Was Fox Wrong?

So, even though I try not to talk about Fox News all the time, I pick on them often. There's a host of reasons but probably the biggest one is that they are a ratings giant. They, head and shoulders, beat other news channels in the ratings. Therefore, they should be seen as the "flagship" for broadcast journalism. They set the bar.

Recently you may have heard about Fox's parent company donating $1 million to the republican governor's association. If not, you can read a quick bit about it here. I read the story last week but decided not to use it for the blog.

Then, another story surfaced showing that the Democratic Governor's Association was going to sue Fox for illegal campaign contributions. Apparently, Fox interviewed an Ohio gubernatorial candidate and allowed him to state where campaign contributions could be sent. This often happens on air. The big difference was that Fox showed a graphic revealing the candidate's website while the donation pitch was being made. The DGA claims that showing the graphic while the candidate was asking for money was basically free publicity amounting to nothing less than an advertisement. There were some other arguments made by the DGA as to why the interview should be considered an "in kind contribution" to the candidate. Read the full report here.

So here's my question. Do you think Fox is acting illegally? Do you think Fox is crossing an ethical line here in promoting republican candidates over democrats either through this latest claim or through the $1 million donation?

P.S. - please remember to write your name at the bottom of your post so i can tell who is who. Also, i've discovered that a spam filter on blogger has "zapped" some of your comments. If you are posting, but not seeing it online, please let me know so i can give credit and address the issue. Thanks.

An Invasion of Privacy?

Recently the LA Times published a list rating teachers on how well they prepared students for the California Standardized Test. The list was released online and immediately became hugely popular. Teachers, as represented by their union, complained that this ranking did not accurately reflect the quality of their work. The School district evaluates the teachers by using more than just that one measure. In other words, the teacher's effectiveness is not based solely on how well their students did on the tests. You can read about this story by clicking here. Many educators argue that the problem with schools today is that teachers are encouraged to teach children how to pass standardized tests while not necessarily focusing on a child's individual needs. Here's my question. Do you think it was an invasion of privacy for the Times to publish this list of individualized names? As a public employee, do the teachers' have an argument that their rankings should not be published? Are they justified in complaining that the story does not accurately reflect their effectiveness in the classroom? How would you feel if you were a government employee and details about your performance were released without your consent?

P.S. please sign your name at the end of the blog reply. I can't tell from some of your usernames who to give credit to. For example, in the last post i'm not sure who Bethann, David, Hunter, Emdaco, or Nick is. We have a couple of David's and a couple of Nick's. Please specify who you are under your reply.

Welcome to the Semester

Hello and welcome to the new semester. This week we start blogging assignments. Each week i'll post a topic and in two paragraphs i'd like you to respond. Every week you respond, you get 4pts. Over time those points will build. So here's the first blog

Dr. Laura, a popular talk radio host, announced recently that after several years she has decided to not renew her radio contract, effectively quitting radio. This comes on the heels of an incident where many accused her of being racist in regards to an incident where she used the "n" word in response to a caller's question.

This is not the first time her comments have gotten her in trouble. In the past, she has made remarks that infuriated homosexuals. That particular incident probably cost her a television show as well as losing several sponsors for her.

Dr. Laura claimed she is quitting radio to regain her first amendment rights. Read this article for her comments. The article also has links to her original radio comments as well as her apology and further commentary. What do you think about both her initial comments that got her into trouble and her reasoning for why she is leaving radio. Was she being racist, was the caller oversensitive, was she sincere in her apology?

That's All, Folks

So that's it. No more blogs. Last week was the last. The last assignment is the final exam. It's already available for you to take. It must be done by 11:55PM on July 30th. No peeking either. Once you begin the exam, the timer starts ticking and you must finish within a certain amount of time. My suggestion would be to print out your slides and organize them well before beginning the exam. Good Luck and thanks for all your input.

Where does it go from here?

So what will happen to the media in the future. A recent poll found that most people think newspapers will be extinct by 2050. Also, this month amazon.com sold more books through their kindle (electronic form) than hardcover books. We've seen chain stores like Sam Goody's go out of business due to most people downloading their music. What do you predict happens next. How will cell phones change? How will radio change? How will television change? What does the future look like to you.

By the way, several of you pointed out that there was a test question on the midterm that referenced a video that was no longer available for download. I've decided to make sure everyone gets a bonus two points added on to their grade.

Was The Decision a Big Deal

Arguably, the big media event last week was the Lebron James announcement of what NBA team he would be following. It all culminated in "The Decision" a program highlighting James and his decision to join The Miami Heat (which many had speculated he would join). ESPN aired The Decision. But apparently The Decision was a somewhat pre-packaged and contrived program originally conceived by Jim Gray. It has been reported that Gray, as interviewer, and Lebron's corporate endorsers, as sponsors of the program, were part of a package deal. In other words, if ESPN wanted exclusive rights to air his announcement, they had to accept his interviewer and sponsors. Many sports critics have commented they were disgusted by the display of corporate driven propaganda which took place on a supposed "sporting news" channel. One such response can be read by clicking here.

Read the article linked above and let me know what you think. Does The Decision make a mockery out of sports? Do you think James will suffer any backlash for it? Does ESPN as an organization employing sports journalists have a responsibility to cover the event impartially or is ESPN just an entertainment channel which we should expect no more from than MTV or VH1?

The Press and the Military

One of the biggest stories related to journalism lately has been General McChrystal's relief from duty and subsequent retirement after a Rolling Stone article quoted him on issues regarding his relationship to President Obama and his administration. Some argued that the General's comments were concerned "off the record." Defense Secretary Gates has revised policy that senior military officials must request approval before giving interviews but that he still wants a good relationship with the press.

Do you think the Rolling Stone reporter should have published McChrystal's comments? Apart from classified information, should the press be willing to publish any information they feel relevant. Some opposing reporters have argued that in order to build rapport and gain access, sometimes you have to hold off on reporting information that you think the public would like to know. What do you think about people telling things to journalists but then saying "this is off the record"?