The Future of Journalism

The more online media and blogging takes over the less objective journalists seem to be. They seem to be competing with the blogs as well as one another to be the most interesting publication or network.

The most depressing case is Newsweek, which since 2003 had been my favorite magazine. It usually featured objective pieces and various writers. I loved reading it and not knowing which side of the issue the reporter was on, because it was THAT objectively written and great quality. However, ever since The Daily Beast took over and Jon Meacham left the publication is filled with subjective essays and it's all so opinionated. They take a very left stance and bash Republicans left and right. The publication is may as well just come out as a liberal "news" magazine and stop trying to put on the facade that it's the same quality journalism that it once had, but I will have a whole different blog post dedicated to Newsweek's changes and my disdain.

News publications and stations are supposed to be objective and report the facts. A newspaper has reporters and editors with different opinions, different ideals, different beliefs, etc. And when a newspaper, magazine, etc. endorses a candidate it is speaking on behalf of the entire company and can really make an impact on the way it is perceived by outsiders. I know there are people who immediately dislike a company once they find out the company gives money to or endorses something he or she is opposed to. The news is to be objective and is to report objectively. If the editor or a reporter wants to put their credibility and objectivity on the line by writing a column or an editorial (or a blog post) endorsing a candidate or speaking out in a way that takes a stance instead of being objective then that is their own ordeal, but their opinion should not be speaking on behalf of the entire company. Even if a majority of the company wants to endorse Obama, doesn't mean that the entire publication should come out and announce they are endorsing Obama. They will lose the readership that they had of people who may not have liked Obama, and it associates everyone who works for the publication with that opinion - even if someone working there is a hardcore Republican - by working for a publication which has endorsed someone they are opposed to it puts them under that shield.

Unless a publication wants to come out and just admit that the news and their articles aren't objective and they are openly taking a stance, which is a whole different topic which is definitely a risky move for publications.

Here's a bias blog post on a very hot topic. A topic that I care very much about and am deeply opposed to. The fact that Obama is not going to veto this appalls me and really makes me upset.

Nancy Pelosi, Ron Paul, Wikipeda and Twitter are just a few against SOPA.

SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act. SOPA infringes on the first Amendment hard core. Many sites such as Wikipedia and Google are having protests by censoring things on their web site. It's an Internet blackout against SOPA.

Multichannel Merchant puts it very well:

"In reality, the Stop Online Piracy Act promises to impede pirates very little while potentially penalizing legitimate ecommerce businesses. When you look closer at the language and provisions of SOPA, you see that it could fundamentally change some of the common things you do as a marketer or merchant."

SOPA impedes piracy very minimally while penalizing businesses much more. A copyright owner could flag any web site (including this one) and a judge could shut it down immediately. Search engines would also be prohibited from listing the web site in search results and Internet Service Providers (like Time Warner, who support SOPA) could force the web site to be blocked.

According to Mashable.com:

"Although many major media companies are backing the bills, the tech industry argues the bills will give excessive power to media companies to shut down sites they think are violating copyrights. According to protesters, SOPA could render any Web site containing links, even if they are user-submitted, practically inoperable or liable to government take-down."

The Internet isn't supposed to have these kind of laws. The Internet is a free place for expression. It doesn't just hurt the consumers - this is going to impact marketing and businesses when it comes to advertising and such.

The International Business Times goes into depth about how SOPA could ruin the Internet:

"If the Attorney General orders a user-driven site like Reditt to remove links to a domain, the site will be required to scour each and every post and comment having links to the domain, even if the particular link contains no infringing content."

A Google spokeswomen speaks out against SOPA as reported by Reuters:

""Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page.""

More information and blog posts will follow this one, but take some time to really think about how this will impact the Internet. In the next post I'll target YOU and why you should care.

I wrote this for my 20th Century American History class and I received an A (well, I received 104 out of 100, so more than an A). It has to do with the media and the Anita Hill vs Clarence Thomas Trial. Since this was in MLA format e-mail me if you need the bibliography



Anita Hill vs Clarence Thomas

Anita Hill was an attorney-adviser for Clarence Thomas in 1981 at the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and then Thomas left to become Chairman of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982 and Hill followed him to become his assistant yet again, but left the job in 1983. A decade later Thomas was ready to be appointed the next Supreme Court Justice.
Anita Hill's testimony in 1991 against Clarence Thomas for sexual harassment in the workplace opened the door for many women throughout the United States to come out and file sexual harassment complaints against co-workers. In this case she especially pioneered and made it acceptable for women to speak up when treated inappropriately in the workplace, instead of just allowing it to happen. Although Hill did not come out victoriously in the courts; she created a legacy and gave other women the courage to speak out, against sexual harassment
The media portrayed Hill as a very respectable woman; throughout the entire case she kept her composure. Throughout the testimony she was never portrayed in a whiny way; she was very mature and calm. In contrast Clarence Thomas characterized the hearing as a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks."
Hill worked for Thomas from 1981-1983, but it was not until 1991 when Thomas was about to be confirmed as the next Justice to the Supreme Court (the second African American to hold the position) that Hill spoke up. The media wondered why it took her so long to come out with these allegations. During the time of the testimony and presently Hill was a Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma. An article in Time from 1991 titled Sex, Lies and Politics: He Said, She Said (Smolowe) compares the two (both African Americans) and explained why it was so hard for the public to pick who to believe:
"… Viewers had to weigh the testimony of two admirable people - both of whom had escaped, through diligence and perseverance, a background of rural poverty to scale great heights, both of whom are known to be grounded in strong religious and spiritual values, both of whom have reputations for great personal integrity - and pronounce one of them a liar (Smolowe)."
The media also focused a lot on race during the trial. Many speculated how the trial would have been different had Hill been a white, blonde woman, or if Thomas had been a white male, but instead of wondering how it would have gone given different circumstances it would have been more productive to analyze the reality of the case that occurred. Although Hill has said that she felt as though people "ignored Thomas' gender and ignored her race. (Palmer)"
Hill testified that while she worked under Thomas - first at the Department of Education's office for civil rights from 1981-1982 and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from 1982-1983 is when the alleged sexual harassment occurred. One of the most memorable pieces of her testimony is when she alleged that one time while in Thomas' office he reached for a can of Coca Cola and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?" She said her boss would often talk about pornography and describe X-rated material which even included beastiality. She alleged that he spoke of his own physical endowment and speaking as eloquently as possible as she testified to the Senate room filled with 15 men, including current Vice President Joe Biden. The media was able to analyze these televised hearings and viewers were shocked at how Hill was "bullied and demeaned by the committee (Bennetts)."
They got after her for her sanity, competence and sexuality; specifically because a small group of some that worked with her came out against her and said that she use be delusional to even think that Thomas would ever do such things. When it came time for Thomas to give his testimony he sat with his wife behind him, and acted as though he did not take this seriously. He denied that anything that Hill alleged had ever happened and he believed that the entire case was a waste of time. He had said:
"No job is worth what I've been through - no job. No horror in my life has been so debilitating. Confirm me if you want. Don't confirm me if you are so led. I will not provide the rope for my own lynching.(Smolowe)"
The PBS News Hour demonstrated how angry Thomas was. He kept making references to how he was being "lynched by the US Senate instead of hung from a tree," making it very much about race in his point of view. Biden, who was the Committee Chair at the time, lashed out at Thomas saying that he was sick of hearing about how terrible the system was. The woman who covered the trial said that Hill and Thomas were both credible witnesses and sounded equally convincing. The piece continued to show witnesses from both sides; including a witness for Hill that spoke up and said that Hill had previously told her in confidence about the inappropriate behavior that Thomas had exhibited but she was never specific with her co-worker about the actions that Thomas had done specifically. The other group of witnesses were women who spoke out for Thomas saying that he would never do such a thing and they searched for a motive behind Hill's accusations. Anita Hill took and passed a polygraph test, but Biden called the tests inconclusive. Thomas refused to take a polygraph.
The entire testimony (of both Hill and Thomas) is on YouTube (from CSPAN), over 27 different 10-minute long videos that go one after the other immediately picking up where the last left off so that viewers can see the testimony in is entirety, and it was reported that Thomas did not even watch Hill's testimony (Bennett).
The impact on the public specifically from a televised trial is immense, because it gets personal. The people at home get opinionated and start getting involved. Like the Casey Anthony trial and the O.J. Simpson trial - being able to watch the trial from home made it seem like the viewers could take part in it. They could analyze both Hill and Thomas and make their own judgments - not just rely on what the media was telling them, because they were seeing it first hand.
Twenty years later and there is still much controversy surrounding what happened between Hill and Thomas, and the only ones who will ever know what truly happened are the two of them.
The impact that this trial has had historically is incredible; it has been 20 years since the trial in 1991 and the aftermath of the new awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace and treatment of women within the workplace is great. This happened in a time where women were being harassed and not speaking up about it; women were treated not as well as the male co-workers and endured sexual harassment from their bosses, but could never do anything about it in fear of losing their job. Hill actually did leave her job after the trial as she felt like she was being driven out (Bennett).
The trial impacted awareness of sexual harassment, because Hill brought the subject that was formerly not spoken of or just accepted out into the open and showed that it was something unacceptable. It brought awareness by being publicly televised and women could relate to Hill.
An article in Newsweek from last month entitled Surviving Clarence adds tells of how Hill's actions impacted women's rights:
" Women’s-rights advocates initially viewed the whole debacle as a disastrous setback for the nation as well. “When Hill was not believed, the feeling was that this would cause fewer people to report sexual harassment,” says Gloria Steinem. “But what happened was the reverse, because she had opened up the subject. Women began to talk to each other and discovered that this had happened to many other women, so it turned out to be a huge national teach-in on sexual harassment (Bennett).” "
The piece also argues that sexual harassment complaints filed with the EEOC increased 50 percent in the year after the hearings. Hill has said, "Women's willingness to come forward and file sexual harassment complaints doubled in the five years after that."
Founder and editor of the blog Feministing.com, Jessica Valenti, wrote a piece that appeared in The Nation in October 2011 which was titled Taking Up the Legacy of Anita Hill. She tells of her account as a 12-year-old girl who believed "women wouldn't be subject to this kind of harassment," and how she was wrong. She believes Hill was a pioneer for women to speak up about sexual harassment and that Hill actually did much more to empower women:
"Hill’s speaking out didn’t just influence elections and bring sexual harassment out of the closet. Her voice and strength, along with the anger of young girls who knew bullshit when they saw it, inspired a generation of feminist activists. It’s what we choose to do with that legacy that matters (Valenti)."
Some may go so far as to say that Hill is the "Rosa Parks of sexual harassment (Brock)." It is true that the reason that this trial is still talked about today isn't only because it involves a Supreme Court Justice, but the fact that Hill's actions opened doors and made it acceptable for women to come out and let their be repercussions toward those who offended and harassed others within the workplace. It is great that even though Hill was not victorious in the hearing, she has been victorious throughout history. Even though it seems as though justice may not have been served properly in that ordeal, she continues to be active regarding sexual harassment. If people had thought of her as a "liar" then why would she be chosen as a credible speaker for these events? Hill has really empowered women and it is great to see how much advancement women have had in the workplace since 1991.

This case study got me an A in my Cross Cultural Reporting class - it is a lot of media analysis, and I thought it was worth posting here. If you would like to see my bibliography (this is done in MLA format since it was a research paper) just shoot me an e-mail nikkyraney@nikkyraney.com

Sorry I didn't make a graphic or have a photo.



Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox was an American student who decided to study abroad in Perugia, Italy in 2007. Knox was 20 years old at the time and was living a British student named Meredith Kercher who was 21 years old. In October of 2007 Knox became romantically involved with a 23-year-old Italian man named Raffaele Sollecito (Trendski).
On November 2, 2007 Kercher was found dead in the flat that she shared with Knox (CNN Timeline). A detailed report from the police reported she was "dead on her bedroom floor, drenched in blood and half-dressed." The report speculated that sometime between 9:15 and midnight of that night Kercher "sustained the fatal wound that caused her slow death by asphyxiation" (Hawkins). A postmortem examination done on November 4, 2007 revealed evidence that there had been some sexual activity some point before Kercher was murdered. A knife was found with Knox's DNA near the handle and Kercher's on the blade; Knox and Sollecito would later be charged with unlawful possession of a weapon (Guardian).
On November 5, 2007 Knox and Sollecito were detained for questioning. It is alleged that Knox confessed to being home at the time of Kercher's murder and she placed the blame on 38-year-old Patrick Lumumba, the bar owner of where she worked (CNN Timeline).
TruTV's Kristal Hawkins uses the headline Blaming the Black Man: Patrick Diya Lumumba when discussing Knox placing the blame on Lumumba. Lumumba was released from prison on November 20, 2007, because his alibi matched up. He later sued Knox for libel and won over 40 thousand euro in damages (CNN Timeline).
On November 22, 2007 media outlets published a note written by Knox from November 6 as she addresses an alleged confession:
"In regards to this 'confession' that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit on the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly (CNN Timeline)."
On December 5, 2009 the New York Times' Rachel Donadio writes a piece with the headline Italian Jury Convicts U.S. Student of Murder. Within the piece it tells that a jury of six civilians and two judges found Knox and Sollecito guilty of coercing Kercher into a sexual game which resulted in her being murder. Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison. Francesco Maresca, lawyer for the Kercher family, said that he believed that justice had been served (Donadio). Knox's plea at the time was the following:
"Ms. Knox said that she had spent the night of the murder at Mr. Sollecito's house, where the two smoked marijuana and had sex. She said she had gone home the next morning and found some spots of blood on the bathroom floor, but took a shower anyway before finding Ms. Kercher's body (Donadio)."
On November 24, 2010 the appeal process begins for Knox and Sollecito. Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga told reporters that it was more difficult for the defense to prove her as innocent than it is for the prosecution to prove her as guilty (CNN Timeline).
CBS News runs a story on December 18, 2010 titled Amanda Knox Makes Emotional Appeal in Court. She had gone back to court for the appeals trial and apparently broke down. She addressed the courts for 20-minutes saying she was the victim of an enormous mistake:
" "We are innocent," she said, "and deserve to live our lives free."
Knox told the three judges and six jurors, "I am not the person that the prosecution insists that I am - dangerous, diabolical, jealous, uncaring and violent. I have never been so. The people that know me are witnesses of this" (CBS News). "
At some point Knox was forced to take an HIV test, and she was lied to and told she was HIV positive so that she would have to list all the people she had sexual encounters with. The names were published in a British tabloid and then Knox was informed she wasn't HIV positive (International Business Times).
In January 2011 forensic experts from La Sapienza University in Rome were sworn in and retested all the crucial forensic evidence that was used to convict Knox which included the knife and a blast from Kercher's bra. Then in June two prison inmates testify during her appeal to say that she wasn't involved, but clearly the prosecutors doubted the credibility of the inmates (CNN Timeline).
In July 2011court appointed experts testify saying that during the investigation the forensic scientists made a "series of glaring errors." The experts suggested that due to these errors that the evidence against Knox should be considered "inadmissible." The appeal trial continues through September of 2011 (CNN Timeline).
On October 3, 2011 an italian Jury overturned the 2009 murder conviction, and then she soon after returned back home to Seattle, Washington (Guardian)
The have been four years of news coverage for Knox. It is safe to say that not only did she face trials in the courts but also a trial by the media. There are some good reports, but there are even more not so good reports. It doesn't help that she had the nickname "Foxy Knoxy" which various sources have claimed was a childhood nickname based on her soccer abilities, but a CNN article states that during the murder trial the nickname portrayed her as a "careless, sex crazed party girl" (CNN).
Even a news source commented on how new sources portrayed Knox:
"While the American press has largely been sympathetic to Knox, reports in Britain and Italy have often described her as a devious, manipulative woman(CBS)."
It does seem as though there are more American news sources who side and sympathize with Knox compared to some international news sources. The media from both sides (America & non-America) did not do a great job with the reporting and media coverage. There was so much bias shown within news reports and most of them in some way or another referenced Knox as being attractive.
An opinion piece for the Chicago Tribune is entitled Europe's scapegoating of Amanda Knox. Within this commentary piece the writer makes a very bold statement:
"It became clear that it wasn't facts but Knox - her femaleness, her Americaness, her beauty- that was driving the case (Chicago Tribune)."
BBC News made a compilation of reactions by Italian, British and American media on the acquittal on appeal of Knox. This gives a great opportunity to compare the media coverage.
In the publication Corriere della Sera of Italy definitely portrays Knox negatively:
"Never before has the media aspect of a trial so outstripped the judicial aspect. The English media who are on the side of the victim, the poor Meredith Kercher, renamed the pretty Amanda "Foxy Knoxy" just to underline her elusive craftiness."
Now, that is inaccurate, because "Foxy Knoxy" was the nickname that Knox had given herself and even used it on her MySpace - so yes, maybe the media used the nickname to "underline her elusive craftiness," but it wasn't a nickname that the media came up with themselves. It is true that the media took the nickname "Foxy Knoxy" and spun it in a bunch of different ways and really used the nickname to their advantage when trying to come up with witty headlines.
La Stampa of Italy takes a similar stance:
"Even if the rules have been followed, and the sentence is, probably, irrefutable, for the Italian justice system this is not, however, a victory….Yet this is an acquittal that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth."
It would have been more appropriate to report just the facts in this case especially and not add to it by saying that it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
The Guardian questions Knox's identity:
"Is she just an older version of the compassionate diligent girl her parents knew back in Seattle - or the predatory and provocative young woman described by some who knew her in Perugia?"
It would have been nice if there was actually an interview with someone where they call her any of the aforementioned names rather than the reporter leaving it unattributed.
It is appropriate that the BBC included what the Seattle Times reported - since Knox is from Seattle. They show that they are not being completely sympathetic to Knox:
"Knox is not entirely without fault. In the wild, media-fuelled frenzy following the murder accusations, she falsely accused a bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, for him she worked at the time and caused him indue pain and suffering. Still, it is time for Knox to come back to Seattle and resume her life."
It is good that the publication didn't seem to be taking Knox's side and showed sympathy toward Lumumba, but at the end it gets light hearted as it says it's time for Knox to come back home, but that isn't bad media coverage.
Time released a story titled Amanda Knox Goes Free: Why Italy Isn't Pleased About Her Trial by Media. Within the piece Stephan Faris says that "many Italians have bristled at being judged by the land of O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony." That is definitely a line that sticks out when reading this piece.
Nancy Grace of course had her opinion and she bold stated that the verdict was a "miscarriage of justice." (USA Today).
Some examples of sensational headlines include Knox 'bought underwear after Meredith murder' in the Telegraph (Moore). The writer really wanted to keep people engaged to this story:
"He said the pair seemed "resolutely exhibitionist". According to his statement, the pair approached the counter at the Discovery store, and Knox bought two g-strings."After I get you back home, we are going to have wild sex," she is alleged to have said."
Under no circumstance should the media be concerned with Knox buying underwear.
And of course a Fox News headline from November 21, 2007 reads Fourth Suspect Arrested in 'Extreme Sex' Student Murder in Italy. That doesn't even make sense. The transcript from the show The Big Story with John Gibson and Heather Nauert" includes the co-host John Gibson saying "Amanda Knox, also known as Foxy Knoxy." No, she doesn't need to be known as Foxy Knoxy, it's just not appropriate anymore. They turned the playful nickname into one that is demeaning.
The transcript also includes Gibson saying:
"It really is. Extreme sex murder. This new suspect has been arrested. One was released. How does this affect the American's case, that's foxy Knoxy? (Transcript)."
Why must he refer to her as Foxy Knoxy? Honestly, it's just not appropriate and very unprofessional.
Another headline from Fox News reads Couple Suspected of Murder Planned "Wild Sex" Romp Day After Roommate Was Found Dead.
Why are they reporting on the couple having sex? This is bad journalism right there. Saying that the couple planned a wild sex romp day after their roommate was found dead could be something put in an article with an attribution to the source who said it, but that is not appropriate for a headline. And again with the underwear reference:
""I heard her as she was choosing the underwear — particularly the G-string — and as they were ready to pay, in front of the till, she whispered, 'Afterwards I'm going to take you home so we can have wild sex together,' " the shopkeeper reportedly told police, according to Sky News (FOXNews)."
Something that is very unfortunate is that sensational news sources such as TMZ have linked Casey Anthony with Knox. TMZ had a video asking how 'hot' Anthony was, but after the Knox verdict a new video came out entitled Who Is Hotter: Amanda Knox or Casey Anthony (TMZ).
The two get paired together not only because they are young women, but because they are thought to be attractive. There are even suggestions from commentators saying that both women only got off on murder chargers due to their good looks.
Ravelle Mohammed wrote a piece for the Christian Post in which he thought it would be appropriate to interview Jose Baez (Anthony's defense attorney) about what he thought of the Knox verdict. Baez called Knox and Anthony "all American girls" and expressed his happiness for Knox. This isn't something that is seen with males. No one is going to ask O.J. Simpson's lawyer how they felt about Scott Peterson, or maybe they are, but it is not likely. This is just a way to get Anthony back in the headlines and to pair her up with Knox just makes for a story that everyone just would love to read. And to talk about these women as sexual objects and asking who is hotter really shows that society is extremely superficial and that the media is feeding into it.
As media representatives we can learn to stop being so sensational and creating headlines just to get a rise and to get read. It is important to report the facts and to attribute all possible opinions to a source and to report what is relevant. Also, it really needs to stop with the commentary of the looks of an individual in regards to a murder suspect - there is usually a photo there for a reason. It makes sense sometimes to say the general look of the person, but to go so far as to name people attractive is just too much editorializing and takes away from the piece. The proverbial "next time" the media needs to not be so interested in the sexual aspects of this case but more so the legal aspects.

New Degree Program at NESCom
Nikky Raney

New England School of Communications added a new degree program as of the Fall 2011 semester, and although it is quite new it already has ten students enrolled. The degree program is a Bachelors Degree in Entertainment Production; this means all the behind the scenes set ups that go on during cruises, on broadway, etc.

Ken Stacks has been with NESCom for over 20 years and helped pioneer this degree program. He says, "We decided to do first a concentration in theater/entertainment production then our accreditors said, 'Wow this is bigger than just a concentration, you need your own degree program."

Students who already were in the concentration did not have a hard time switching to the new major.

"Half of the courses were already in place, because they served a need for some of the other concentrations. And now we have about another ten courses up and running. Now we can get into technical direction and get much deeper into what the skill sets are for the entertainment industry," Stacks explains.


The Gracie Theater is the location of many classes and it is the perfect place for the students to get the experience that they need. Brave Williams gives much of the instruction to the students.

"It really dovetails well with what NESCom already does, so it really fills a need especially in the Gracie," tells Williams.

One of the ten students enrolled in this degree program is Clif Rogers, this is his third year at NESCom. Prior to being an Entertainment Production student he was in the Audio Program.

Rogers joined the Entertainment Production program since he was already doing some work in that field and truly enjoys theater as well as the technical side of it, and he wanted to expand his knowledge in that field.

"I have been able to get more time on a lighting board as well as learning a bunch of different construction skills." Rogers continues, "I have been gaining time in a theater space that I expect to be able to use while in a bunch of different venues."

This new degree program has so many job opportunities tied into it that it is sure to get the attention of potential students.

Dearborn, Michigan has held the Arab American Festival for the past 16-years. The festival is hosted by the Arab American Council, and the media coverage that it receives is mostly focused on the Christian protestors who attend the event and get arrested.
The most recent Arab American festival got a lot of media coverage, because Florida Pastor Terry Jones made it known that he would be protesting this event. Jones has been nicknamed the "Koran burning" pastor and when the media was informed that he was planning on attending the Arab American Festival of 2011 in Dearborn, Michigan lots of headlines were made including Dearborn's Michigan Messenger with, "Dearborn Arab Festival turns confrontational," and an ABC Channel 7 WXYZ.com headline that read, " Quaran-burning pastor plans another visit to Dearborn during Arab American festival." Much more of a fuss was made over the protestors of the festival rather than lots of media footage of the actual festival itself. There was much more of an impact and media coverage of all the protesting involved rather than what Arab Americans were actually doing at this festival. There were even some Christians who were reportedly calling Dearborn "Dearbornistan," according to he publications aforementioned.
The only story that the Detroit Free Press had about the Arab American Festival of 2011 was, "Pastor Terry Jones Thwarted in Dearborn," which is more of an article focused on this white man rather than the events or Arab Americans that attended the festival, but the article does make it a point to show that Christians that are being disrespectful at this festival are not getting away with it. There was even an interview with a 14-year-old boy:
"Jones said Friday, as he has said repeatedly before, that Muslims have to prove their loyalty to the U.S. because their religion makes them suspect.
That outraged Dearborn resident Mohamed Al-Hachami, 14, who said Jones has no right to question them.
"I love America," Al-Hachami said. "I've never even been to the Arab world my entire life." "
Dearborn News Online has media coverage from 2009's Arab American Festival with the headline, "Christian Group Sues City Over Arab American Festival Access." The article directly from Detroit News is unavailable without a paid subscription, but the aforementioned article includes excerpts saying that there were groups attempting to covert Muslims to Christianity and now they were suing Dearborn "claiming the city is violating its free speech and religious rights by limiting its access to patrons" at the 14th annual Arab International Festival.
I went to CNN.com to try and search terms to see if they had any coverage, but nothing came up - the same goes for FOX and MSNBC. So, the major mainstream news networks did not do any coverage about the Arab American Festivals (that I was able to find with my extensive research). Most of the "publications" that were servicing the information were blog sites that may not have been completely credible along with Arab American web sites that were just promoting the event. The "news" was really limited to the few local news sources and lots of blog coverage.
As a media representative I believe that these festivals should be covered in the mainstream media, because maybe if people find out what is really going on at these festivals from the Arab Americans that are in attendance then Americans would not be so ignorant and would be more educated and less disrespectful. Of course there will always be the protestors, but the protestors should not be what the media focuses on - there should be some real coverage from the Arab American festival to get a look at what is actually going on and to see how they celebrate.

Ice.Gov

In the case of the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, agent Jaime Zapata the media had adequate coverage. It is actually surprising that this Latino man wasn't stereotyped in the way that other Latinos in the news may be. This could be partly due to the fact that he was part of the American enforcement team, but either way, this is a good example of the media doing fair coverage of a Latino.
A headline from one of Fox News' blogs read "Who was Jaime Zapata? Hero Remembered." In a report done by ABC News investigations go further with a headline that reads, "Random Act or Ambush? Feds Probe Shootings of U.S. Agents in Mexico." The only controversial headline and story that I came across wasn't from a big media outlet, but from a blogger for "Truth About Guns" who writes, "What Was Murdered ICE Agent Jaime Zapata Doing in Mexico," which speculated any affiliation that he could have had to the drug cartel.
Recent news from Houston Chronicle Blog about this includes a Border funding bill that was named after Jaime Zapata being passed through the House panel. This is a situation where the media can actually be commended for their coverage of this man. It was like he was given the same coverage that a white man would have received.
At the risk of sounding racist - it seems like to an extent the media covered this story like they would had if he had been white. Of course the circumstances are different and the news coverage within the articles did include the fact that he was a Latino, but the headlines for the most part didn't mention him as a Latino, and that's may actually be considered a good thing, the media focusing on the fact that a human life was loss and not focusing on what the ethnicity of the human life was. Unfortunately, the only news and media coverage I have to go by are the headlines I read online and a few of the Youtube videos I saw from news organizations, I did not see the news coverage live on television from when it first happened, and maybe if I had I would have seen something negative in the reporting.
Specifically I watched ABC News' Good Morning America video on Youtube in which Zapata was reported about and it was called "Jaime Zapata Shot and Killed; Mexico for Spring Break, Bad Idea?" I think that that was the most negative coverage that I saw - mostly because it suggests that people shouldn't go vacation in Mexico for Spring break due to what happened. The reporter, Brian Owens, spoke of Zapata as if he was an American (which he was an American, but also a Latino). There was footage of girls drinking and screaming and lots of dancing and alcohol. Then they say that all the spring break hot spots are far away from where the shooting occurred - so why even bother mentioning it?
As news representatives we learn that all stories should be reported equally, in the sense that it shouldn't matter the color of the person's skin the way that the story is reported should be universal. There shouldn't be more focus on a white person's death or something heroic a white person does - just as there shouldn't be more focus on a crime committed by a black or Latino person.

This is the video and during my oral presentation with my group we discussed how terrible this video was and what a bad job was done in the reporting:

http://youtu.be/qlfNtAQY4_s

Written by Nikky Raney

Casey Anthony is the most hated person in America and the way the news media covered her trial as well as her life in general didn't help the people in our society think highly of her. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and the rest of the televised news media tried to be objective by interviewing prosecuting attorneys as well as defense attorneys, but the look on the faces of those reporting and the tones in their voice showed that they had an opinion and the opinion was not favorable.

The print media was not much better where the blogs were overtaking the online news sites and the papers and magazines didn't paint her in a favorable light either, and Newsweek even did an article after the fact that suggested that she could be placed in the same category as OJ Simpson as someone who got away with murder. There was also an article in Newsweek titled Did Casey Anthony Get Away With Murder? With a title like that it's hard to not have a biased opinion.

Is the reason that so many people hate her due to the media coverage that was done of her? Probably. Very few people it seems actually went out and did their research, but even those that have done the research (like myself) don't have favorable opinions of her.

The media let it be known that the 22-year-old got a tattoo reading "Bella Vita" meaning Beautiful Life, and by getting that while her daughter was missing it makes it a bit confusing as to why she thought her life was beautiful if her daughter was missing and probably dead. As the aforementioned article stated:

"Thirty-one beautiful days of parties, new boyfriends, and 'hot body' contests. Thirty-one beautiful days without her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie."

That paints a picture already that makes the reader feel an unfavorable way towards Anthony. So what was bad about it?

Clearly it was bad that every single person that reported about it basically thought she was guilty.There was nothing being reported that would suggest that she didn't do it. There was not any occasion where I watched, read or listened to a news source that didn't hint toward Anthony deserving a guilty verdict. Hell, once the verdict was reached that she was proven not guilty of anything other than four counts of lying to police the news media was outraged and once jury members began to be contacted and spoke out saying that "not guilty doesn't mean innocent."

ABC News online posted a piece called Casey Anthony Juror: Jury Sick to Stomach Over Not Guilty Verdict. Within that article included the interviews with jurors:

"'I did not say she was innocent,' said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. 'I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.' "

And by using phrases such as "surprising guilty verdict" like so many sources did, it just shows so much bias, but what did the news media do that was good?

The news media interviewed people who could give both sides - sort of. There were more interviews done with people who thought that she was guilty and of the interviews with people who didn't believe she was guilty a majority of them were with men who said she was "attractive." There was even speculation that the reason she got off was due to her looks and her gender, and maybe even the color of her skin.

What could have been done better would be to get more interviews from both sides and using less adjectives that would suggest that the verdict should have been guilty. Less emotion from the anchors that were covering the stories and basically people needing to be more objective and just putting the facts out there no matter how difficult that actually is.

In the future we as media representatives should try to keep our own personal opinions out of it and try to make sure that we can keep a straight face when there's a camera put in our faces or when there is someone reading our articles, unless of course it is a column or an editorial.

Although it has been almost a month since the verdict of the Casey Anthony trial was released there are still sources covering her, and I think that the best time for me to analyze the way the media covered her trial and her as a person is once all the press has died down; it has given me the ability to fully analyze and understand how each outlet, certain anchors, reporters, bloggers, etc. reacted to the trial and so forth.

Even celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian, got involved and opened up with how they truly felt.

A lot of people didn't follow the trial until the very last weeks/days before the verdict. The whole situation has been a social media extravaganza and shows how much the technological world has truly progressed. Back in the time of OJ Simpson's trial there was no Facebook, Twitter, etc. There wasn't even a Myspace; Casey Anthony wasn't so lucky. Mass amounts of people have been able to come together and discuss all about how they feel - and those people were mostly influenced by news sources.

It seems like a very difficult thing to do; to objectively cover such a story. Not meaning to draw this series out, but my next post will truly get down to the nitty gritty and analyze the mass media's way of covering Casey Anthony.

This is a post that will help lead to the analysis of the way the media portrayed and covered Casey Anthony's trial. This social media trial has showed many flaws in journalism and ABC has decided to make atonement for taking money from subjects.

The Daily Beast reports:

"ABC News has quietly decided to get out of the business of paying news subjects in connection with exclusive interviews.

When asked for comment, spokesman Jeffrey Schneider confirmed the new policy, saying: “We can book just about anyone based on the strength of our journalism, the excellence of our anchors, correspondents, and producers, and the size of our audience. These licensing deals had become a crutch, and an unnecessary one.” "

Since when are journalists paying sources for interviews? That just seems so desperate and pathetic, and that is not what journalism is all about.

ABC did not only do this in the Casey Anthony case, but within the same Daily Beast article it is reported that they did this with the "Weinergate" scandal:

"The practice surfaced yet again when ABC paid Meagan Broussard, one of the women who had been texting with then-congressman Anthony Weiner, $10,000 to $15,000 for photos she had sent the New York Democrat."

No one should be paying anyone for an interview - that is not how news is made, and it is really sad that this is what it has come to. Thankfully ABC has decided to try and make this better, hopefully now some more credibility and legitimacy can be attributed to news organization.

The integrity of a news organization deteriorates every time they involve money with an interview or story.