Journalism, the World and the Future
Discussion of the future of journalism from GMU
CNN reports today that the drug enforcement agencies from the US and Ecuador have seized a fully operational ocean-going submarine designed for drug smugglers. (Ecuador authorities seize drug-smuggling sub)
This is the first time a real submarine was captured. But in the past few years the issue of submersible vessels has been a big problem. (Coast Guard hunts drug-running semi-subs from 2008.)
Now would it have been so difficult to refer to the submersibles in the submarine story? Context is everything to good story telling. And when the issue is global in nature and deals with drug running, more information is always better than less.
First posted at Journalists, Journalism and the World
It is so nice to see the Poynter News University run a self-guided course on the very thing I (and a few others) have been harping on for so many years.
Local and global issues are linked. Editors and publishers who fail to see these links and who fail to allow reporters the leeway to report on those connections do readers/viewers/listeners a disservice.
No the News University is running a class to help established journalists see the links.
Reporting Global Issues Locally
I particularly like the second and third grafs of the class description:
Every day, reporters and editors in small- and medium-sized newsrooms miss opportunities for great stories because they don’t know how to take ownership of major international news.
Most big international stories have ripples that reach even the smallest of communities. “Reporting Global Issues Locally” will show you how to find the local angle in the broadest of international stories.
Again, this is the kind of stuff many of us have been saying is important to not only good local journalism, but also to the survival of local media outlets.
Cross posted with Journalism, Journalists and the World
The censorship squad in Beijing has got to be going crazy right now.
The European Community made the case earlier this year that censorship is a trade barrier. That means governments that engage in censorship of the Internet are in violation of trade agreements from simple bilateral accords to the whopper World Trade Organization.
Countries like China fought to get into the WTO to ease their sales into other trading countries. At the time, China said it was willing and ready to play by the rules of the rest of the world.
Of course, they only meant the “build cheap, sell expensive” and “Buy from me but I don’t have to buy form you” rules. Nobody mentioned anything about opening up access to information.
It was inevitable, however. Free and fair trade can only exist when there is also free exchange of information and data. The Chinese government understands that somewhat. They loosened some controls over foreign media access to China. More Western — non-Chinese government — publications are available to more Chinese people. And even some Chinese pubications are able to report more freely about economic and business issues. (But not social or political ones.)
But the Old Guard continues to hold enough power in the government to keep trying to control Internet access in China. But there has been push-back they never expected.
- The government failed to force all computers in China to install the stolen software Green Dam.
- Google refused to play ball by self-censoring information through its web site
- Hackers who provide ways around the Great Chinese Firewall are treated like rock stars by computer users.
And now trade, the lifeblood of economic well-being in China is under attack.
Basically the Europeans have told China: “Censor the Internet and we will file unfair trade practices against you.”
And now the U.S. has joined in. And Google is helping. (Google helps build trade case over Web censorship)
The usually boring trade issue stories now have GEEK APPEAL. It would be nice to see if some U.S. reporters — national and local — pick up on this technology and trade issue.
- How is censorship unfair trade?
- What does it mean for U.S. and local businesses?
- How has the Internet made getting cheaper goods easier? Harder?
- How has the Internet affected how people do business with suppliers from around the globe?
Just a few questions. Let’s see if anyone asks them.
I got my “Today in History” feed this morning and saw two things that jumped out at me:
Today, June 12, is the anniversary of:
- The murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1994, and
- The 1963 killing of Medgar Evers.
Now in the normal world — that world outside the shouting heads of cable news and the blogosphere — the killing of Evers and the issues around that killing are much more important. Yet, I will bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that the anniversary people will talk about on the MSM and in the blogs is the Simpson killing.
Let’s compare the two.
Evers:
During World War II, Evers volunteered for the U.S. Army and participated in the Normandy invasion. In 1952, he joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). As a field worker for the NAACP, Evers traveled through his home state encouraging poor African Americans to register to vote and recruiting them into the civil rights movement.
Simpson:
The case involves a famous former football player and a dream team of lawyers.
Yep, the Simpson case is so much more important. (Please note the sarcasm.)
Want a good discussion of journalism ethics?
Start with the questions raised by Michigan State Senator Bruce Patterson:
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
The problem is that this “small government, less intrusive” Republican wants to scrap the First Amendment and license journalists.
Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists
Anytime the government takes the power to license who can be a journalist is the time when the government begins controlling the news. The governments that “pride” themselves on ensuring professional standards for journalists by requiring licenses to report — China, Cuba, Iran — are also those governments that are the most repressive.
Does this Michigan state senator really think that his proposal is constitutional? Actually, he does. And that means he needs to re-read the Constitution and the relevant Supreme Court rulings.
So how does one determine who is a good journalist?
There are some simple guidelines: Be fair. Be accurate. Provide context.
Anything else is window dressing. I know highly educated people who can’t do those three simple things. And many others with “lesser degrees” who excel at it.
So, journalism students: What are your responses to Patterson?
