Goodbye Everybody, We’ve Got to Go

Andrew:

Being a part of this blog team has helped me stay tuned into all of the current affairs and new concepts developing and happening in journalism. This blog was always up-to-date, bringing the newest stories that impact the journalism profession today. Thank you to all of our readers. It has been a pleasure writing for you.

Jasmine:

While being apart of this blog team I have expanded as a journalist. Not only did we bring to you the current changes in the industry whether it be the latest in technology or changes in ways of reporting, I learned these developments as well! Thank you for reading and giving our team a chance to go grow.

Niki:

So… for our farewell post.

I have learned a lot in this blogging team. Reading about current events and dissecting them has made me think about things I normally would not think about. I love news, and I still think that it will always be around. News will change and evolve, but it will never go away!

Steven:

As much as I’d like to say I’ll miss this (it would be easier) I suppose I really won’t. That’s because I’m not really going anywhere. As a professional writer, I already blog each and every week as a matter of course. That being said, I do feel like I had as good an experience as any writing here, for this blog. And, if nothing else, I really appreciate all of the hard work my team put into it every week.

Mammas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Journalists

Reblogged from Bryan Patterson's Faithworks:

Apparently being a newspaper reporter now ranks as the worst job of 2013, according to the annual Career Cast survey.

Here are the five worst jobs rated by the organisation:

1.Reporter (Newspaper)
2.Lumberjack
3.Enlisted Military Personnel
4.Actor
5.Oil Rig Worker

http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/worst-jobs-2013

Interesting thoughts, this still does my change my thoughts! -Nicole

Mismanagement, Misleading and Misreporting

Citizen journalism is not just becoming a major factor in our day-to-day lives, it’s been a significant factor for quite a long time. That might sound worrisome to a lot of journalists who think there job is on the line, but there’s one problem. Citizen journalism doesn’t always work so well. In fact, it can have some pretty catastrophic results when left unchecked. The bigger problem, however, is that these same problems are bleeding into the national media as well.

During the Sandy Hook shooting, for instance, there were incorrect reports regarding the name of the shooter. As a result, a certain person (who I won’t name here) was harassed and threatened because the “fact” that he was the killer’s family member spread through social media. For a time, at least, this nearly destroyed the man’s life. Even worse, “citizen journalist” conspiracy theorists took to media like Twitter, Reddit, 4Chan, etc. to find anyone involved with the shooting in a positive way and harassed them as well. The problem with citizen journalists is that they are not beholden to the same standards and practices as legitimate media, and therefore form mobs of disgusting “truthers” to make life a living hell for others.

An example of Twitter covering up misreporting.
(Boston Police Dept).

However, it’s not just them that make the world difficult for legitimate journalists and innocent bystanders. This week, CNN, CBS and The New York Post all reported incorrect information as fact. They accused unrelated people of being suspects, claimed the police had taken actions that hadn’t happened, and sloppily overlooked the fact that they broadcast the addresses of family members of actual subjects. In the case of The New York Post, much of this was fueled by organizational racism and the desire to blame anyone that fit their “profile” of a terrorist (the actual suspects in this case were from the Caucasus region, meaning they literally could not have been more Caucasian). In all of these cases, however, including the New York Post, these actions were fueled by a desire to “compete” with online journalism in order to drive traffic to their broadcasts in a race to post any rumor they could get their hands on.

The Sago Mine disaster is another incident in which misreporting caused people a lot of pain. For three hours everyone believed that 12 minors had been rescued, when in reality 12 minors were dead, and one had survived. The families, friends, and everyone watching the news at home thought they had been rescued, however, the minors died in the mine.

It’s a very upsetting trend, and it has to stop. Luckily (and ironically) social media has proven to be a springboard for criticism of this kind of reporting. While the national media was snarling at itself to pick up any scrap of relevance it could sink its teeth into, Twitter was standing together to help victims and shaming these publications for their actions.

Traditional media needs to understand that its place is not to spread rumors and compete with social media. It’s the place of traditional media to provide measured, professional, well-constructed and interesting non-fiction breakdowns of the news after it has happened.

What do you think should be more important to journalists with new technologies, reporting breaking news as it happens or ensuring the news is accurate?

Trending Amendment’s ‘State of Journalism’

Journalism has gone through major changes in the past few years. More importantly, it’s continuing to change all around us, which is something few people care to recognize.

According to a recent article by Slate.com, It says yes, the market is tougher, yet it is more exciting because there has never been more high quality coverage than before.

While a counter article from CNN.com seems to take the standard viewpoints of the state of journalism. It ridicules the viewpoint of the slate article. Yet what this article does in addition is look at from the consumers point of view as well.

The state of journalism differs in viewpoint among current journalists.
(Photo by Mike Groll/AP).

But where does that leave the profession? The Trending Amendment staff weighs in on this issue below.

Jasmine:

I think the truth of where journalism is lies somewhere in the middle. Journalism will be in trouble if we, as a market don’t adapt to the consumer and their needs. If that means adding more opinion articles, celebrity gossip, and making news more accessible in this new age of digital technology, then that is what needs to be done! I also agree that local, smaller news affiliates need to keep reporting on things that matter to their area. Journalism is a business like any other, in order to survive the consumer must come first!

Nicole:

For better or for worse news is here to stay.
I think that journalism will change and evolve and face problems all the time, but it will never die. News things always come up, and journalists will just have to react to it! I think it is ‘healthy’ but I also see the problems that arise.

Andrew:

I truly believe that journalism will stick around. It may not be the traditional setting, but journalists are talented writers/reporters who will always be capable of putting out good and interesting stories to the public. I look at blogs now and see a future in which they will be more prevalent forms of news that journalists will write on. Newspapers are decaying and because of that their profits are getting worse and worse. However, we need news, and journalists will always be around to give us that news in some fashion.

Steven:

Journalism is in a state of flux, and that’s a very good thing.

The current model of journalism cannot support itself. It’s a cannibalistic recursion of publications aggregating content, stealing stories and rewriting them, and taking credit for the work of others. Instead of standing together against the rising tides of budgetary constraints, government intervention and consumer decline, most are stealing from their fellow writers. They redistribute a shrinking pool of wealth among themselves, rather than pulling in new resources to expand.

Independent journalists are changing that. By striking out on their own and creating new, original content they add to the pool, rather than tear it apart. In the end, only those independent writers and major publishers that follow suit will be left standing. The rest will starve to death and collapse upon their own, malnourished limbs.

Do you think the current state of journalism is fine? What do you see the idea of “journalism” as in the future and what do you think the dominant forms of media outlets will be?

Your interactions with us make this a very enjoyable blog! Thanks for reading.

Photos, Manipulation, Editing and Ethics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADsikRVuEDI

Photo manipulation is one of the biggest ethical debates in journalism. Perhaps that’s because it is, by definition, much more visible than other debates worth having.

People, both experts and amateurs, have been saying for years that manipulated photos war our sense of reality. While that may be true, that topic raises questions more about how people see themselves and expect others to see them. As it relates to journalism, the question is more one of truth and lies.

An ordinary photo can be edited through photo manipulation
(Courtesy of Austin Baird).

Manipulating a photo to change the public’s perception of an event or human being from what it really should be is, of course, wrong. But where do we draw the line between that and making something better through photo editing? It’s not something that can be easily answered. The problem is that it can’t be defined ahead of time for all, or even most situations. It becomes a judgment call on the part of the reporters, photographers and editors.

Manipulating a picture of the president, for instance, to look as though he was physically assaulting one of his opponents is wrong. More than that, it is illegal and a form of defamation. However, changing that same photo so that the lighting puts him or her in greater emphasis in the scene might not be. It might make subtle suggestions to the viewer about how they should look at this person, but it doesn’t attempt to obfuscate the truth in a direct and objective manner.

This is a terribly difficult issue that people are still grappling with centuries after the advent of the camera. Journalists won’t solve the problem over night, but if they with to continue to be taken seriously as reporters and purveyors of the truth, then they must take the time to ask themselves the harder questions along the way.

Do you think that photo manipulation is an ethically correct way to edit photo’s? What if it is not your own photo that you are manipulating? This is a current hot topic in the world of photo journalism. We would love to hear your opinion on this!

Also, if you have any prime examples of manipulated photos that you have found reading an article or story we would love to have you share them with us.

If you would like to keep up with our recent posts follow us on Twitter @trendamend.

[Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art]

Google Glass, Wearable Computing and Journalism

Wearable computing is quickly becoming the “next big thing” in technology. With the recent release of the Pebble watch series has shown the first baby steps in this technology reaching a mass audience.

Google Glass is likely to be the first, full-fledged foray into the wearable computing market.

The device will allow users to take their interconnectivity with them wherever they go, without ever even having to disconnect to look away. It’s an interesting concept, and will likely change the way people consume entertainment and information if it becomes ubiquitous.

Google Glass comes out this year. Users anticipate a new Google invention that could forever change the internet.
(Google News Image).

For instance, ideas like push notifications may take on a whole new meaning if users are able to access pushed information immediately.

It also raises some interesting questions about how people will be treated whether or not they have devices like these or not. We’ve already seen a certain amount of class disparity between those who have smartphones and those who don’t — those with immediate, constant connection to the internet at all times, and those without. An article on Gizmodo recently discussed the possible banning of Glass and devices like it in some regions.

What if this sort of thinking were to become widespread, or if it were to spread to the eventual, logical throughline — transhumanism? It’s all important stuff to consider, and will likely have sweeping impact on the way we have to create content for an audience that is increasingly plugged in.

We’ll likely have to wait until the technology becomes more widespread before we can make definite theories, but we’ll have to begin somewhere — much like the technology itself.

[Source: Gizmodo]

Many will wonder if Google Glass can change the future of journalism. What are your thoughts? Do you think this new phenomenon will benefit journalists, or take away from them?

How do you think this will affect readership? Is being plugged in right for everything, or should we keep traditional journalism in tact for the future?

Google Glass will change everything, but it is my belief that traditional journalism needs to remain in place because some people prefer it.

We hope to get some crazy responses from you guys!

Getting the right sources

Reblogged from gunderwood:

Updated 29/04/13

A meagre 9% of people trust the Sun as a newspaper according to a recent study by Populus – a figure that only goes as high as 41% for the most trusted paper, the Independent, with all the others spaced fairly evenly in between. Because of this, simply saying what the reporter alone knows or thinks about a story is no longer going to be enough, and the use of good quotes from good sources is going to become even more important.

Read more… 510 more words

I agree, good quotes for articles make all the difference! What do you think makes 'good news?'

Is it aggregation, reporting, journalism, or everything?

Reblogged from Jared Grafman:

I like the way Frank Russell breaks down the types of possible ways to aggregate information. The copy-and-paste method (which is the weakest, and frowned on by journalists), the summary guide that acts as a resource hub, and the strongest form of aggregation -- secondary reporting.

Because that's what storytelling through aggregation is: Reporting, based on previously published content.

I don’t like reading packages that fall under the weakest aggregation, and I don’t really know many who do, but I think most people only consider this format to be “aggregation."

Read more… 99 more words

Some thoughts on aggregation! How do you guys do it?

I just read this from my desk in a newsroom at 6:30 p.m. on a Saturday...

Reblogged from Meghan Frick:

...and accidentally cried a little.

Here’s a story that every working journalist, or would-be journalist, should hold in mind. Years ago, when a dear friend was in college, he also worked at the city newspaper. Aware he was fortunate, he gave the job everything, to the point that he sometimes just fell asleep in the newsroom. One morning an editor walked in to find him, bleary eyed, just waking.

Read more… 49 more words

A story on 'How every journalist feels.' Do you think this is true for you? Tell us about your experiences!

Facebook is Changing: Maybe we Should Too

Facebook is, once again, changing the look of its news feed.

This time around, the social network will mimic the look of traditional print media. This blends the aesthetic advantages of the style with the limitless space of online writing. It also takes into account the recent, mainstream explosion of tablets.

Facebook tends to make a lot of bad choices these days, but this seems like one of their more inspired choices. It’s so intriguing, in fact, that journalists could stand to borrow the idea for themselves.

More and more people are consuming written content through tablets, and so marketing specifically to them would be a wise move all on its own. However, the other advantages listed above are worth considering, as well.

Finally, with blogs becoming far more ubiquitous than print media in the mainstream, it’s time for the medium to make a change to differentiate itself from the rather bland, standardized design available today.