EJ Chapt. 6: Monitor Power and Offer Voice to the Voiceless
This chapter states that all journalism should be investigative. This statement interested me because I don’t know if I agree. When I think of investigative journalism, I think of reporters diving deep into topics to uncover wrongdoings. However, any type of journalism could be considered investigative so long as it is well-researched and fact-checked, can’t it?
The book talks about how “watchdogs” should report both the positive and negatives, and I completely agree. We only hear about the negatives out there, and it gives everyone a warped sense of what journalists do. I think journalists have a duty to share the positives, too.
ME Chapt. 7: Media Economics: The Deadline Meets the Bottom Line
I’m okay with the idea that the government owns the media because the government is providing the media with money they need to stay afloat. It’s similar to what our government does with PBS here, and I think PBS has some of the best reporting that we can find.
Case Study 7-E
Ethical Issue – The Los Angeles Times publisher had a secret agreement with Staples Center for building construction. This included dividing profits between the two.
Alternatives – The best alternative would have been to let readers know of this agreement.
Persuasive Rationale –The publisher shouldn’t have ever put readers in the position because he hurt both the newsroom and the readers.
Case Study 7-F
Ethical Issue: New ownership of LA Times leads to cutbacks in newsroom.
Alternatives: The cutbacks should have been a private deal and no one else should have been told about it. The publisher could also have decided to not cut the staff and make cutbacks elsewhere.
Persuasive Rationale: Billionaires publishing the company could have skewed the newspaper’s objectivity. It’s good that the publisher stuck to his notion for quality of reporting, not quantity.
Podcast: This podcast’s main message was that news is a commodity and if people don’t get what they’re looking for, they’ll go elsewhere. This is true, and this is why tabloid journalism is all the rage. People want to hear about that so everyone provides it. It’s frustrating. I also liked when, in the podcast, they say that news’s effect on a person is minimal and it doesn’t interact with their own thoughts all the time. If I think back to my own experiences, this is true.
Ethical Issue of the week: http://jimromenesko.com/2014/02/14/plain-dealer-bosses-checking-facebook-for-disgruntled-staffers-comments-thats-news-to-the-editor/
Having a bad day and want to rant about it on Facebook? Not if you work for this employer. An employee claimed her editor is stalking her Facebook for any complaints about her job and doing the same to others. Although this is creepy because it seems to cross the line between privacy and public, this actually is allowed. It’s unethical, in my opinion, but it’s lawful. We learned in Law of Mass Communications that anything you post on social media is considered part of the public domain.
DQ: Do you think it’s okay for employers to check out your social media and make comments if they don’t agree with something?
Vocabulary:
The Enlightenment: emphasized individualism instead of tradition. Purpose included reforming society using reason, challenging ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advancing knowledge through science.
Watchdog role: journalism protects and guards the public from corrupt, illegal and inefficient practices. Watchdog journalists make sure people are held accountable for actions.
Social responsibility of press – Hutchins Commission report 1940: press has a moral obligation make sure society’s needs are met when making journalistic decisions. This produces greatest good.
Conglomeration: media company owns lots of different outlets (i.e. Disney, CNN)
Consolidation: the process by which a media company becomes a conglomeration.
Native advertising: advertiser attempts to gain consumer’s attention by framing content in context of consumer’s experiences.
Radman, Mina 
Do you think it’s okay for employers to check out your social media and make comments if they don’t agree with something? HMMM
In response to your comment about how journalists have a duty to share the positives, too, it is not the journalist’s job to make sure he or she shares both positive and negative press. It is a journalist’s job to convey how things are. If news in a certain area is overwhelmingly negative, then that’s what a journalist should report. This reminds me of the false equivalency concept. It would be deceiving for a reporter to report the same amount of positive stories as negative stories or give them the same amount of coverage when the news in an area is overwhelmingly negative. Although I don’t think positive coverage should be done evenly just to do it or searched for excessively, I do see the need to highlight the good in the world with the bad.
I do think it is okay for employers to check out your social media, but I think it crosses the line if they comment on things that they don’t like, unless you are friends with on that particular social media. If you accept an employer you should be prepared for them to see anything you post. In that case, you shouldn’t post anything that an employer wouldn’t like. If any employer saw something and you weren’t friends with them though I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to comment on it. It would be best for them to address it with you personally. On the other hand, even if you aren’t friends with your boss on one of your social media accounts you should still not have inappropriate things on it. As we have learned in many of our classes, pretty much anything that gets put on the Internet is fair game for anyone to see.
It’s interesting that you have always thought that investigative journalism is when reporters dive deep into topics to uncover wrongdoings because I didn’t always think of it this. I usually associated the word investigative with anything secret that the public doesn’t know about, whether good or bad.
To answer your DQ, I don’t like that employers can check out my personal social media and make comments if they don’t agree, but I think that it is allowed because social media is public domain. I think it’s up to an individual whether they want to be “friends” with employers on social media and be subjugated to the potential for employees comments and disagreement. It’s up to an individual if they want to post negative things about a company, but ultimately, the individual must realize it’s probably not a good thing to do for job security. Find a different outlet to complain through, like speaking to close, personal friends who have your back and not a public social media site.
I think when you post on social media, there’s an understanding that people are going to see it, including your employers unless you make your profile private. What you do and say on social media has the potential to reflect badly on the company you work for. That said, I don’t think it would be appropriate for employers to comment on things they didn’t like on their employees’ social media pages. If there is something they have an issue with, it would be better for them to speak to the employee in person to resolve the problem.