It was interesting to see abandoned desks and relatively silent halls in a place that is considered one of the world’s most reliable news sources. However, before 10 a.m., this  is common practice. Even though I knew that this would be the case, I still half-expected breaking news induced mayhem…

One of the speakers Professor Conway arranged to present was Brian Stelter. Stelter is currently a television and digital media reporter for the Times and shared with us how he got his position blogging every day about television while in college. He also discussed the necessity of creating a specialized ‘personal brand’ in today’s market, though he surprisingly expressed reservations about the term.  According to Stelter, who himself obtained his position by marketing himself as a personal brand, this mentality has taken away from dedication to institutions. I found his stance really interesting, especially since the primary drive in most of my classes has been to define my own ‘personal brand.’ But I think he definitely has a point. If there are just personal brands, collaboration in working towards a common goal (in terms of a newspaper’s role for instance), could become more difficult and decrease the overall quality of a newspaper.  I found his story inspiring, and it gave me a lot to think about in terms of how I am going to use social networking sites such as twitter and LinkedIn, and even Tumblr in order to define and market myself.

It’s no secret that the inundation of computer-based journalism, in coordination with the decline of print media, has created new terrain for citizen journalists and bloggers alike. Though the original plans for a federal shield law defined a journalist as someone who receives commission for their work, the most recent version of the proposal includes citizen journalists as well as students. The continuing struggle of students at Northwestern University demonstrates the importance of such protection, to be able to assure that, as students of journalism, they can practice the code of ethics they are instructed in school without fearing legal repercussions.

This weekend I was discussing with my mother my course list for next semester. When I mentioned “media ethics,” my mother not so jokingly asked “Do journalists have different ethics than everyone else?” Well, yes. As “he-man woman haters club” as it may sound, journalists have a different set of rules in certain circumstances. When it comes to politics, journalists are voiceless in personal expression. No bumper stickers. No rallies. No Facebook statuses bashing Obama, etc. etc. Similarly, their relation to sources merits special circumstances. A doctor is sworn to a code of confidentiality, without which he couldn’t hope to be trusted by his/her patients. A journalist is as good as his/her sources. Without the promise of confidentiality, the success of coaxing sources is bound to decline. A qualified privilege, as established in the 1972 decision (Branzburg v. Hayes) which provides a three-part test to determine whether a journalist must sacrifice his/her  ability to work, essentially puts First Amendment Rights up for interpretation.

As the face of journalism continues to change, it’s more important than ever to assure that journalists aren’t censored by fearful sources and their own fear of subpoenas.

As unsurprising as it is that Courtney Love is being sued for libel, the source of the suit is shocking and of use to journalists who have discovered the value of “tweeting.”

After posting several comments about designer, Dawn Simorangkir, accusing her of drug dealing and being an overall poor designer (this of course is putting what she said lightly, this is Courtney Love after all), Simorangkir has filed charges of libel against Love.

The results of this case will serve as a guideline for future cases involving libel cases and social networking. Whatever the result, the attention this case is getting is a warning: watch what you say!!! Even if in a brief “tweet,” what you do and say online is open to interpretation and scrutiny by anyone.

Of course most journalists are probably more careful than Love in their word choice, but the possibilities of libel are infinite, and if someone identifies a chance to take action, they are more than likely to seize it.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I’d thought that since I hadn’t shown her the entire article the changes she wanted made to the quotes were acceptable. Of course, when I sent three different versions of the article to the editor, explaining that I’d “tweaked” the article, luckily red flags went up.

This mistake was slightly embarrassing. Looking at the circumstances now, giving sources the power to change their quotes after the fact opens the door for frightening possibilities of manipulation. Though this instance was very small-scale and not a great alteration, the concept is something which could translate to catastrophe on a greater scale.

The article suggests that newspapers are in trouble beyond widespread financial woes. Pincus discusses the descent of the newspaper industry as a product of reporter’s pride and corporate owners who are hungry for ratings. Journalism has become a playground for pursuers of prizes, rather than reporters seeking to serve the interest of the public, which has always been the primary impetus for newspapers in our nation’s history.

What I found incredibly interesting was Pincus’ identification of  Woodward and Bernstein’s acclaimed coverage of Watergate as both the highpoint and downfall of journalism in the United States. As a journalism student, I have always been taught that this was a pivotal project, something to emulate and strive for in my career. While Pincus recognizes that the work upheld the watchdog role of the reporter and perhaps raised the bar for checking government power, he says that it created a whole new generation of prize seeking journalists.

I think Pincus poses a very valid point. In an age of layoffs and bankruptcy, it’s difficult to see how newspapers could afford to dedicate reporters’ time to month long series, when perhaps these reporters could be covering a variety of other stories. Yet, these series continue, many with a Pulitzer in mind. Pincus recognizes throughout his article that though many of the works produced out of prize seeking have value to the public, the fact that rewards have become such a force in journalism is unacceptable.

Photo of Michelangelo Caravaggio's "Narcisse" retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

At this point in my education, I’m just hoping I can get a job after graduation, let alone a Pulitzer.

I’ve started working on a blog for The Philadelphia Inquirer called Student Union 34. The content of this brainchild of the Inquirer is produced by students from college’s in the Philadelphis area (the name refers to the 34 schools considered to be in this region, luckily TCNJ has been taken under Pennsylvania’s wing). I will be writing a blog weekly featuring a student artist … should be fun!

Facebook has become a very useful tool beyond just simple social networking. I have used facebook to verify name spelling, years and majors of students when working on a story. It also becomes useful when you need to contact someone you otherwise wouldn’t have access to.

This case, however, demonstrates a clear danger that Facebook creates in its impersonal nature. Yes, it is great for discovering possible sources and gathering some personal information. The reporters in this instance, however, were insensitive to the fact that many of her friends hadn’t yet discovered that she was dead. Personally, I wouldn’t want to discover the death of someone I am close with via Facebook.

Tamari asserted that when a newspaper endorses a candidate, it strictly involves the editorial board. He himself was unaware of The Inquirer‘s endorsement until the day after. While this may be the case, I feel that this practice of endorsement is detrimental to any newspaper’s image of objectivity. Yes, the endorsement appears as an editorial, therefore technically protecting the newspaper. However, I think it is important to take public perception of these endorsements into consideration. By saying “The New York Times endorses Governor Corzine” a definitive message is sent to the public. Perhaps the paper has been smoothing out details of a candidate’s past in order to silently promote him/her. Maybe the paper has focused on the criticism of on candidate more than another. While the intention is not to encompass reporters within this bubble of support, I think to a degree it is impossible to completely separate any person associated with the Times from this message. I think these endorsements widens crack in the shield of objectivity, making a newspaper more vulnerable to criticism and accusations of bias.

As an aspiring journalist, this tradition surprises me. It is difficult enough to separate myself from stories involving controversial issues. To have an editorial board speak out in favor of an issue would cast me in a false light, associating me(though inadvertantly) with a certain opinion, making the appearance of neutrality impossible.

I understand that the point of editorials is to bring more of a personalized voice to the paper, but I think a forum better serves as a commentary on issues, rather than simple support for political candidates.