Monday, April 8, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Criteria of Being Considered a Journalist Changes, and Media Organizations Take Responsibility For Their Writers
According to the law of fair comment, a journalist is able to publish an opinion as long as it is a matter of public interest, based on facts known or believd to be true, and it cannot be made with reckless disregard for the truth. Anything other than what I stated is considered defamation or giving them a negative image. A writer is given the power to publish what they think and feel as long as it doesn't bash what they write about with false information. For example, a journalist who is doing an article on a newly opened restaurant may claim that the soup is bland and in need of spice. That same writer cannot then state that the restaurant's kitchen is filled with rats unless they have a official documents by the food inspector.
Everyone is considered a journalist nowadays
Many believe that the old rules of journalism have changed; however, they haven't; the media has. In a world of technological advancement, journalism has become easier to indulge in. Everyone who has a phone or computer can now take part in journalism, but are also held responsible for what they say. The lines only seem to be blurred because of the amount of information being put out by multiple sources. With so many sources of information the definition of journalist is expanded.
With the onset of social networking, anything you say can be considered defamatory as long as it is published. According to the New York Times, about 10,000 Twitter users are facing legal action as they linked a former French Conservative party official with the sexual abuse of a child. Alistair McAlpine is looking to sue for libel simply because of comments made about him over the social network. The comments that were made were false information, which caused the issue. If the tweets would have been opinionated towards the official's political stance then these tweeters may have been off the hook. This goes to show you that even if you are retweeting information or post a tweet on Twitter, you are held within the same regards of a journalist.
Unethical journalists are needed to give information that we would never receive
As far as "blocking" journalists from doing anything that calls for impartiality, I believe that should be the writer's decision at the time of submission. To block a journalist from publishing something would sacrifice their first amendment. The problem is journalists forget that although they have a freedom of press, they also have other laws that can be enforced against them regardless of what the Constitution states. Ethics are what defines the decisions being made by these journalist, and the public needs both ethical and unethical journalists in order to receive all sorts of information. If all journalists were ethical then we may not know many things that we do today. These are the writers that the extra step and snoop around even if it puts them in danger of being sued. They value the story that they produce more than anything, and whether the public wants to agree or not; they are a huge reason why we are so informed on a lot of ethically questioned topics today.
To relate this to a real life issue, the Vatican scandal recently was brought to the public by journalists and a site called Vatileaks. The leaked information was said to have been stolen by the butler and shared with the media. Here the site had to take into question whether or not they were willing to risk trouble for the greater good of knowledge within the public. They chose to release the documents, and although the butler was the only one arrested, the site still took the risk of posting the secret documents. It has been said that the pope has resigned because of the scandal, but it still hasn't been proved.
The media organization is responsible for its journalists
Although the journalist is the one who publishes the story, the media company that hires the writer has their named attached to the story and supplies the journalist. The organization is what is known by the public, not the writer. For example, in the Times v. Sullivan case, the New York Times included an advertisement in their paper about how Montgomery Alabama police brutally treated civil rights protesters. A lot of the information was exaggerated for the emphasis of the story. The Montgomery Public Safety commissioner took offense to the ad and sued the paper, not the writer or company that had the ad placed. It is the media organization's responsibility to hire reporters they can trust to carry on their company's name ethically within the public eye.
Everyone is considered a journalist nowadays
Many believe that the old rules of journalism have changed; however, they haven't; the media has. In a world of technological advancement, journalism has become easier to indulge in. Everyone who has a phone or computer can now take part in journalism, but are also held responsible for what they say. The lines only seem to be blurred because of the amount of information being put out by multiple sources. With so many sources of information the definition of journalist is expanded.With the onset of social networking, anything you say can be considered defamatory as long as it is published. According to the New York Times, about 10,000 Twitter users are facing legal action as they linked a former French Conservative party official with the sexual abuse of a child. Alistair McAlpine is looking to sue for libel simply because of comments made about him over the social network. The comments that were made were false information, which caused the issue. If the tweets would have been opinionated towards the official's political stance then these tweeters may have been off the hook. This goes to show you that even if you are retweeting information or post a tweet on Twitter, you are held within the same regards of a journalist.
Unethical journalists are needed to give information that we would never receive
As far as "blocking" journalists from doing anything that calls for impartiality, I believe that should be the writer's decision at the time of submission. To block a journalist from publishing something would sacrifice their first amendment. The problem is journalists forget that although they have a freedom of press, they also have other laws that can be enforced against them regardless of what the Constitution states. Ethics are what defines the decisions being made by these journalist, and the public needs both ethical and unethical journalists in order to receive all sorts of information. If all journalists were ethical then we may not know many things that we do today. These are the writers that the extra step and snoop around even if it puts them in danger of being sued. They value the story that they produce more than anything, and whether the public wants to agree or not; they are a huge reason why we are so informed on a lot of ethically questioned topics today.
To relate this to a real life issue, the Vatican scandal recently was brought to the public by journalists and a site called Vatileaks. The leaked information was said to have been stolen by the butler and shared with the media. Here the site had to take into question whether or not they were willing to risk trouble for the greater good of knowledge within the public. They chose to release the documents, and although the butler was the only one arrested, the site still took the risk of posting the secret documents. It has been said that the pope has resigned because of the scandal, but it still hasn't been proved.
The media organization is responsible for its journalists
Although the journalist is the one who publishes the story, the media company that hires the writer has their named attached to the story and supplies the journalist. The organization is what is known by the public, not the writer. For example, in the Times v. Sullivan case, the New York Times included an advertisement in their paper about how Montgomery Alabama police brutally treated civil rights protesters. A lot of the information was exaggerated for the emphasis of the story. The Montgomery Public Safety commissioner took offense to the ad and sued the paper, not the writer or company that had the ad placed. It is the media organization's responsibility to hire reporters they can trust to carry on their company's name ethically within the public eye.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Heinrich Hertz Proves the Existence of Radio Waves, All Thanks to James Maxwell
In 1873, James Maxwell, a Scottish physicist, attempted to prove that light, electricity and magnetism were all one in the same. He was the first to find out that light traveled in a wave, similar to how magnetism and electricity moved through an electromagnetic field. Although Maxwell's calculations were correct, he still found it difficult to prove to people that his ideas were true because they couldn't observe these phenomenons with their naked eye. Ten years later, a German scientist by the name of Heinrich Rudolf Hertz found a way to solve James Maxwell's problem. He began his demonstration by placing two brass spheres closed together. Once activated with electricity, an observer should have been able to witness a spark of "invisible" waves.
Heinrich's experiment proved Maxwell's theory of light traveling in waves
He went on to further this investigation by building a receiver. A second instrument was made of a curved wire that created a circle, but left a tiny gap at the top. When he placed the transmitter and receiver apart, he also made sure that there was nothing connecting the two together. Heinrich continued by initiating the observation, which led to a spark being shot through the transmitter that lit up sparks on the receiver. This demonstrated invisible waves that traveled through the air. Another observation Hertz made was that these newly found waves traveled at the speed of light and could be reflected or pass through materials.
Heinrich Hertz became a household name years later as a researcher who assisted in creation of the radio, radar and broadcast television. "It’s of no use whatsoever," Hertz said. "This is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right, we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there." Little did he know, his research would pave the way for so many people. In 1930, the International Electrotechnical Commission named a unit of frequency after him. Hertz (Hz) is used to measure cycles per second.
Sadly, Heinrich's fame came at a bad time. Although he was German, Hertz was a Lutheran whose father was raised as a Jew. Because of this, the Nazis wanted to erase Heinrich from history. The Hertz family was forced to flee Germany because the Nazis considered them to be Jewish. A member of the Nazi group tried to change the term 'Hertz' to 'Helmholtz,' the name of Heinrich's teacher. This would still keep the original abbreviation of 'Hz,' but erase the Jew's relation to the term. The Nazis failed, as German scientist did not want to proceed with the name change.
Heinrich left a legacy of success behind him after his death
After Heinrich's death at age 36, he left a legacy that would impact the world. His nephew Gustav Hertz was a Nobel Prize winner and his son Carl Hertz created medical ultrasonography. Hertz also has a crater located on the eastern limb of the Moon named after him. He was also recognized in Japan with the membership of the Order of the Sacred Treasure. Who would've known that someone who proved an invisible phenomenon to be true, would've had so much of an impact on the world.
Google pays homage to Heinrich Hertz as they celebrated his 155th birthday last year.
Heinrich's experiment proved Maxwell's theory of light traveling in waves
He went on to further this investigation by building a receiver. A second instrument was made of a curved wire that created a circle, but left a tiny gap at the top. When he placed the transmitter and receiver apart, he also made sure that there was nothing connecting the two together. Heinrich continued by initiating the observation, which led to a spark being shot through the transmitter that lit up sparks on the receiver. This demonstrated invisible waves that traveled through the air. Another observation Hertz made was that these newly found waves traveled at the speed of light and could be reflected or pass through materials.
Heinrich Hertz received a large amount of recognition for the completion of his experiment
A physics teacher Paul Anderson goes into detail of the Hertz experiment offering a visual presentation of what Hertz conducted.
Judaism almost caused Heinrich to lose all of his accomplishments
Sadly, Heinrich's fame came at a bad time. Although he was German, Hertz was a Lutheran whose father was raised as a Jew. Because of this, the Nazis wanted to erase Heinrich from history. The Hertz family was forced to flee Germany because the Nazis considered them to be Jewish. A member of the Nazi group tried to change the term 'Hertz' to 'Helmholtz,' the name of Heinrich's teacher. This would still keep the original abbreviation of 'Hz,' but erase the Jew's relation to the term. The Nazis failed, as German scientist did not want to proceed with the name change.
Heinrich left a legacy of success behind him after his death
After Heinrich's death at age 36, he left a legacy that would impact the world. His nephew Gustav Hertz was a Nobel Prize winner and his son Carl Hertz created medical ultrasonography. Hertz also has a crater located on the eastern limb of the Moon named after him. He was also recognized in Japan with the membership of the Order of the Sacred Treasure. Who would've known that someone who proved an invisible phenomenon to be true, would've had so much of an impact on the world.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Brief Intro
My name is Jourdyn Alli and I am a sophomore Communication major on a Public Relations track. My interests are in music, design, and cars. My passion is in video production, my friend Tyrome and I have started up our own Production team in which we plan to tackle several projects in the future. On one end of the spectrum I'm upset that media has gone more digital because it takes away from actually having a physical copy of some sort but I'm also curious to see how technology will advance and improve the means in which we will receive media in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)