ONE LAST WORD
During the semester I’ve enjoyed the most of the topics we have examined in the class and well-informed about the many aspects of the digital world. The every single topic was quite challenging for me and my journalistic development.
As a result of having a print journalism background in my professional life, I didn’t not realize how much I have missed about digital world. Despite I had a chance to work on online journalism long time ago; I’ve preferred to stay in the newspaper.
Today, I do not have any regret not to change my decision because I don’t believe there are rigid distinctions between online, print, radio and broadcast journalism. The purposes, rules and methods are almost similar. Only difference is where the journalism being applied physically; on the screen, monitor or paper.
However I have been defending that there should be a difference exposition between “journalistic work” and “non-journalistic work” in digital world, among blogs and web sites. I believe that the every single information or comments we have been seeing on the blogs can’t contain a news value. We can not assume that every blog or web site which has journalistic manners is credible for newsworthiness, liability, accountability.
On the other hand I also have been defending that a journalist should be aware of everything in digital world because no matter what this is the future. I was trying to refuse this point before I took this class. Now I’ve faced how much powerful and real the digital world is. We can not watch this big era from a distance…
THANK YOU ALL!
LET’S KEEP ON BLOGGINGGG:))
FACEBOOK AND POLITICS
According to Facebook, more than 1,600 contenders for national and state offices have created profiles.
TRUTHINESS AND KILLING OFF OF ALL JOURNALISTS: RESPONDING MIKE’S ARTICLE
Mike’s post, TRUTHINESS AND KILLING OFF OF ALL JOURNALISTS, contains various perspectives which I do and don’t agree with. Obviously media industry has been getting more competitive than ever and person who devotes his/her life to be a journalist suffers both morally and financially. This is a professional that you need to wait your day to break in. Unfortunately journalism is ungrateful for many years for high percentage of media workers. Like an artists, painters, sculptors. Also this is true as Mike says: “The resumes read Brown, Columbia, NYU, Georgetown, University of Chicago, etc. Journalists, for the most part, are the sons of doctors and lawyers, the brothers and sisters of stock traders and economists. They fill any individual family’s public service quota. The journalists are among the elite, and if they are not, they soon assume that role.”
This is same all around the world. Alike in my country we have dozens of Journalism Schools in Turkey but graduates work mostly in unrelated work places. Personally I was lucky because I started to work in the field when I was a freshman in collage. Elitism is everywhere. You have to be marketable and well-labeled to be able to get this job. Otherwise you can’t compete with these sons of doctors and lawyers, the brothers and sisters of stock tradersJ)
On the other hand I don’t know why is Journalism so attractive to them? Is that related to money matters or ego satisfaction? I’ve made little research on Google (I still strongly believe that Google is more beneficial and reliable tool for journalist than Wikipedia. Therefore I don’t agree with you Mike at this point) and I found an interesting report on Radio and Television Salary Survey conducted by Ball State University.
I don’t know how much they earn particularly because there is a huge salary cliff between news reporters and anchors. Probably these elitist journalists rather want to be an anchor with the help of their influential affiliations and pedigrees.
Let’s change the topic. I would like to talk about Mike’s point that I can’t agree with. He says: “Then I started thinking about who the historians are – mainly journalists and or academics who all have their own biases. This is not original thinking on my part at all, but I suddenly realized why academics and journalists feel so threatened by the site. It renders them less important. It gives anyone and everyone the ability to not only write history, but to judge it, analyze it, edit it, protest it, manipulate it and emphasize it, just like they do. Journalists are no longer the gatekeepers of all information, and subtle references in their nut graphs (usually the second or third paragraph in the story that explains background and why this story is important) are no longer the accepted background on any given story. The real nut graphs are floating around for everyone and anyone to read.”
He gives examples from Washington Post and New York Times such as Walter Reed Story and other political news. Then he comes with the idea of Wikipedia and tries to approve its preciousness for individuals. He doesn’t give credit to newspapers as much as Wikipedia. I couldn’t understand this point clearly. How could we compare Wikipedia and grassroots media under the terms of telling the truth or doing journalism? They are like apple and pearl to compare. I’m not claiming that media is not questionable. Obviously we are part of this industry and we have a priority to judge it. However we can’t sacrifice whole grassroots media mercilessly for newborn-attractive media figure which is still need to have wide acceptance from all society in the world.
