Comm455/History of Journalism

Each year, the organization Reporters Without Borders compiles a list that ranks countries by their press freedom records from the previous year. The group fights international censorship and promotes freedom of speech and press throughout the world. The French based organization notes that the rankings do note measure the quality of journalism, just the amount of press freedom.

Finland and Norway tied for first in 2012. Finland has been first for the past three years, partially due to their wealth and emphasis on transparency and equal rights. The country boasts 200 newspapers, 320 popular magazines, 67 commercial radio stations and several public service radio channels and digital radio channels.

America was ranked 47th in the world, dropping from spot 20 in 2010. The dramatic fall is attributed to the arrest of journalists during the 2010 Occupy Wall Street protests.

Women are often portrayed as sex objects in the media. Now, women are items that can fit into binders!

When asked about what he would do to face pay inequity in the workplace, Mitt Romney responded that while working as governor of Massachusetts, he wanted more women on his cabinet.

“And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women.”

 

Photo courtesy of bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com

Romney’s comments may seem harmless, but the fact that he didn’t seem to know of any qualified women is important to note.

But what I would like to focus on is the way Romney, and many others, seem to think about women.

What would have happened if he had said “binders full of Asian people?” What if he had asked for “binders full of Latinos?” Romney never would have said “binders full of men.” So why is it that he feels it’s perfectly okay to say on national television that he had “binders full of women?”

A more acceptable answer could have gone like this:

And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And these women’s groups gave me the resumes of numerous qualified women applicants.

It turns out that Romney was lying about this whole situation in the first place. MassGAP, a non-partisan organization aiming to increasing the number of women in government jobs, approached Romney and asked him to promise to appoint more women. He did not go on a search for any “binders.”

This is relevant to the portrayal of women in the media. Romney’s “binders” comment is just another one of many examples of the objectification of women in the media.

Another journalist was killed just two months ago covering war in the Middle East.

Mika Yamamoto, a Japanese journalist, was killed when caught in the middle of a firefight in Aleppo, Syria on August 20. She is one of the latest journalists to be killed while covering the civil war in Syria. It is well known that risks are taken when covering such events around the world. According to The Committee to Protect Journalists, however, says that the Middle Eastern state is the most dangerous place in the world for journalists.

In order to get the big story a journalist may want — or even feel the need to — venture into a war zone to cover the events. This has been common practice for decades now. Since 1992 there have been 944 journalists from different nations killed in war zones — most of which have resulted from the War in Iraq.

Yamamoto was merely doing her part in portraying the Syrian atrocities. “She wanted to show the suffering of innocent women and children caught in war,” said her friend Miyuki Hokugou, of the newspaper Asahi Shimbun. “She felt it would affect Japan sooner or later. That it’s all connected.”

In Mitchelle Stephens’ book “A History of News,” use of the term correspondents referred to those individuals that kept up a letter correspondence with editors of newspapers abroad. These so-called correspondents could be called upon to “forward reports of newsworthy occurrences in their bailiwick directly to the newspaper -a considerable more efficient system than waiting for the haphazard arrival of private letters.”

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this use of correspondents was first used in 1711 to refer to “one who contributes letters to a newspaper; specifically one employed by a journal to contribute news and other material to its columns from some particular place. ”

Correspondents aren’t much different from the late 1600’s than they are today. Correspondents are individuals that are on the ground in different parts of the world reporting back to their news outlet. While they used to contribute to journals through letters, correspondents report from all over the world through various forms of technologies. Correspondents are living in a specific area. Institutions such as the New York Times have correspondents for East Africa, Europe, London, etc. These correspondents are experts in the area that they are living or embedded in. They have built relationships with individuals on the ground and are able to report first hand accounts of what is happening in case of an emergency.

Correspondents are important. Mark Doyle of the BBC was embedded in Rwanda leading up to the eventual 1994 genocide in the country. For awhile Doyle was one of the only foreign journalists in the region having been there from the beginning. In the book “The Media and the Rwandan Genocide” , Doyle recounts how he had already built relationships with UN officials prior to the genocide. In his essay, Doyle describes how some journalists only came to the region when United States citizens were being evacuated and then they quickly left, not interested in what was otherwise occurring in the region.

Correspondents such as Doyle become experts in their area. Foreign correspondents aren’t the only ones who are experts in their fields. White House correspondents are also valuable assets to a news organization. White House Correspondents are able to tell the story of what is occurring in the highest office in the United States. While sometimes becoming a megaphone for the office, longstanding White House correspondents such as Helen Thomas are able to report more than just what they are being told.

There are also war correspondents are are embedded with troops during a conflict. Famous NBC “Night News Host” was a war correspondent during the Vietnam War which marked the first time in history that  war was broadcast to viewers in their own homes.

Tom Brokaw discusses his work with NBC on reporting the Vietnam War in 1968.

In short, correspondents are individuals that are experts in their given topic. They are called up on for expert advice in regions or areas because of their knowledge in a given topic or area.

One of the tenets that has formed America into a unique nation is the creation and the support of a free press. Under the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment protects the right to religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and petition and the freedom of the press.

Though the freedom of the press was revolutionary in its creation, the free press we have today is hardly the same as the original American press. Originally, freedom of press was interpreted simply as the freedom to publish, without regard to partisanship or objectivity. Early American newspapers were riddled with religious sermons and blatant political biases, something that is frowned on in today’s media.

Though freedom of the press is protected under the First Amendment, there are some restrictions. Laws on defamation and copyright prohibit journalists from taking too much control or power in the media. To balance those laws, the government is not allowed to interfere or compel newspapers to print content that the printer disagrees with.

The dedication to a free press has been upheld throughout America’s history. In 1938, the judge in  Lovell v. City of Griffin ruled that the press is “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” More than 70 years later, with the advent and explosion of the internet, the laws and intricacies of the press are ever evolving. At the time of the ruling, there was no such things as blogs or news websites, which entirely changes the impact of the ruling. 

While it’s been proven for centuries that people can’t get enough news, in 1991, the scope for television news program got even bigger with the launch of E! News. Hosted on the E! network, the hour-long show focuses exclusively on celebrity reporting an gossip.

Thought up by Lee Masters, the show was originally created to feed the public’s need for celebrity gossip in a way that evoked “controlled publicity.” Creating a show was humble at first, only requiring about 8 cameras to gather footage from red carpets, etc., and only costing about $15,000 per episode. While the show had a sizable viewership, it gained many more during the trial of O.J. Simpson. Lee noticed a rapid drop in viewership on the E! news network when the trial first began. Viewers opted for outlets who could provide live court reporting and 24/7 coverage. It was then that he decided to give E! its first “hard-hitting” story with full coverage.

His forward-thinking strategy to gain viewers has been proven effective. WIth 40 million viewers and a popular daily news site, Lee changed the way many viewed celebrity news. He opened the door for it to be more than just sensational fodder.

Photo Courtesy of privdcast.com

Four Americans are dead after a Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The attack was rumored to be a violent response to an anti-Muslim film put together by U.S. resident, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Recently, evidence has surfaced saying otherwise. International protests continue and the Organization of Islamic Corporation has asked the U.N. to ban speech insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

I was recently involved in a class discussion that focused on analyzing whether or not the U.S. government should ban blasphemous speech in an effort to prevent further violent response to the anti-Muslim film, “Innocence of Muslims?”

I was shocked to hear that many of my peers agreed with enacting legislation that would ban blasphemous speech.

The argument was made that, in order to prevent further violence, we should appease the Organization of Islamic Corporation and enact blasphemy laws because bashing another religion wasn’t doing anything positive for the community anyway. What I heard was, ‘we should begin to restrict the freedoms of all American citizens because of the violent reaction to the opinions of one man.’ This restriction would be an infringement on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech. 

It is also important to remember that when the government makes hasty decisions regarding our constitutional freedoms, out of fear, wonderful pieces of legislation like the Patriot Act come into existence.

The U.S. symbolizes freedom and democracy. If we begin to restrict our freedoms because on the disapproval and pressure of others, we begin to compromise the very foundation upon which we were founded. Thankfully the U.S. government continues to oppose a ban on blasphemy.

As we have learned this semester, different countries have come up with different ways to control the press. The United States has libel, Great Britain has licensing, and France has censorship. All of these methods are enforced through the legal system. Freedom of the press has its limitations.

Other countries, however, have more extreme methods of carrying out their censorship. Malala Yousufzai, a 14 year old girl from Pakistan, was shot by Taliban members for publicly advocating the right to education for women. The brutal attack against her has sparked outrage and spawned numerous protests in her defense. When tragedies like this occur, we are reminded of how fortunate we are to have rights to education, free speech, and the press.

Photo courtesy: MSNBC

Tonight, Candy Crowley of CNN will host the second presidential debate, joining only a few other women who have been moderators. Crowley is the first female moderator of a presidential debate since 1992, when Carole Simpson was the host.

Three High School students from Montclair, New Jersey, recognized the long trend of only male moderators and decided to take action. The students, Emma Axelrod, Elena Tsemberis and Sammi Siegel, started a Change.org petition to allow more gender equality and bring a woman to moderate a presidential debate.

Three students from Montclair, New Jersey, successfully petition for a woman moderator in the presidential debates. Photo courtesy of thirteen.org

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced on August 13 that Candy Crowley will moderate the second presidential debate, taking place tonight.

Axelrod, Tsemberis, and Siegal received over  130,000 signatures and delivered the petitions to the Democratic and Republican National Committees at the end of July.

The fact that it has been two decades since the last woman moderator of a presidential debate shows that gender inequality still exists in the media. From CNN to Fox News, there are plenty of qualified women to do the job, yet it took a petition and 20 years for the Commission on Presidential Debates to appoint a woman to moderate a presidential debate.

Crowley is the anchor of State of the Union with Candy Crowley on CNN. She has won a variety of awards for her journalistic achievements, including an Emmy in 2003 for her contribution to Enemy Within on CNN.

There is so much entertainment in watching live coverage of the House and Senate debates, but even more intriguing is how congressional reporting was during the late 1790s and early 1800s.

In order to get accurate information from Congress in the early years, one could sit in the chamber and view the proceedings or get publications with accounts of the floor activities, but most editors would omit information they found little interest to the readers.

Nowadays, its as easy as turning to CSPAN-2 (I prefer the Senate debates) or watching a live stream online.

Courtesy of oralhistory.clerk.house.gov

The early Senate did not allow access to the public and press, while the House never had such restrictions.  As a result, newspapers and other publications began reporting on House proceedings.  By restricting the press in the upper chamber, there are only a few resources today that detail the first six years of the Senate.

Eventually, reporters and editors succeeded in lobbying for the Senate debates to be viewed by the public and press in 1794.  Yet, the press had little patience for the Senate’s careful proceedings.

Reporters preferred the livelier House debates and began only occasionally reporting on the Senate. However, many House representatives felt misrepresented in publications due to reporters having difficulty hearing the deliberations and many ‘twisting’ words in order to please their editor.

Courtesy of mitchellarchives.com

After Congress moved to Washington D.C in 1800, the National Intelligencer, led by its editor Samuel Harrison Smith, dominated the city’s political press by covering both House and Senate debates. in 1810, Smith’s assistant, Joseph Gales, Jr., became owner of the paper and made it a tri-weekly publication.

After Gales made William Winston Seaton his partner, the paper was issued daily. Both became official printers to Congress for years with Gales being the lone reporter of the Senate and Seaton reporting on the House.

Do you see a small comparison of political reporting from that era to now? I do.

Today, we have many news outlets reporting on the ‘important’ actions of Congress, however, it’s nothing compared to watching the action firsthand, especially since I can watch it from my living room.

Last sunday, austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner made history by breaking the sound barrier after free falling from 24 miles above  ground.

Felix Baumgartner making history in one single leap

The entire process of Baumgartner’s rise 128,100 feet into the air, as well as his fall, was broadcasted live on Youtube, garnering millions of excited fans in viewership. Baumgartner reached up to 833.9 miles per hour during his fall, which is equivalent to Mach 1.24.

This event was quickly spread via word of mouth on social networks, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. His popularity has only just begun, with his Facebook fan page already having 1,219,483 “likes.”

In describing what it felt like to be “on top of the world,” Baumgartner has this to say.

“When I was standing there on top of the world, you become so humble, you do not think about breaking records anymore, you do not think about gaining scientific data. The only thing you want is you want to come back alive.”

Baumgartner was assisted by Joseph Kittinger, a retired Air Force Colonel, as well as the previous record holder, skydiving 19 miles above ground back in 1960.

Baumgartner, grateful toward Kittinger, has said that he has hopes that in the future, he could be in Kittinger’s shoes and help out the next man or woman who wishes to break his new world record.

photo credit: tanialfreitas.wordpress.com

By: Jessica Farley

Twitter. Love it or hate it, there is just no escaping it anymore. And while some use Twitter simply to see what Kim Kardashian ate for lunch, or what the latest #firstworldproblem may be, it is also undeniable that Twitter has become an increasingly useful and popular medium for breaking news stories.

While some “Gutenburg-minded” thinkers refuse to believe it, Twitter has become for many the first source in a breaking news story. In May of 2011 when Osama Bin Laden was announced captured and dead, Twitter was one of the first viewed and most visited sources of information for the news. In an article posted on Outsidethebeltway.com about the growing popularity of Twitter as a news source, it was said that “Unconfirmed reports — that turned out to be true — of Osama bin Laden’s demise circulated widely on social media for about 20 minutes before the anchors of the major broadcast and cable networks reported news of the raid at 10:45 p.m., about an hour before Mr. Obama’s address from the White House.” This is a drastic and revolutionary difference from just one decade prior, when the internet was barely trusted for email purposes.

And Bin Laden’s death is just one of many major news events that have first broken in the “twittersphere.” Others include Michael Jackson and Patrick Swayze’s deaths, the 2009 Hudson River plane crash, and the 2008 discovery of ice on Mars, just to name a few.

So what does this all mean for the future of news? No one can know for sure just yet. But when we do, you can bet that it will be #trending on Twitter before anywhere else.