EJ Chapter Six
It surprised me that the Pulitzer Prize category of “Investigative Reporting” was not added until 1964. It shocked me even more when I did a little digging and discovered there are 30 different categories for the Pulitzer Prize.
It was interesting how A.M. Rosenthal, then executive editor of the New York Times, transformed this publication’s Washington bureau after the Watergate story broke. In today’s media, pack journalism dominates. No one publication or news outlet seems to scoop the others because they are all generally publishing stories about the same topics. Even when looking at the front pages for ABC News and NBC News, you see coverage about the arrest of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and the Olympics. While these stories are important, we are not seeing the level of deep investigative pieces that were characteristic in the post-Watergate years.
ABC News Sunday Homepage
NBC News Sunday Homepage
Kovach and Rosenstiel’s next principle states “Journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power.” The public trusts journalists to keep an eye on politicians and other officials, so they are not able to get away with corrupt or abusive uses of power.
However, history has shown how those in power were not too keen on the press serving as a watchdog. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said it best when he declared, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”
The developments of the Freedom of Information Act and sunshine laws allowed for journalists to gain access to a lot of information that was previously out of reach. However, these laws still have their limitations. During my fact finding final project, I received various denials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency. I wonder if my letter was not specific enough or whether these agencies decided to hide behind statutes and exemptions.
I like how journalists were viewed as examining the “unseen corners of society.” It is easy for people to get wrapped up in their own individual issues, myself included. Society is largely uninformed, so it is the duty of journalists to keep us aware. A recent article from the Atlantic caught my attention because it discusses an idea called “family churn.” This is the term to describe what happens when parents split up, often resulting in the father leaving the family and a new man eventually coming in.
Statistics show that between 40 to 50 percent of American couples get divorced, so these family developments are important. My parents divorced during my senior year of high school, and I continued to live with my mom. I noticed this trend among many of my friends with separated and divorced parents. It is informative to read about how this behavior is relatively widespread.
It is reassuring to see that journalists think the press “keeps political leaders from doing things they shouldn’t do.” This role is also changing because of citizen journalists and people’s ability to record and publish the actions of politicians. Was the man who recorded Mitt Romney discussing the 47 percent being transparent with the audience about how a potential president views the country? While I think it woke a lot of people up, I am still concerned with how it was recorded surreptitiously. Yes, these comments would likely not have been said if Romney knew he was being recorded, but at what point does this reporting cross the line?
I am having trouble with the principle of “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I do not think it is our job to attack those who are successful and in power and to only champion the downtrodden. I think it is a journalist’s duty to hold people accountable and to cover the community to the best of his or her ability. Journalists should monitor the actions of politicians, but they should not look for ways to cause unnecessary friction. It seems like this type of behavior would cross over into activism.
I prefer the view expressed by Kovach and Rosenstiel that says how journalists must make known and understood the effects of power. The recent case of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell illustrates this well. In addition to finding out how he has been charged with illegally accepting gifts, luxury vacations and large loans, it is integral to hear about the greater ramifications. This includes how McDonnell is the first governor to face criminal charges, which is especially surprising in a state whose politics are well known for being clean and ethical.
It is always fascinating to see the history of journalism developments, and investigative journalism has a riveting past. I find it comical how federalists and anti-federalists had publications to keep watch over the opposite party. Sometimes, I feel like we have that today with publications like The Weekly Standard and The Nation. While it is helpful to see the claims of each side, people tend to go to the source that reaffirms their beliefs. This is problematic because it prevents them from seeing issues or problems from all sides.
When I read about “muckrakers” and all of the incredible work they did, I question where these people are today. Where are today’s versions of Nellie Bly and Rachel Carson? While railroad tycoons and oil trusts do not dominate the headlines anymore, there are stories about politicians and powerful officials waiting to be discovered.
Of the three categories of investigative journalism, I think original investigative reporting is the most difficult to pursue, as well as the most valuable to the public because it has not been previously revealed. The investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich demonstrates this. After running two successful campaigns that were based on eliminating corruption, Blagojevich was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and solicitation to commit bribery. As this section alludes to, digital media provides the opportunity to obtain even more documents and records for these types of investigations.
I am struggling with the idea of interpretative investigative reporting. While I think it is important for journalists to put these investigative pieces into context, interpretative seems like it would allow biases and opinions to seep into coverage. Organizing and interpreting the Pentagon Papers is effective, but it appears that Donald Barlett and James Steele may have crossed the line. Even their titles, “America: What Went Wrong” and “America: Who Stole the Dream,” imply a one-sided argument that does not take into consideration some of the positives, as well as all of the circumstances that have contributed to the current state.
Investigations and studies can be extremely important, but these stories seem to dominate. It is hard to read through a newspaper or website’s front page without seeing the phrase “a recent study showed” or “an investigation into X revealed….” However, I think this type of reporting pales in comparison to original investigative reporting because reporting on investigations focuses more on what documents reveal or what officials say about a particular investigation. It baffles me how reports have just been released from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings in 2008. It is disconcerting that the Federal Reserve faced so many problems in dealing with the financial crisis, but why is this news now? Journalists should have been critical and constantly questioning the Fed during the economy’s downfall. I understand that investigations take a substantial amount of time, but journalists should also be aware of these issues while they are going on, not just because an investigation is opened.
Another issue with reports on investigations is the use of anonymous sources. Journalists want to get a scoop, so they are often desperate to get the information in any possible form. However, how much stock does the audience put into these sources? Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is expected to unveil a plan to reduce the size of the U.S. army. Instead of hearing from government and military officials about what this plan means, an anonymous source claims the army will continue to be “capable” and “trained.” I do not expect any high-level critics to emerge on this issue yet, but it would have been beneficial to hear from someone who journalists could reveal by name and title to their audiences.
I am in agreement with Kovach and Rosenstiel about the weakened role of the watchdog. Take for example, ABC’s “20/20,” which is referred to as an investigative journalism and news magazine on its website. I am pleased to see how journalists are investigating overmedication in foster care, but I am dismayed to see pieces, including Butt Glue? 20 Secrets and Tips from Miss America Contestants. As the investigative arm of a major news network, this is disappointing.
As this chapter also mentions, many local stations include an investigative team. The main team in the Rochester community is “I-Team 10.” Upon searching its website, I was surprised to see some hard-hitting pieces, including a story about a sex offender running a hotel. However, I think these investigations are more the exceptions than the rule. Stories about “dangerous doors” and bacteria on clothes should not be lumped into the category of investigative journalism because it degrades this type of reporting.
Journalists must not lose sight of what it means to be a watchdog. About 68 percent of people say press criticism of political leaders keeps them from pursuing actions that should not be done, according to an August 2013 poll from the Pew Research Center. Before attaching the investigative journalism label to a story, journalists should consider whether it is justified.
Kovach and Rosenstiel’s section on investigative reporting as prosecution reminds me of Reid MacCluggage’s article on skeptical editing. According to MacCluggage, “Our biggest weakness is unchallenged information.” This relates to investigative reporting because we should be wary of writing an exposé on something if there are ambiguities or concerns about whether something wrong is actually taking place.
An exposé on fraternities and the actions of members is the cover feature of The Atlantic’s March edition. It is troubling how more than 60 people have died in fraternity-related incidents since 2005, but does this article deserve to be labeled an exposé? Hazing, binge drinking and sexual assaults plague universities across the nation, but is it accurate to pin these actions solely on Greek life and fraternities? I think the focus is on fraternities because roughly 50 percent of college student sexual assaults involve alcohol, which many students have access to at fraternity parties. While I am not saying these Greek organizations should not be investigated and criticized, this is one ambiguity I would want addressed.
It was reassuring to hear from journalists Loretta Tofani and Susan Kelleher about the importance of documentation and sources going on the record. It is difficult to trust a story that is based largely on unsupported assertions and anonymous sources. The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification, and journalists must make sure they stick to this ideal.
In today’s world of media conglomerates, independent voices to monitor powerful institutions in society are more threatened than ever. Time Warner Inc. owns 21 print publications, including Fortune, Time and Sports Illustrated. Can journalists at Time objectively cover the proposed merger of Time Warner Cable and Comcast? I am not so sure.
As our cohort group looks into citizen journalism, it will be interesting to see how many concerned citizens like “Buckhead” are out there. Are there enough citizens challenging the work journalists are doing to effect a change?
Luckily, there are bright spots of journalists monitoring issues and powerful players that require extensive research. The Center for Public Integrity has a section called Primary Source that looks into campaign finance developments since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. I hope this organization does not get sucked into a conglomerate that would alter the stories being written.
If network television news divisions are to provide a warning of what could happen to the Center for Public Integrity and Open Society Foundations and what they cover, I hope the “fragile and embryonic” efforts are strengthened.
Matt Drudge once said, “Because I have success, it doesn’t mean I’m part of the mainstream. I’m still an outsider.” Hopefully citizen bloggers and forward-thinking professional journalists can continue to serve as independent monitors of power or else we are in trouble.
ME Chapter Seven
I do not take issue with paying for a service that is streamed over the Internet. I willingly pay the $7.99 a month for Netflix because I am able to watch “New Girl,” “Scandal” and various romantic comedies whenever I want. However, Netflix always had a charge associated with it; it was never free. I think this is the main problem I have with news organizations charging for their online content. While I am aware these organizations are struggling financially, they have published their articles online for years. Why should I start paying now? I get annoyed whenever the Wall Street Journal prompts me to pay, so I hope other media outlets do not follow suit.
I was shocked to find out how the magazine industry is struggling the most. Whenever I travel anywhere or have some free time, I love to spend time flipping through my favorite magazine. I do not get the same feeling when I read a book or magazine on my iPad. With Newsweek and other magazines cutting pages, I am nervous about their future.
The social responsibility theory of the press with an active news consumer being satisfied by a socially responsible press is a great ideal to look up to. This press would provide a truthful account of what happened, as well as context and an opportunity for comment and criticism. I think the Guardian is leading the way in this regard. However this theory falters slightly because it does not take into account political and economic power. While explaining the ideal functions of the media is great, how does this factor into the current age of media conglomerates?
A January Politico article discussed how ABC has been “Disneyfied.” In 2013, ABC devoted a significant amount of coverage to sports and entertainment instead of focusing on the changes happening in health care and the National Security Agency. Could this shift be because Disney owns ABC and ESPN?
While I do not think all of the news sources out there are truthful and objective, there is definitely not a shortage of publications and websites producing content. As Patterson and Wilkins mention, the main problem is whether audiences can filter out the clutter. When I read articles about how people think The Onion is a real news source, I am concerned if people can even recognize what news is.
As a conservative, I shy away from any government regulation. However, certain rules must be put in place to make sure the public ultimately benefits. The British government sets the licensing fee the public pays in order to receive the BBC. In 2010, the fee was frozen at 145.50 pounds. The BBC is a news organization U.S. media outlets should want to emulate, so would a move of this nature really be so bad?
It is evident that we are living in a hyper-competitive media world where supply exceeds demands. My freshman microeconomics course taught me that this will lead to fewer outlets being able to succeed at an optimum level. When I Google news, about 2.62 billion results appear on my screen. While some of these results are probably incorrectly tagged and not actually relevant, 2.62 billion things cannot be expected to all thrive in the same marketplace.
This hyper competition leads to news organizations trying to find niche markets. A similar phenomenon is occurring on television because there are hundreds of channels. Networks are hoping to get a small share of the ratings. For the week of Feb. 10, the Olympics dominated the TV show category, according to published results from Nielsen. However, even this international cultural event only attracted between 9 and 13 percent of households. It is difficult to convince advertisers to advertise in a particular show, especially with shrinking audience sizes. Print publications are also struggling with this. Is it possible to target more specific audiences without sacrificing profits? From the failed Plenty and SI Latino, I am not so sure.
If news organizations become desperate enough, they could violate their code of ethics in order to attract an audience share. This seems to be the model Gawker and Deadspin follows. Should A.J. Daulerio be proud of the title “worldwide leader in dong shots?” And in all seriousness, is publishing photos of people’s private parts really news?
Frederick Douglass said, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” Journalists must innovate until they find success. “Liquid journalism” is an appropriate way to describe what is currently happening in the industry. What is a potential solution to the disconnect between communities and traditional journalists? Maybe, this is where citizen content creators come in the picture. After learning about Chicago Now and its successes from Gary Green, I can see the possibilities.
Conglomeration and consolidation were two ideas my introduction to telecommunication course focused on. I learned how 100 episodes is the magic number of shows for syndication. Once “Modern Family,” reached this benchmark, it has become available on ABC and the USA Network multiple nights a week. While the networks do well in these deals, where does it leave consumers?
I do not think members of the public see the impact of networks acquiring production facilities, but it is problematic for a newspaper company to also own television stations in the same area. In Gainesville, we have the Gainesville Television Network, WCJB, WUFT and the Gainesville Sun. I do not want any of these entities to be owned by the same company because coverage would likely be identical. It would be a major loss for the community and more importantly for citizens who want to be informed.
News organizations are not the only ones struggling to be financially sound. Movies are one area where directors and producers have been shying away from risk. While I loved “Toy Story 2,” and I am obsessed with “Toy Story 3,” these follow-up films prevented Pixar from releasing anything new during this time period. What about the trilogy started by “Meet the Parents?” We love these characters and story lines, but we are missing out on new ideas and independent films. Unfortunately, companies will continue putting money into these films because they are much less risky than something new and unknown.
When it comes to music, I am proud to say I have never downloaded anything illegally. While it sometimes pains me to do it, I pay $1.29 for each iTunes song. Although I never utilized the services of Napster, I have loaned out a CD for a friend to make a copy. If I pay $15 for the “Pitch Perfect” soundtrack, is it wrong that I let my friend Colleen make herself a copy? I consider this to be different from mass copying one CD to sell to people on the streets of New York City. I understand that most people do not stop at one copy, but are there different levels of theft or am I just kidding myself?
Whenever I hear discussions of stocks and share prices, I think of my Disney dividend check I receive on an infrequent basis. Even though Disney owns ABC, I am having trouble comprehending how news organizations allow shareholders to have so much control. These same shareholders bought stock in the company because it was doing well. If a news organization is doing well, members of the audience are seeking out the content it is producing. Wouldn’t a news organization that loses sight of this also see negative consequences on the business side?
I am much more enthusiastic about business ethicist Patricia Werhane’s “enriched stakeholder” model. If we were to create one of these models for a news organization, a citizen could be placed in the center. Company shareholders and the government may be on outer rings, but the citizen would remain the focal point. Do citizens want LOL Cats or do they want to know about the most recent developments in Ukraine? Let’s hope it is the latter.
It would be hard to transform the stakeholder theory from principle to practice, but the media can look to the successes of their fellow media members. Successful radio stations were well received when they were audience oriented during programs and community focused in their promotions. Would it be that difficult for newspapers, magazines and television stations to take this advice into consideration? With the way things are headed, they have nothing to lose but a lot to gain.
Podcast: The People’s News: Media, Politics, and the Demands of Capitalism
I enjoyed hearing the perspective of Joseph Uscinski, a political science professor at the University of Miami. His argument effectively says that news consumers are telling news producers what to report and write about, as well as how to do it.
This is in sharp contrast to the Ted Koppel quote cited on the first page of the book. Koppel said, “Most television news programs are designed to satisfy the perceived appetites of our audiences. That may be not only acceptable but unavoidable in entertainment; in news, however, it is the journalists who should be telling their viewers what is important, not the other way around.”
As Uscinski said, journalists should be able to identify the important stories free of market demand, yet that would only take place in a land of fairytales. I agree with Uscinski because members of the media must satisfy their customers or they will go out of business. The public loves reading about celebrities and gossip. This is likely why CNN’s homepage on Sunday featured videos pertaining to Nicki Minaj, Christina Aguilera and Kate Upton instead of Kiev and Venezuela.
CNN Sunday Homepage – Who or what is driving coverage?
It was also interesting to hear Uscinski’s thoughts on the growth of cable news in the late 1990s, particularly the emergence of Fox News. Uscinski said, “They are out there to serve, what was, an underserved market.” Instead of looking at Fox as a propaganda machine, he recognizes how it provides conservatives with an alternative to CNN and MSNBC. However, I think he should have touched on how this journalism of affirmation can prevent these viewers from hearing different opinions and viewpoints that are more to the center and left on the political spectrum.
However, we must not forget that news is a business. CNN, compared with Fox and MSNBC, attempts to cover stories from the middle of the road without allowing biases to infiltrate the reporting. How has this impacted the network’s success? CNN continues to struggle the most in terms of ratings. Will it continue to be economically feasible for CNN to continue on this path?
Uscinski’s definition of news, which is “news is anything the producer says is news,” also made me think. As an advanced editor in WUFT, one of my duties is to help approve story pitch ideas. I am a news producer, so if I say a story about a school program is not news, is that the final verdict? What if another fellow news producer considers it to be news? Does my news judgment determine whether something is news or is this just my opinion? This definition seems to need some focusing.
Even though news producers can publish what they consider to be news, they are likely taking into consideration what members of the audience care about. In Gainesville, people care about Gator athletics, which is why the Gainesville Sun has gatorsports.com, an entire website dedicated to University of Florida sports. While a news producer may say the Gators recent win at Ole Miss is news, Gainesville residents have made it obvious that they care about this topic. Who is the ultimate driver of this coverage?
While the public has a lot of power to determine coverage, we often point the finger at the “big bad media.” After Uscinski mentioned the Jimmy Kimmel video, I had to watch it. This reminded me of a video we watched in law of mass communication where people signed a petition to repeal the First Amendment. Media analyst Mark Dice talked about hate speech and the New World Order, but it was sad to see how people were happy to sign away one of the fundamental rights of being an American citizen.
When the interviewer asked where should a discerning, socially perceptive news consumer go, I was hoping his answer would point us all toward a few progressive sources. However, this problem is so widespread that it is too difficult. Ultimately, the public needs to scrutinize what is being reported, as well as demand better. Journalists owe their first loyalty to the public, so hopefully the wishes of the masses will fall on receptive ears.
Case Study 7-E Crossing the Line? The L.A. Times and the Staples Affair
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
A breach of journalism ethics came to light on Dec. 20, 1999 when the Los Angeles Times released an exposé about a special relationship the publication had formed with the new Staples Center. The Los Angeles Times became a founding partner of the Staples Center on Dec. 17, 1998, which required the exchange of cash, profits and joint revenue opportunities. On Oct. 10, 1999, the Times had released a special Sunday magazine edition dedicated to the new arena. However, most of the publication’s journalists did not learn until after publication that the Times was splitting the magazine’s advertising profits with the Staples Center. Journalists were angered because of this conflict of interest, and many readers were skeptical about trusting anything the paper had written about the Staples Center. Did the Los Angeles Times cross the line by becoming a founding partner of the Staples Center and being a participant in joint revenue opportunities? How did the association differ from the relationships big-city papers tend to have with local professional teams?
2.) Weigh alternatives
The Los Angeles Times could have declined any type of relationship with the Staples Center in an attempt to remain objective about the coverage of the athletic teams and entertainment acts that would be featured in the area. However, the Staples Center was seen as having the ability to revitalize downtown Los Angeles. To assist with this revitalization, the Los Angeles Times could have agreed on a promotion agreement with the arena in exchange for cash payments and free advertising in the paper. These sorts of relationships are often found between large publications and professional sports teams. The Los Angeles Times could be of even greater assistance to Tim Leiweke, president of the Staples Center, by agreeing to become a “founding partner” that would put the newspaper on the same level as McDonald’s, Anheuser-Busch, United Airlines and Bank of America. With this option, publisher Kathryn Downing could choose whether to tell editor Michael Parks about the arrangement. If Parks was not told, Downing could claim there was technically not an ethical breach because reporters would not have been aware of the arrangement.
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
The Los Angeles Times should have followed the examples of other large papers who assist sports teams by providing free advertising. As this chapter states, people look more favorably on media entities that are audience focused and community oriented. This option would allow the city’s prominent paper to assist with the development of a major arena that would bring jobs and entertainment to the community. In addition, this option would not cause people to question allegiances and whether there were any improper arrangements. During his guest lecture, Gary Green emphasized the importance of journalists maintaining credibility. Ultimately, if readers and viewers cannot trust what you report and write, you likely will not be around for much longer.
Case Study 7-F Profit Versus News: The Case of the L.A. Times and the Tribune Company
IWC Systematic Process
1.) Identify the Dilemma
The Tribune Company bought the Los Angeles Times from the Chandler family in 1999 largely as a result of what occurred with the Staples Center conflict. Even though the Tribune Company owned a variety of different papers, television stations and the Chicago Cubs, the company’s stocks were not doing well. In response to this, the Tribune Company focused on cutting jobs at the Times to help boost company earnings. The staff decreased in size from about 1,200 to 940 journalists. In addition to cutting journalist positions, the photo department decreased by about a third and the graphics and design department also lost about 40 percent of its staff. All of these changes contributed to major changes at the paper, including the resignation of editor John S. Carroll and the firing of publisher Jeff Johnson. Should the financial side of a company affect the journalistic side’s ability to do its job? At what point, do publications answer to stakeholders versus shareholders?
2.) Weigh alternatives
The Tribune Company could have focused solely on the business side with no regard for the journalistic goals of the Los Angeles Times. The emphasis would have been on cutting as much staff as necessary, as well as increasing technological efficiency. If photographers and graphics positions needed to be cut in order to have a better bottom line, these measures must be done. As an alternative option, the Tribune Company could have ignored the money side and devoted itself to making sure the Los Angeles Times had the opportunity to produce the best news it could. With this option, the Tribune Company would consult with publisher Jeff Johnson and editor John S. Carroll about what allowed the publication to win 13 Pulitzer Prizes during a five-year period. A third option would allow the Tribune Company to take into consideration the needs of the paper, as well as the financial ramifications for the Tribune Company. Some positions may need to be eliminated in order to operate more effectively, but the Tribune Company would never determine drastic cuts without consulting Johnson and Carroll. In addition, operations in Ventura County and San Fernando Valley would be evaluated but allowed to continue serving the community.
3.) Cite a persuasive rationale
With many of these dilemmas, it is helpful to utilize Aristotle’s golden mean. The third option that allows the consideration of both the business and journalism sides is the most realistic and effective plan. While I would love to say the only focus should be on the journalistic side, as Joseph Uscinski said, this would be in “fairytale land.” News companies must make money in order to survive, but the journalistic aspects should not be completely sacrificed in order to make extra profits.
Discussion Question
How can journalism entities strengthen their roles as watchdogs? Is an individual or institutional change needed?
After Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate more than 40 years ago, investigative journalism was viewed as an exciting career path to pursue. However, we are at a critical juncture. Almost every local station now has an “I-team” that claims to perform investigative journalism, but a shift is occurring. Instead of keeping track of the powerful elite and their abuses of power, these investigations are focusing on personal safety and finances. It is alarming that Victor Neufeld, who served as the executive producer of ABC’s “20/20” said, “Our obligation is not to deliver the news. Our obligation is to do good programming.” If reporters claim that a story about the opening and closing of doors is investigative, the public will likely be desensitized to the meaning of investigative journalism. We do not want “investigative journalism” to become a buzzword because these terms lose meaning after being constantly repeated. Words like “strategic” and “innovative” have lost their meanings in the job market because almost everyone incorporates them into their resumes and LinkedIn profiles. When I look at the Investigative Reporters and Editors website, I have faith that quality investigative reporting is still being completed. However, I am concerned that individual efforts may not be enough to combat this diminution.
Link to Ethical Issue of the Week
We have heard a lot about the protests in Venezuela over the past week. This is largely a result of various media outlets covering and providing the public with updates about what is happening. CNN is an international news source widely recognized for its in-depth coverage of issues and conflicts. This is why I was shocked to find out President Nicolas Maduro had revoked the press rights for several CNN reporters on Friday. It is also disturbing how Maduro called CNN’s coverage “war propaganda.” From my exploration of CNN’s website, it appears that reporters have worked diligently to discuss various perspectives, including sources who support Maduro, throughout coverage of the Venezuelan protests. If a government attempts to remove members of the press, I usually think it is because the government officials are not satisfied with how they are being portrayed in the media, even if the coverage is accurate. The antagonism between the Venezuelan government and CNN has been increasing for several days, including CNN cameras being taken away at gunpoint last Wednesday. Reports have also been released that the government has blocked social media, television stations and even Internet access. This seems to show Maduro and his government will stop at nothing to control their image or what is left of it. Edirin Oputu did an effective job reporting on the development of this press situation, including an update about how the government reversed its stance and allowed CNN journalists to continue reporting. I am glad the government came to its senses, but if I were one of those CNN journalists I would be afraid for my safety and security during these unstable times. I would want to remain as objective as possible, but I would be on edge, especially as violence continues to occur. Do you think these journalists will continue reporting as they did before their credentials were revoked? Would you be worried about your safety, and do you think this would impact how you do your job?
Questions from Dr. Rodgers – Vocabulary Terms
- The Enlightenment: A period that extended from 1685 to 1815. It was regarded as the “Age of Reason.” The theory of free press that evolved during this time period said there would be an independent voice that could monitor the influence of powerful institutions in society.
- Watchdog role: Watching over the powerful few in society on behalf of the many to guard against tyranny. It extends beyond making the management and execution of power transparent. This role requires making known and understood the impact of that power. For the press, this also requires reporting where powerful institutions are working effectively, as well as where they are not.
- Social responsibility of press – Hutchins Commission report 1940: A panel of scholars called the Hutchins Commission developed this theory with financial support from Henry Luce, the conservative founder of Time magazine. The theory envisioned a time when an active consumer of news and information was satisfied by a responsible press. The Commission said the media have various functions in society, including providing a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning. One flaw of the theory is it does not devote an ample amount of attention to modern media economics.
- Conglomeration: “A process in which different things come together to form a single thing,” according to Merriam Webster. In terms of media, companies acquire various assets to make more money, as well as to find various sources of income through vertical integration. An example of conglomeration includes networks acquiring production facilities because it allows networks to own the shows they broadcast without having to rely on independent producers. This process makes the situation more predictable for stockholders.
- Consolidation: “The process of uniting; the quality or state of being united; the unification of two or more corporations by dissolution of existing ones and creation of a single new corporation,” according to Merriam Webster. This process allows for a diversification of income. When NBC acquired Universal, income went from being primarily advertising based to including more revenue from subscriptions, admissions, licensing and other ancillary income.
- Native advertising: Ads that match the look, feel and visual design of the publication they are featured in. It is often difficult to distinguish these advertisements from journalistic content. As the New York Times prepares to include this type of advertising, it is likely a tool more organizations will incorporate into their publications.
Cassie Vangellow, cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 
