

Well now it is out in the open. This picture is a fake. But what about when it was first released? How do you suppose that made people feel after seeing it and then discovering it wasn't real. It all comes down to an inappropriate use of resources. You take something awesome like the internet and photoshop and you misuse it. So the bottom line here is that the internet is not always credible. Yes you can read news from blogs if you want but you just have to realize that it might not always be true.

In my personal opinion the advances in technology have done wonderful things for journalism. I am much more up to date and current events because of said advances. But now that everything is online is does leave some question as to what will happen to the print newspaper. There will always be people (those from an older generation) who want their newspaper that they can touch and smell and hold. But what about when that generation passes? What then? Will newspapers still be published at all? Will my children know what a newspaper is?

Despite the questions about what will happen to things like the newspaper and the future of broadcast news even, my future in journalism is clear. Because journalists now have to learn how to do everything, not only find their story but write it and film it and edit it, I will have a wider skill set that will help me in my ultimate goal to create documentaries. I am grateful for the technological advances because they have given me the chance to learn about all the different forms of technology and how they will benefit me in my future career.