"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible;
to be credible we must be truthful." - Edward R Murrow
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts

Criticism of Steubenville Rape Media Coverage By CNN


The media's coverage of the Steubenville rape was certainly bias in the fact that the reporting that was seen seemed to favor the rapists as opposed to the showing any remorse toward the rape victim. As reported by the Christian Science Monitor:

          "But CNN, the flagship of 24-hour news, has also become the target of widespread online outrage for its extended coverage following the verdict. In various segments, respected CNN anchor Candy Crowley discussed the verdict with her team of reporters and analysts, using words such as “tragedy” to describe the impact – not on the young victim – but on the lives of the two convicted boys

Reporter Poppy Harlow said, it was “incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart.”
The discussion continued along these lines, including legal analysis of the permanent requirement to register as sex offenders.  There were no comments from the victim or from rape advocacy groups.
Within a day at least three online petitions reacting to CNN’s coverage sprang up, calling it “awful” and calling for redress. By Tuesday the petitions had gathered some 200,000 signatures. The verdict that the judge handed down was justice – not a "tragedy," one petition reads, adding, “the tragedy was the rape. Please apologize and make this right.” "
    
The media is supposed to remain unbiased. This is partially why I think that print journalism is truly the only way to remain unbiased, because there is less of a chance that the reporter will drop a personal opinion into the article if it is a hard news article or feature, because the editor will spot it and remove it. The television news anchors and reporters are more likely to make side comments as well as personal commentary on their feelings toward a story. A facial expression or tone of voice can also be leading in a way that shows a bias. 
Would I be writing this blog post if the media had shown a bias toward the victim instead of remaining completely objective? Probably not. That's a whole different blog post all together though. The fact that it seemed like there was more caring about these "poor 16-year-old football stars whose futures were ruined" as opposed to an applause at justice being served in the case that rapists are being put away for their heinous crime is just ludicrous. 





Read Users' Comments (0)

Lindsay Lohan's manicure gets its own blog entry from CNN. --Nikky Raney


Lindsay Lohan's manicure was
given its own blog entry on CNN's Marquee Blog.

(Photo taken from CNN's blog post)

There's something about blogging that some people may not realize. Blogging for the sake of blogging is not worthwhile. CNN out of all news sources should have saved this blog entry for one of the gossip blogs (The Superficial perhaps, one of my favorites).

Yes, Lohan's manicure said "F*** U" on the middle finger, but does it require an entire blog post?

This blog post is a reminder to all that before you post a blog entry make sure that the topic has relevance. Writing a blog post for the sake of writing a blog post doesn't show the readers that there's a thought process behind the blogging.

If I was to blog every idea that popped into my head I would have more blog posts than any other blog out there. So, CNN let's make sure the next celebrity blog post has more depth to it.

I write a blog post about Lindsay Lohan's 90 day jail sentence, and CNN write a blog post about the manicure Lohan wore to court.

P.S. TMZ also reported about Lohan's manicure, because that's what TMZ does.

" Life is full of risks anyway, why not take them?" -- Lindsay Lohan

Why not take them? Because you'll end up in jail.




My next blog post will be about watermarking images & giving credit for photos.
I will also post the JOURNALISM 101 video.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Crime photos: public or private? (Part one)

For PART ONE I am going to post the article that has sparked this idea within my head.


"Recent court fights over the videotape of a killer whale attack at SeaWorld in Florida and a writer's request for investigative photos of a slain Georgia hiker's body are rekindling a familiar debate...

The question: Where should the line be drawn between the public's right to know and a crime victim's family's right to privacy?" --CNN



My next post will include where I stand on this issue, not from a personal standpoint, but from the standpoint of a journalist. The way that I think this should be handled and an explanation of how this will affect the future of journalism will be included in the next post.


"There were influences in my life that were more important than journalism, such as comic strips and radio."-Guillermo Cabrera Infante

Follow up to State of the Union Address

I apologize for not getting to this sooner.


I have attached the video from youtube.com. I personally watched it via CNN, but it really doesn't make a difference.

Obama's State of the Union Address, in my opinion, was very well done. I try as a journalist not to exert my personal opinion, but since this is my blog I figure I can get away with it once in a while. I appreciated what he had to say about college students and that getting an education should not lead to poverty.

I acquired the transcript via abcnews.com so that I could quote him accurately. The part that stood out the most to me was:

"...When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem..."

(which I acquired directly from : http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572&page=2)

Now, as for the analysis from other news sources:
I watched CNN right afterwards and they had their team of "senior political analyzers" go over every line that Obama spoke and show how the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans were "impacted" by each word/line spoken.

Newspapers did some news analysis through their print versions, but I notice that most of the analysis was done online. I think that this is because news outlets are able to deliver their information right after the President gave his speech, and the news outlets were also able to include the video footage from the State of the Union.

I would like to say that in the future journalism will go back to treating accuracy and objectivity as the two biggest deals when publishing an article, but that may be too idealistic. In my opinion, the analysis of the President's speech was particularly bias, and I feel like each reporter/anchor/writer inserted his/her own personal opinion when "reporting" about the speech.

I do not want to attack particular news sources, but in a lot of my findings the articles about the President's address were put under "news" "news analysis" to show that it would be hard news and objective, but the result was personal opinions inserted, as well as first person references.

I truly hope that the future of journalism will return to objectivity, because people that decide to read about the speech online without watching it themselves may blindly follow the opinion and "facts" given about the speech on the news website without actually getting their own opinions since none of the sites are able to objectively analyze his speech.

"A long life in journalism convinced me many presidents ago that there should be a large air space between a journalist and the head of a state. " - Walter Lippmann

Read Users' Comments (1)comments

VISITOR COUNT