1. While shooting these two documentaries, both filmmakers faced ethical dilemmas. One that stood out to me the most was the matter of privacy and exploitation. One could argue that, due to the mental state of the people being documented, it is hard to argue that they are in the right mind to consent. This is probably the biggest issue that I noticed that could cause ethical problems. These documentaries both, in a way, invade the lives of these "sick" people, and it is hard to know for sure that it is willingly; how can you know that the people know exactly what is being made out of their life?
2. I believe that all of the footage faces the same issues, so if they are going to use any of it, they have already exploited these people, and they might as well use all of the footage. Although, I do feel that they, for the well being of the people who were documented, should notice if there are any parts in particular that could cause harm to the reputation of the people being documented, and should try not to use those clips. (For example, personal information such as the subject's sexual activities in the Titicut Follies".)
3. In this situation, as a journalist or a documentary storyteller, I would try my best not to exploit the people who agreed to be a part of my project. It is a touchy subject, and everybody has their own opinions on whether the topic is alright to shoot, but with consent, it is technically allowed. I would try not to portray the people negatively, while still getting my point across. I would document the lives of these people, but avoid focusing on things that people in society can easily scrutinize. I believe the "Grey Gardens" film did the best job of this.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Second Life Paper
Brett Atwood, a professor at Washington State University, held a press conference Monday June 8 to discuss the launch of a new 3-dimensional WSU campus in the virtual world, Second Life.
The virtual campus was designed by staff and students who work for The Center for Distance and Professional Education, also known as CDPE. The complete 3D replica of the Pullman campus will be WSU’s first entry into the virtual world and will be accessible to a global audience.
“We are dipping our toe into Second Life to see where it is appropriate or may benefit WSU staff and students,” said Atwood.
WSU is encouraging professors to learn and get comfortable with Second Life, and from there, integrate it where it may be suitable in a school setting.
“People can log in from around the world and can attend a lecture,” said Atwood. “It is essentially a 3D space, just like a class room, and allows for a 3D simulated lecture environment.”
Second Life offers a replica of a class room setting and gives students across geographic areas a sense of community, explained Atwood. It opens access to WSU and allows for creativity and collaboration. Because of this, the future for Second Life at WSU, especially for programs such as the distance learning program, sounds promising.
The introduction of this program at WSU differs from current programs used at the university, such as eLearning, because it adds a collaborative, simulative and community building component, explained Atwood. It allows students to have a shared environment with their peers, even though they may be across the world.
There are two common criticisms when the public looks at Second Life in an education context. The first issue has to do with the computer processor being used. Older computers are not always up to speed with the kind of technology that is necessary for this program, but if the structure is there and students have fast enough computers to support the program, there should be no problems. Another issue is one of adult context. There are elements within Second Life, not pertained to the education context, that do contain sexually explicit themes. Although this issue is not in the mainstream experience, it is there, and people fear that it can interfere with the education perspective of the program.
What is viewed by the public as a positive aspect of Second Life in an education context is that the virtual program offers experiences that will benefit learning. Many people feel that if you are socially engaged, such as with this program, more trust and connectedness among peers and instructors will develop. Second Life encourages people to communicate, and in real time, all of these components should help the learning environment, said Atwood.
“Second Life is a great phenomenon that I can only see expanding,” said Wesley G. Moorhead, an employee at Microsoft. “The benefits that come from a program such as this do not come around often. It is our job to grasp that and take advantage of it.”
The virtual world and the variety it will bring to WSU should be very interesting to watch develop. Second Life offers a diverse, untraditional way of learning, and WSU is ready to take a part in it.
“The next year will be very telling for Second Life at Washington State,” said Atwood. “Those experimenting with it will be able to see what works and what does not.” From there, the future of Second Life at WSU will be determined.
The virtual campus was designed by staff and students who work for The Center for Distance and Professional Education, also known as CDPE. The complete 3D replica of the Pullman campus will be WSU’s first entry into the virtual world and will be accessible to a global audience.
“We are dipping our toe into Second Life to see where it is appropriate or may benefit WSU staff and students,” said Atwood.
WSU is encouraging professors to learn and get comfortable with Second Life, and from there, integrate it where it may be suitable in a school setting.
“People can log in from around the world and can attend a lecture,” said Atwood. “It is essentially a 3D space, just like a class room, and allows for a 3D simulated lecture environment.”
Second Life offers a replica of a class room setting and gives students across geographic areas a sense of community, explained Atwood. It opens access to WSU and allows for creativity and collaboration. Because of this, the future for Second Life at WSU, especially for programs such as the distance learning program, sounds promising.
The introduction of this program at WSU differs from current programs used at the university, such as eLearning, because it adds a collaborative, simulative and community building component, explained Atwood. It allows students to have a shared environment with their peers, even though they may be across the world.
There are two common criticisms when the public looks at Second Life in an education context. The first issue has to do with the computer processor being used. Older computers are not always up to speed with the kind of technology that is necessary for this program, but if the structure is there and students have fast enough computers to support the program, there should be no problems. Another issue is one of adult context. There are elements within Second Life, not pertained to the education context, that do contain sexually explicit themes. Although this issue is not in the mainstream experience, it is there, and people fear that it can interfere with the education perspective of the program.
What is viewed by the public as a positive aspect of Second Life in an education context is that the virtual program offers experiences that will benefit learning. Many people feel that if you are socially engaged, such as with this program, more trust and connectedness among peers and instructors will develop. Second Life encourages people to communicate, and in real time, all of these components should help the learning environment, said Atwood.
“Second Life is a great phenomenon that I can only see expanding,” said Wesley G. Moorhead, an employee at Microsoft. “The benefits that come from a program such as this do not come around often. It is our job to grasp that and take advantage of it.”
The virtual world and the variety it will bring to WSU should be very interesting to watch develop. Second Life offers a diverse, untraditional way of learning, and WSU is ready to take a part in it.
“The next year will be very telling for Second Life at Washington State,” said Atwood. “Those experimenting with it will be able to see what works and what does not.” From there, the future of Second Life at WSU will be determined.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Ethics Assignment
1. I believe that the editor, Steven Smith, referred to the story as legitimate if they were to talk about the Mayor's scandal because that is what sells in news these days. The past of reporting strictly on fact is diminishing, and entertainment is becoming more important. If the reporter were able to find out information about the scandal, the public would most likely be more interested in the story. Although I feel that it is an unethical approach, I believe that that is what was meant by the statement.
2. Bill Morlin justified the operation by saying that there was no rule against hiring an outside person to help them get their story or information. He claimed that as long as what they did was legal, which in this case it was, there should be no problem with what they did to get the story. He claims that the purpose was to find the truth, and the reason he wanted the truth is so he could report it for his story to the public. The reason Morlin didn't create the identity himself is because it goes against the code of ethics for the newspaper. This is why he felt it was okay to use the approach he did, as long as he wasn't technically doing it himself.
3. I think The Spokesman Review published so many articles on the Mayor's scandal because it was a big story to hit a town where not a lot of scandal, at least publicly, occurs. It isn't a very small town, but it isn't a major city either, so people could relate to the story, and felt like they were involved. Because it was something that was so controversial, the paper knew that it would attract a lot of readers.
4. I don't think that the story benefited anybody. All that it really did was cause a lot of drama for the city of Spokane, bring a lot of stress to West, not to mention ruining his career, and it also could have effected Spokane's gay community negatively. I feel that it is not ethical to run stories until they are completely proven as fact; especially in a situation that threatens so many people. From this, the newspaper temporarily got more readers, and that is about it. I do not believe it was worth it for them, because it ultimately hurt more people than it did anyone good.
5. I do feel there are ethical problems with this story. What stood out to me is that it seems to be one sided. I feel that in order to write a story such as this, both sides need to be presented clearly and equally. By only talking about one negative side, it makes it hard for readers to form their own opinion.
2. Bill Morlin justified the operation by saying that there was no rule against hiring an outside person to help them get their story or information. He claimed that as long as what they did was legal, which in this case it was, there should be no problem with what they did to get the story. He claims that the purpose was to find the truth, and the reason he wanted the truth is so he could report it for his story to the public. The reason Morlin didn't create the identity himself is because it goes against the code of ethics for the newspaper. This is why he felt it was okay to use the approach he did, as long as he wasn't technically doing it himself.
3. I think The Spokesman Review published so many articles on the Mayor's scandal because it was a big story to hit a town where not a lot of scandal, at least publicly, occurs. It isn't a very small town, but it isn't a major city either, so people could relate to the story, and felt like they were involved. Because it was something that was so controversial, the paper knew that it would attract a lot of readers.
4. I don't think that the story benefited anybody. All that it really did was cause a lot of drama for the city of Spokane, bring a lot of stress to West, not to mention ruining his career, and it also could have effected Spokane's gay community negatively. I feel that it is not ethical to run stories until they are completely proven as fact; especially in a situation that threatens so many people. From this, the newspaper temporarily got more readers, and that is about it. I do not believe it was worth it for them, because it ultimately hurt more people than it did anyone good.
5. I do feel there are ethical problems with this story. What stood out to me is that it seems to be one sided. I feel that in order to write a story such as this, both sides need to be presented clearly and equally. By only talking about one negative side, it makes it hard for readers to form their own opinion.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Frontline Assignment
Seconds after watching the first segment, something that I’ve heard many times stood out to me more than it ever has. One of the speakers said that people who used to report news were once heroes. I cannot help but look at that phrase and question what they are considered today. What is it that happened that changed the way society viewed these people who were once highly respected professionals? By watching these video clips, it occurred to me exactly how large of a change the phenomenon of the internet has created in the way we view news.
What I found very interesting was the segment that pointed out how one of today’s most influential and most watched news programs airs not on NBC, CNN, or any other profound station, but on Comedy Central. The Daily Show with John Stewart is a perfect example of how our news is changing in front of our eyes. People are beginning to view certain styles of reporting news as a joke, and by watching a show that makes fun of that, and still presents news, it becomes very clear what people are interested in. It seems that news has transformed from truth into entertainment. This explains why people want news that they enjoy watching, and can still learn from, yet at the same time, get involved with. This brings me to another phenomenon that the internet brings to our news; blogs.
Blogging was also pointed out as a way our news is changing. It is becoming more and more prominent, and many young readers (who are only going to continue the trend into future generations) are starting to view blogging as an acceptable form of news. Anybody has the right to blog, and because of that, people do not have a way to tell exactly what is true and what is not. This new form of “journalism”, if you want to call it that, should not always be considered credible, and can cause many issues in effecting the way news is presented. News now days, that was once strictly to report stories, is integrating entertainment, all in order to keep ratings high. New channel’s need for viewers is threatening serious reporting. If everybody has the right to report news, which the internet is now allowing, the concept of “real” news can completely disappear. As the audience of certain news shows, such as 60 minutes, ages, so will the number of viewers, and eventually the concept. The internet, although it offers many positive aspects to news, also has the power to completely change traditional journalism.
What I found very interesting was the segment that pointed out how one of today’s most influential and most watched news programs airs not on NBC, CNN, or any other profound station, but on Comedy Central. The Daily Show with John Stewart is a perfect example of how our news is changing in front of our eyes. People are beginning to view certain styles of reporting news as a joke, and by watching a show that makes fun of that, and still presents news, it becomes very clear what people are interested in. It seems that news has transformed from truth into entertainment. This explains why people want news that they enjoy watching, and can still learn from, yet at the same time, get involved with. This brings me to another phenomenon that the internet brings to our news; blogs.
Blogging was also pointed out as a way our news is changing. It is becoming more and more prominent, and many young readers (who are only going to continue the trend into future generations) are starting to view blogging as an acceptable form of news. Anybody has the right to blog, and because of that, people do not have a way to tell exactly what is true and what is not. This new form of “journalism”, if you want to call it that, should not always be considered credible, and can cause many issues in effecting the way news is presented. News now days, that was once strictly to report stories, is integrating entertainment, all in order to keep ratings high. New channel’s need for viewers is threatening serious reporting. If everybody has the right to report news, which the internet is now allowing, the concept of “real” news can completely disappear. As the audience of certain news shows, such as 60 minutes, ages, so will the number of viewers, and eventually the concept. The internet, although it offers many positive aspects to news, also has the power to completely change traditional journalism.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Exploring News Beyond the U.S. Assignment
While surfing through the different news channels today, I noticed that none of them seem to be the same. As I suspected, I felt that with every news station, with the exception of BBC World News, there was bias from wherever the news was being broadcasted. I felt that each station would drop certain hints that indicated which country, or view, they supported the most. I also listened to a few arguments that occurred discussing an issue, which usually was something about the United States, and I saw that the person who opposed the U.S. had much more speaking time than those who supported our country. While watching BBC World News, I did not get any sense of bias. It seemed to follow the Murrow standard the best, and I feel that it is a very reliable source, with a variety of stories and information. After watching Al Jezeera, I was able to see the biggest bias in all of the news sources. I felt that they were pretty anti-American, and it was apparent in the way they portrayed their stories.
1. I do not feel that the Internet will exactly help Al Jezeera reach an American audience, but I don't believe it will hurt their number of viewers either. Although it is a way for people in the U.S. to have an opportunity to view the news station, I do not see how many Americans would have the desire to do so. The station seems to be pretty anti-American, and I cannot see someone from here wanting to listen to that constantly when they have the opportunity to listen to other news.
2. I do not think that Al Jezeera should be broadcasted in the U.S. I feel that it should stay on the Internet. I think that a lot of arguments would come from offended Americans if it were broadcasted here. That is not to say it shouldn't remain on the Internet though. That way, people can view it if they want to, but they don't have to hear it without logging onto the site by choice.
3. I feel that their way of broadcasting differs from the kind in U.S. news stations because of their variety. I felt that the reporters were coming from multiple places, rather than a news station with very few on-scene reports. It seemed a little more scattered to me than many news stations I see here that seem to have a very structured plan and style.
4. From what I saw, I believe they stuck to their code of ethics. For a news team to post their code of ethics, I feel that they would have to keep a pretty conscious effort of following it. From my knowledge, other news companies do not make their code of ethics public, so people have no way to tell whether or not they are following it. Although, I'm sure it is common for multiple news sources to slip up here and there.
1. I do not feel that the Internet will exactly help Al Jezeera reach an American audience, but I don't believe it will hurt their number of viewers either. Although it is a way for people in the U.S. to have an opportunity to view the news station, I do not see how many Americans would have the desire to do so. The station seems to be pretty anti-American, and I cannot see someone from here wanting to listen to that constantly when they have the opportunity to listen to other news.
2. I do not think that Al Jezeera should be broadcasted in the U.S. I feel that it should stay on the Internet. I think that a lot of arguments would come from offended Americans if it were broadcasted here. That is not to say it shouldn't remain on the Internet though. That way, people can view it if they want to, but they don't have to hear it without logging onto the site by choice.
3. I feel that their way of broadcasting differs from the kind in U.S. news stations because of their variety. I felt that the reporters were coming from multiple places, rather than a news station with very few on-scene reports. It seemed a little more scattered to me than many news stations I see here that seem to have a very structured plan and style.
4. From what I saw, I believe they stuck to their code of ethics. For a news team to post their code of ethics, I feel that they would have to keep a pretty conscious effort of following it. From my knowledge, other news companies do not make their code of ethics public, so people have no way to tell whether or not they are following it. Although, I'm sure it is common for multiple news sources to slip up here and there.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
"Feeding the Beast" Video
After watching "Feeding the Beast", my views on the world of journalism and reporting the news changed quite a bit. Many people do not take time to think about the demands of the field and all of the work that goes into it, but this video gives outsiders an inside view. The media, which can be referred to as "the beast", is constantly in demand of new, quick information. There is a need to provide the media, and the public, with information at all times. Knowing how many people go into the background of the stories that are reported in journalism made me realize exactly how much work it takes to get the information the news is constantly feeding the public. Although it seems easy to disagree with one journalist taking the credit for many other people's work, I do not feel that people could get as much news as they do and as quickly as they do, if it were only one person at a time making these stories possible. The heavy demand for the news to constantly "feed the beast" can arise some compromise in the work being displayed. People working for the news can feel rushed to fulfill the constant demand of the public, and therefore may not give credible stories. Their work can be compromised because of the pressure they have to put out as much information as possible, at all times. The reporters may not research the topic as in-depth as they need to, and because of that, the information may not be one hundred percent accurate. It is up to the public to decide which is more important to them: the constant news feed or complete accuracy.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)