This week, we heard from groups 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. I thought everyone overall had great presentations, but I didn’t particularly find anyone’s handout interesting.
Group 6’s case study focused on the suicide of a woman who was the centerpiece of a story about persistent sexual arousal syndrome. This case study was interesting because the journalist had no idea that her article would lead to this woman’s suicide, and I think the group really covered all the sides of the issue. I thought their idea to have journalists undergo psychological training was very smart and could help save lives and figure out whether stories should be published.
Group 8 talked about media coverage of courtrooms and how that hurts or helps how we think about defendants. I really like how they asked us to write down what we thought about Aaron Hernandez and Casey Anthony at the beginning. That led to a very good and thorough discussion.
Group 5 spoke about the legality of mugshots and publishing them. I completely agree that mugshots in newspapers is a very tricky area because its an invasion of privacy and doesn’t share the whole story. However, it’s not illegal. I think if we were to stop mugshots from being published then we should also stop people from being able to find anyone’s legal record on the Internet.
I believe that anonymous sources should only be used in a case where the source’s personal safety would be harmed, and that the editor should know who the person is to vet that they are real. Group 2 discussed the gimmicks of anonymous sources, and I think they did a thorough job balancing the issue.
Group 1 discussed citizen journalism and whether we can consider that journalism. I don’t think citizen journalism will ever replace journalism, but I think without citizen journalism, it would be hard for journalists to accomplish their jobs as they do now. I really liked their presentation and the display of it, as well as the unique design of their handout.