This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with yet another hot take tonight... but unfortunately, it'll also be my last. Here's the grand finale of my procrastination marathon, the media critique!
The article I'm critiquing is this one...
Politicians caught padding their resumes, from fake diplomas to biographical discrepancies by Jennifer Earl
...published by who else than Fox News. The standard that they violate here is fairness.
Firstly, it's worth mentioning that the article covers three Democratic politicians and only one Republican politician. The Republican politician's offense was also covered in the least detail compared to the other three offenses. This is at least somewhat defensible by its lonesome, and on its own could be mere coincidence.
However, looking deeper into the article, it's clearly trying to be watchdog journalism when that's just not what's happening here. One of the attacks on Democrat Andy Kim was that "he stated he worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations", but in actuality, "he only worked as a conflict management specialist for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for “less than a year” during the Bush era in 2005."
These attacks on these politicians are simply petty, and while the Republican covered in the article dropped out of her race for lying about having a college degree, all of the Democratic candidates covered here are still running in their elections.
Looking at this article, the bias is clear. It's a thinly veiled attack piece on Democratic candidates, passed off as 'watchdog journalism'. But hey... that's just my take.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Sam's Hot Takes #6 - Mentor/Mentee Program
This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with yet another hot take tonight - my last one before our grand finale. The topic I'm covering, though, is a little bit different from all the others. This hot take is going to be about our Journalism and Communications mentorship program, both what I like about it and what I don't.
Firstly, my mentor has been an extremely valuable resource. Thanks to him, I'm a lot more knowledgeable on our magnet, and he even motivated me to go talk with Mr. Miller and find out information about the RedEye workday coming up. However, at the same time, I think there are some issues with the program too. After meeting my mentor and going over the basic informational stuff with him... there really wasn't any defined steps after that. It'd be nice to have some other way to interact with my mentor in a way that gives me more information about our magnet. This could be anything from a dedicated week for shadowing them during their after-school publication workday, or something like entering a particular J&C related competition with them as a group.
Of course, it's up to those reading this if they'd like to implement or push for a implementation of these ideas for the mentorship program. After all... they're only my takes.
Firstly, my mentor has been an extremely valuable resource. Thanks to him, I'm a lot more knowledgeable on our magnet, and he even motivated me to go talk with Mr. Miller and find out information about the RedEye workday coming up. However, at the same time, I think there are some issues with the program too. After meeting my mentor and going over the basic informational stuff with him... there really wasn't any defined steps after that. It'd be nice to have some other way to interact with my mentor in a way that gives me more information about our magnet. This could be anything from a dedicated week for shadowing them during their after-school publication workday, or something like entering a particular J&C related competition with them as a group.
Of course, it's up to those reading this if they'd like to implement or push for a implementation of these ideas for the mentorship program. After all... they're only my takes.
Sam's Hot Takes #5 - Response to Emily's "Deck of Cards" Blog Post
This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with yet another hot take tonight - this time, it's going to be my second response to a blog from one of my classmates tonight. Specifically, to my classmate Emily's blog post about the deck of cards Mr. Miller uses to call on people in the class - you can read the post in question here.
Firstly, I want to give props to Emily for making this observation. It's not something I would've thought of to talk about personally, but she makes some really good points about how these cards Mr. Miller uses give everyone a chance to speak their mind on the topics we discuss. While Emily gives the perspective of how these cards give her the needed encouragement to speak up, I'm often someone who falls on the opposite end of the spectrum - I have a tendency to talk too much, ask too many questions... and thus not do enough listening. Reflecting on this, the cards really do make a difference and help me learn.
However, I do have a couple suggestions for Emily's blog post, a bit of constructive criticism to offer. First off, it's just a bit short and lacks a bit of detail. This fact, along with how she missed a couple of obvious errors like missing commas and a space between the words "in" and "front", makes me think the blog post was slightly rushed... a bit of a shame for such a neat concept, but that's only my take.
Firstly, I want to give props to Emily for making this observation. It's not something I would've thought of to talk about personally, but she makes some really good points about how these cards Mr. Miller uses give everyone a chance to speak their mind on the topics we discuss. While Emily gives the perspective of how these cards give her the needed encouragement to speak up, I'm often someone who falls on the opposite end of the spectrum - I have a tendency to talk too much, ask too many questions... and thus not do enough listening. Reflecting on this, the cards really do make a difference and help me learn.
However, I do have a couple suggestions for Emily's blog post, a bit of constructive criticism to offer. First off, it's just a bit short and lacks a bit of detail. This fact, along with how she missed a couple of obvious errors like missing commas and a space between the words "in" and "front", makes me think the blog post was slightly rushed... a bit of a shame for such a neat concept, but that's only my take.
Sam's Hot Takes #4 - Response to Wisal's Media Critique
This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with yet another hot take tonight - though this time, it'll be a little different. This is going to be a response to my classmate Wisal's media critique, which you can read here.
There's a disclaimer I need to give before I begin, however - because although I do criticize this specific piece of writing from Wisal, she's done an absolutely wonderful job on consistently keeping up with her blog throughout this assignment. She has multiple posts containing multiple detailed paragraphs... and she's certainly done a better job of planning out the timeline of each of her posts, and not procrastinating as I have.
But that's enough with the flattery! You're not here for that, you're here for hot takes! The main issue I take up with Wisal's critique here is that it's just a bit... petty. While yes, there are many important current events going on at any given time in the world, it's okay to have news that's a little more populist, and geared a little more towards entertainment from time to time. The murder case covered in the article she critiques even clearly mentions a book being written on the topic - clearly, it's being covered not because it's the most pressing story in the world, but because it's an interesting story.
But who's to say which of us is correct? All I can do is provide my take.
There's a disclaimer I need to give before I begin, however - because although I do criticize this specific piece of writing from Wisal, she's done an absolutely wonderful job on consistently keeping up with her blog throughout this assignment. She has multiple posts containing multiple detailed paragraphs... and she's certainly done a better job of planning out the timeline of each of her posts, and not procrastinating as I have.
But that's enough with the flattery! You're not here for that, you're here for hot takes! The main issue I take up with Wisal's critique here is that it's just a bit... petty. While yes, there are many important current events going on at any given time in the world, it's okay to have news that's a little more populist, and geared a little more towards entertainment from time to time. The murder case covered in the article she critiques even clearly mentions a book being written on the topic - clearly, it's being covered not because it's the most pressing story in the world, but because it's an interesting story.
But who's to say which of us is correct? All I can do is provide my take.
Sam's Hot Takes #3 - Media Conglomerates
This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with yet another hot take tonight. This time, I’m addressing the lecture we received on conglomeration and demassification. Specifically, this hot take is addressing the concerns I have with conglomeration as it relates to media companies.
At around the beginning of April this year, this viral video was making the rounds across numerous news headlines:
For context, this is a group of local news stations reading a conglomerate owner’s script word for word - and according to the group’s own website (Sinclair Broadcasting Group) they’re involved in 191 television stations across the United States. The impacts here are pretty much self-evident - the more media companies a conglomerate controls, the more they’re able to influence what the public sees, reads, and hears… and thus, sway public opinion and the “truth” in whichever direction they wish. If an elitist media conglomerate were to spread even further, the effects would be disastrous.
But hey - that’s just my take.
At around the beginning of April this year, this viral video was making the rounds across numerous news headlines:
For context, this is a group of local news stations reading a conglomerate owner’s script word for word - and according to the group’s own website (Sinclair Broadcasting Group) they’re involved in 191 television stations across the United States. The impacts here are pretty much self-evident - the more media companies a conglomerate controls, the more they’re able to influence what the public sees, reads, and hears… and thus, sway public opinion and the “truth” in whichever direction they wish. If an elitist media conglomerate were to spread even further, the effects would be disastrous.
But hey - that’s just my take.
Sam's Hot Takes #2 - Binary Models
This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with yet another hot take. Today, I’m addressing the lectures we received on mass communication and the binary models. To be a little more specific… is information really ever restrained to one aspect of a binary model anymore?
If I’m looking for information, not only can I turn to traditional news, but there’s also comedic shows that rely on journalism - like Last Week Tonight or Stephen Colbert. They clearly aren’t meant to be substituted for the real news, but they also clearly inform the viewer along with entertaining them. For another example, let’s say you browse the NPR website or mobile app. Clicking on most articles, you’re shown a screen like this:
I’ve got the option to view this content in both a hot or cold format… both sides of the binary model, all easily accessible in one place, delivering me the same content. It’s the same story when I’m deciding between a news briefing or podcast, or an audiobook versus a regular one.
Put simply, as the future becomes the present - the world’s becoming a lot less binary.
If I’m looking for information, not only can I turn to traditional news, but there’s also comedic shows that rely on journalism - like Last Week Tonight or Stephen Colbert. They clearly aren’t meant to be substituted for the real news, but they also clearly inform the viewer along with entertaining them. For another example, let’s say you browse the NPR website or mobile app. Clicking on most articles, you’re shown a screen like this:
I’ve got the option to view this content in both a hot or cold format… both sides of the binary model, all easily accessible in one place, delivering me the same content. It’s the same story when I’m deciding between a news briefing or podcast, or an audiobook versus a regular one.
Put simply, as the future becomes the present - the world’s becoming a lot less binary.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Sam's Hot Takes #1 - Room For Dissent
This is Samuel Watkins, providing you with my first - yet one of many hot takes you will see from me in the coming days.
One of the first topics we covered in our Journalism 1 class was The Elements and Yardsticks of Journalism - two metrics used for identifying what’s important in news coverage. These 17 different standards (though some of the elements do overlap with some of the yardsticks) cover a vast array of topics in journalism, from initially obvious aspects like “truth”, to concepts that were a little more complex, such as the theme of “room for dissent.”
I found this to be really interesting because there’s now, there’s so much fighting between different partisan news networks… but even so, this standard still really isn’t met. If I’m trying to discover if something I see that’s shared is true, I usually just compare and cross-check with other articles I’ve seen. At the most, I’ll take a quick glance at something off of a site like Snopes.com to debunk headlines that appear too dramatic to be true. While it’s a supposed standard for journalists to both give room to criticize and criticize others - in this world of extreme partisanship, of facts and alternative facts, it still feels taboo to truly call someone or something wrong. In an effort to avoid bias, we’re often too afraid to admit when the other, or even our side has fouled. If that’s case… is there really any room for dissent at all?
One of the first topics we covered in our Journalism 1 class was The Elements and Yardsticks of Journalism - two metrics used for identifying what’s important in news coverage. These 17 different standards (though some of the elements do overlap with some of the yardsticks) cover a vast array of topics in journalism, from initially obvious aspects like “truth”, to concepts that were a little more complex, such as the theme of “room for dissent.”
I found this to be really interesting because there’s now, there’s so much fighting between different partisan news networks… but even so, this standard still really isn’t met. If I’m trying to discover if something I see that’s shared is true, I usually just compare and cross-check with other articles I’ve seen. At the most, I’ll take a quick glance at something off of a site like Snopes.com to debunk headlines that appear too dramatic to be true. While it’s a supposed standard for journalists to both give room to criticize and criticize others - in this world of extreme partisanship, of facts and alternative facts, it still feels taboo to truly call someone or something wrong. In an effort to avoid bias, we’re often too afraid to admit when the other, or even our side has fouled. If that’s case… is there really any room for dissent at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)