Yes, I believe that political/news bloggers should have a code of ethics. 

Throughout this entire quarter, we have been discussing the immense importance and influence of blogging and how many news consumers solitarily receive their news from blogs.  If blogs are being considered a legitimate source of news and are high on the journalistic trustworthy scale since they are not bound to or independent to any of the major media outlets, then yes, bloggers should be held to a code of ethics.  If blogs are considered a “fifth estate” on the “fourth estate” news, then yes, bloggers should be held to a code of ethics.  If by the summer of 2004, it was clear that government officials viewed blogs as both credible and influential when political bloggers were given press credentials to attend both the Republican and Democratic political conventions, then bloggers should be held to a code of ethics.  If many landmark stories broken by blogs are being catapulted to fame at the major media outlets like the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex scandal or Dan Rather falsely reporting on George W. Bush’s military record, then bloggers should be held to a code of ethics. 

Another dead giveaway that bloggers need to have a code ethics is that O’Reilly wrote about the issues of infringement.  If we are going to have the argument about “stealing” versus “property rights” then obviously there needs to be some kind of set standards.  If there is any gray area due to the advent of blogs, then a code of ethics might prove helpful.   

So, it really boils down to the issue of the success of blogs in carrying out the democratic responsibilities of journalism.  This tends to the greater argument: if blogs are considered true forms of journalism.  If they are, then of course they need to have a code of ethics. 

How do governments, big telecommunications and entertainment companies restrict citizens to certain sites?  I don’t understand how they have the actual capacity to do this…

Why aren’t civil rights attorneys shouting about this clampdown?  Why aren’t they defending our rights concerning infringement and surveillance?

Because Professor Kathy has encouraged us to “move beyond the blog” this week, I would like to discuss YouTube’s impact on politics and particularly this presidential election. Young voters have responded particularly well to Obama’s campaign, creating powerful and sometimes silly YouTube videos that have permeated not just the web, but also mainstream media.

The first example comes from the artist’s Will.I.Am “Yes We Can Song” that was inspired by Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and especially the speech Obama gave following the New Hampshire primary. Collaborating with a plethora of celebrities, the video overlaps the singing voices with Obama’s speech. Obama’s speech alludes to various historical figures that struggled for freedom like President Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. I believe that this video holds great power (as an avid Obama supporter, this video almost brought me to tears!), receiving over 7 million hits. As we have discussed in class, online media is always accessible, unlike the medium of television, making it more influential. Watch the video yourself. I believe that this form of campaigning would be appealing to young voters since it is emotional, highlighting Obama’s message of hope, “But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope…we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea — Yes. We. Can.”

My second example comes from the “I Got a Crush… On Obama” by Obama Girl YouTube video. Receiving 5 million hits on YouTube, teen Amber Lee Ettinger dances scantily clad, sings and professes her love for Obama. Sure, this seems like an innocent, low-production video, but Obama Girl has been catapulted to fame. She has recently been featured on Fox News and MSNBC. When asked if her videos helped Obama’s campaign, she replied that it “made him more out there… this video was viral… allowed people to discuss campaign”. Obama’s campaign has even contacted her producer. Also, other politicians are seeing the value of her video; Mike Gravel, former Alaska senator, supports these Obama Girl videos by dancing the “Soulja Boy Dance” in the background. Ridiculous? Yes. But powerful. And obviously effective.

How/why do you think these YouTube video producers are considered journalists?

What are other examples of YouTube’s effect on politics?

How do you think YouTube will provide a platform for journalism in the future?

What are other examples of Netvideo’s effect on politics?

What has been the traditional role of journalism in relation to US politics? How have journalists carried out that role?

Journalists have at times in history played the role of a mouthpiece for the US government and its politics.

            But not during the Vietnam War.  Vietnam changed everything.  I have studied the effect that the Vietnam War had on journalism in multiple Communication classes.  Journalists were exposing the atrocities of war by reporting straight from the war zone.  By reporting live off the ground, the journalists were capturing the violence against innocent Vietnamese civilians.  It was this gruesome footage that is thought to have altered the American public support of the war.  The public attitude turned against the war.  From then on, the journalists, like the American public, became suspicious of the US government and its politics.  Now journalism tried to take the stance of an advocate for its American audience.      

            But of course, journalism has had its recent mishaps.  Journalism lapsed as our heroic watchdog and reverted back to its old lazy reporting ways with the Iraq war.  In Professor Lisa Cohen’s News in the 21^st Century class, we watched a video that explained how the Iraqi celebration of the invasion of Baghdad was completely staged.  Every major news station was present to capture a few Iraqis dancing around the large Saddam Hussein statue.  After the celebration was leaked to be staged, it became obvious simply from the demographics represented.  When one looks closely, one can see that there are no women or children present in this small crowd of merrymakers.  The US government and military wanted to pretend that they had the Iraq war under control and the journalists agreed to play along with the game.  This is a grim example of the corrupt relationship between journalism and politics.

            The Baghdad Saddam Hussein statue incident is a “groupthink” situation similar to what Coolican’s article refers to.  He says, “What should we political reporters be doing with our time? When is our supposed “analysis” simply a rehashing of the machinery’s narrative?  I’m pretty sure we [are] repeating groupthink we’ve read or heard elsewhere.”

            Journalists must return to the days of Vietnam where they question US politics with a critical eye.  Journalists must remain the 4^th estate, the watchdogs.  This is an important role that cannot be swayed, jaded, or deteriorated by groupthink. 

- What are other historical incidents where groupthink ruled the media’s relationship with politics?

- Can you identify any current situations that are dangerously close to groupthink?

- How can groupthink ever be a positive thing?

I believe that the definition of an “act of journalism” is subjective.    

And I think that your general attitude about the state of our current news journalism industry has a direct correlation to your belief that blogs provide “real news” and can be considered an act of journalism.   

            The older American demographics may still be living in the dark ages of news consumerism.  For example: religiously watching local news and NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams, reminiscing on the glory days of Walter Cronkite, and reading the morning print newspaper’s headlines.  This generation still believes in and consumes their news through traditional media outlets.  These citizens are not apt to subscribe to a reader, search political speeches on YouTube, or scroll through their preferred online news site, let alone attempt to access blogs.  They still hold a positive view of traditional media and may not consider blogging true journalism.  

            On the other hand, the younger generations, the Americans who grew up with the technology silver spoon in their mouths, not only distrust the traditional news media outlets, they are familiar and confident with online news and technology.  They would hold a positive view of personal journalism and may consider blogging to be a better news source.  This is reflected in O’Reilly’s Chapter 7, which explains how “the grassroots have emerged, in ways the professional media largely still fail to comprehend, as a genuine force in journalism.” 

            I don’t think that there is any denial that “for the first time in modern history, the user is truly in charge” or that “blogs can be acts of civic engagement.”  (O’Reilly, Chapter 7)   It is just a matter of people’s attitudes toward this form of journalism.  In order to consider blogging an act of journalism, it faces the challenge of trust and participation.  A large number of citizens must gain faith in and actively participate in widespread blogging. 

For now, the answer to our question will remain subjective, based upon attitude and experience with different forms of journalism.  But I do believe that it is just a matter of time for blogging to be considered an act of journalism.

- When do you perceive this widespread paradigm shift to viewing blogging as an act of journalism to begin?   5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  Why did you choose your timeframe? 

- Why do you view blogging as an act of journalism?  Do you think that your response contributes to your generation’s culture? 

This week, Professor Gill poses the questions: What are social media?  How have they changed the relationship between media outlet and audience?
            I would like to address the arena of social media called Facebook.  Facebook has added a whole other dimension of relationship between media outlets and audiences.  This new format of media have widened the two way street of accessibility between media outlets and audiences.  Media outlets can gather and disseminate stories more quickly and easily through this new social media form and audiences can access, absorb, and even provide stories in the same way.    

For example, a recent news story states that Facebook profiles have been under watchful eyes of employers looking for new hires.  Recent graduates have been encouraged to clean up their profiles meaning removing any suggestions of foul behavior, alcohol, crude lingo, scandalous pictures, revealing clothing etc.  It amazes me that this new form of social media provides employers with an entirely new screening process for job applicants.  I experienced this when I was applying to Komo 4 TV for an internship last year.  I was invited to “befriend”, or allow viewing access of my profile, to one of the past interns in the office.  I had never met this other intern before and it was obvious that they were befriending me to prescreen my professionalism for the older bosses of the office who were not Facebook members.  Stories found in and about Facebook are more prevalent forcing the media outlets to have a hand on the pulse of this new social media. 

Other keen examples of Facebook’s impact on media outlets are the cases of Amanda Knox, a University of Washington student being held in a murder investigation in Italy and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer sex scandal with a New Jersey prostitute by the name of Ashley Alexandra Dupre.  Both of these women in the two stories were hounded on social media outlets like Facebook including MySpace and YouTube for information and evidence to the identities of these two mysterious women.  Anything that the public posts on these new social media outlets is fair game for media outlets and the broader viewing audience.  In conclusion and in connection to the reading this week, “The Web created a new ecosystem.”

- Are new social media mediums providing a positive or negative outlet for media outlets and audiences?

- Is there a line to be drawn in terms of access and privacy on these new social media forms?

I would like to address Professor Kathy Gill’s question: “Why are politicians and governments on the Web?” A response may be found in the second chapter of O’Reilly’s book when he writes: “At their heart, the technologies of tomorrow’s news are fueling something emergent—a conversation in which the grassroots are absolutely essential”. 

Politicians are on the Web because it provides for a conversation to emerge, which is essential to their success!  Politicians want voters to think that they are listening to their concerns and not bulldozing over them. 

A solid example of politicians’ grassroots efforts online comes from my participation in Obama’s campaign through his website and constant email updates.  I proudly donated $25 to Obama’s campaign when I caucused for him during our Washington State primaries.  And ever since I made my donation, I have been flanked with email updates from his campaign center which have prompted me to links routed to his website, positive press YouTube videos, etc.  His emails’ contain very personal and grassroots tones which appeal to me as a young voter who has in the past been neglected by contenders in presidential elections.  And I absolutely love it when Michelle Obama writes me an email.  I feel connected, attached, and involved in his campaign just by being passive and reading the cheesy, gushy emails sent out to the masses!          

To address Professor Kathy Gill’s other question, “Why are newspapers and broadcast outlets on the Web?” I would like to use Fox News cable channel as a reference. 

Even though Fox promises “fair and balanced” reporting in their news broadcast, I have studied many times in various other Communication courses that the Fox channel is stoutly conservative, ferociously patriotic, and can attribute their rapid growth in the past couple years to viewership supporting the current Bush administration. 

To seem more edgy, rebellious, or hip, Fox has established blogs for viewers to respond back.  Yes, we all know that blogs are sometimes considered a venue to “rant”, are for the “citizen journalist”, provide an opportunity to disassociate from the influence of their big brother owners or flagship media outlets… but how can we expect these media outlets’ blogs, like FOXs’, to be any different from the false promises their television broadcasts present?

If Obama wins the 2008 election, will we in hindsight credit his advisors ability to mobilize donors and supporter from his online/web-based campaign efforts?  

Can you trust a blog under the umbrella of a biased major media outlet to be unbiased?

Since blogs are seen as such an independent form of news reporting, I wonder what the traditional media outlet’s success is with blogging?  And how would we measure this? 

Do Hillary supporters feel as connected through online avenues to her campaign as I feel to Obamas’ campaign?  Is she utilizing the Web as well as he is?     

When I read the From Tom Paine to Blogs and Beyond chapter, certain terms popped off the page for me. On page one I read about how “personal journalism is not a new invention”… that people have been “stirring the pot”… and that personal journalism is “civic-minded and occasionally controversial.”

In honor of my first blogging experience and for this response, I would like to cause some controversy and “stir this pot” a little. First I have to explain my reasoning for taking this class. It is because I’m disappointed in our departments lack of experiential learning opportunities in the classroom. I registered for this blogging class because of my frustration with the many “theory based” classes offered here in the Department of Communication. I’ve taken classes with titles like interpersonal communication, small group communication and nonverbal communication. All ridiculous, all far too elementary, all wasteful.

So many of our 900+ students graduate from our department confused about which career path to take because they never had classes focused on specific Communication careers. These “theory-based” classes do not help students narrow down their career paths.

To take this one step further, what about internships required by the department? This experiential learning is vital in developing students’ skills sets in a major like Communication that is so dependent on workplace experience.

Of course we do offer some classes that provide experiential learning opportunities. Kathleen Fearn-Banks’ PR course, Karen Rathes’ Feature Writing course, and Lisa Cohen’s News in the 21^st Century course are all great examples of the types of courses that will provide us with marketable skill sets to compete in the job search after graduation.

I feel justified in this criticism because I feel that I have a strong hand on the pulse of the department and am a strong representation of our diverse student body. I am a department scholarship recipient, held a two year internship with Victoria Sprang the department’s Alumni Manager, was featured in this year’s Graduation Celebration video, am the president of the campus chapter of the Association of Women in Communication, have personal connections to faculty like nannying for Professor David Domke’s children, etc.

On page five in Dispatches from blogistan, Stefanac speaks of “an urge to communicate with peers and to help shape our own communities.” I am thrilled to exercise my voice on this blog and attempt to raise awareness of this issue and enact some change in the department. I am standing on my blog soap box pleading that our department provide more practical, hands-on, applicable learning for its students.

Do you agree with my criticism of the Department of Communication?

How does the use of a blog as a soap box improve and hurt our society’s various conversations through new media?

Has blogging gained enough power and momentum in our current society to “help shape our communities” or is it still a developing form of communication? How would we measure this?

Can a blog truly be used for objective reporting? Will there always be underling personal opinions since it is such a free form of writing?