There are a lot of classes where a bunch of material is thrown at you and you still feel like you didn't learn anything. That is not the case with J2150. We learned a lot this semester and almost all of it I believe will be pertinent as I move forward as a journalist.
One of the really cool things about this class was its ability in one semester's time to make you feel proficient in a wide variety of skills. I came in with a rough understanding of Final Cut Pro and Audacity but almost no knowledge of Photoshop or how to use a DSLR camera. I left feeling comfortable using all of the above.
I also learned valuable lessons about time management. I was forced to scramble to find sources at the last minute at times, resulting in less than excellent work. Keys to good journalism, I've learned, involve strong organization and communication. This holds especially true to stay on deadline in the multimedia world.
As far as changes to the class, there aren't many that I can think of. I think one thing going forward that could be helpful would be to show examples of past work before some of the assignments are given out. Students could really benefit from seeing what is allowed creatively and what style is preferred on some of these projects. Beyond that, it's a great class!
Thanks for an awesome semester!
-Taylor Wilson
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Saturday, May 3, 2014
The Gerrymanderring of Information
You ever notice how a lot of the news you hear, particularly surrounding controversial issues, fits in to your idealogical beliefs? Probably not, but it likely does.
David Carr of the New York Times wrote an interesting piece last year on the 'gerrymandering" of one's news sources. He discussed how people tend to seek out news sources that roughly fit in line with their own beliefs. This led me to my own dissection of where it is I receive my news from.
One of the things Carr talked about was who you follow on social media platforms like Twitter. As someone who tends to lean toward the left, I've realized many of the people I follow think and express their views similarly. While my pure news comes from sources I think of as the pure journalistic standard and separate from political ideology like the Guardian and the New York Times, the truth is, if anything, these sources lean to the left. Individuals who I follow include comedians and writers who might not be as extreme to the left as someone like Sean Hannity is to the right but are still indeed left-leaning. On television, it's extremely rare that I turn on Fox News or Bloomberg, usually finding myself on MSNBC or CNN.
While I'm confident in my views and really like a lot of the aforementioned outlets, this is a pretty scary realization. Nothing good can come from the bubbling off of society that seems to be here with new media. Carr mentioned the village common, where everyone meets to discuss ideas, is shrinking and I think there's some truth to that. There isn't a simple solution to this and may be no solution at all but individually, as Carr stated, it's time we start looking out our windows and not directly in the mirror.
David Carr of the New York Times wrote an interesting piece last year on the 'gerrymandering" of one's news sources. He discussed how people tend to seek out news sources that roughly fit in line with their own beliefs. This led me to my own dissection of where it is I receive my news from.
One of the things Carr talked about was who you follow on social media platforms like Twitter. As someone who tends to lean toward the left, I've realized many of the people I follow think and express their views similarly. While my pure news comes from sources I think of as the pure journalistic standard and separate from political ideology like the Guardian and the New York Times, the truth is, if anything, these sources lean to the left. Individuals who I follow include comedians and writers who might not be as extreme to the left as someone like Sean Hannity is to the right but are still indeed left-leaning. On television, it's extremely rare that I turn on Fox News or Bloomberg, usually finding myself on MSNBC or CNN.
While I'm confident in my views and really like a lot of the aforementioned outlets, this is a pretty scary realization. Nothing good can come from the bubbling off of society that seems to be here with new media. Carr mentioned the village common, where everyone meets to discuss ideas, is shrinking and I think there's some truth to that. There isn't a simple solution to this and may be no solution at all but individually, as Carr stated, it's time we start looking out our windows and not directly in the mirror.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Climate Change Report Paints Bleak Picture for the Future
We've been hearing about the onslaught of global climate change for some time now and it seems it is becoming increasingly accepted that this devastating course is at least in part man-made. One thing that is not talked about as much is the specific trauma that certain worst-case scenarios could bring to humanity.
Recently, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a startling report chronicling some of the possibilities. One of the more disturbing outcomes involves an effect to the world's food supply. Maize and wheat yields have already been forced down, while other crops could be seriously affected, leading to severe price swings and increased unrest in impoverished countries.
The report went on to discuss a dire need for a reduction in emissions in the near future or else risk a rise in the world's sea level by more than two feet.
A response by some who wish to make this a politically charged issue might be that such data is sensationalized or altered but I find it increasingly hard to believe that hundreds of independent scientists are all in cahoots to fund a liberal agenda. This is real change and real devastation that we will begin to see in our lifetimes and most definitely in those of our children and grandchildren.
With all this information, it's important we begin focusing on how we can make a change. Two of the crucial elements that need to happen in response to these findings must involve efforts by world governments to cut emissions, as well as a plan already lined up to adapt to world climate change. Ways to cut emissions include increased funds for public transport, stricter emission regulations on new cars, and harsher penalties for factories that do not process energy in a safe, clean way.
Adapting to some of the inevitable changes might prove to be a bit more difficult. Those living in coastlines will have to spend a good deal of money to raise properties and build dams and levees. In some extreme cases, folks may need to move further inland altogether.
The bottom line is, while some of the more severe changes might be 50 or 100 years away, there are things we can do to help dwindle possible damages and in other cases prevent devastation completely. There is still time but the clock is ticking.
Recently, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a startling report chronicling some of the possibilities. One of the more disturbing outcomes involves an effect to the world's food supply. Maize and wheat yields have already been forced down, while other crops could be seriously affected, leading to severe price swings and increased unrest in impoverished countries.
The report went on to discuss a dire need for a reduction in emissions in the near future or else risk a rise in the world's sea level by more than two feet.
A response by some who wish to make this a politically charged issue might be that such data is sensationalized or altered but I find it increasingly hard to believe that hundreds of independent scientists are all in cahoots to fund a liberal agenda. This is real change and real devastation that we will begin to see in our lifetimes and most definitely in those of our children and grandchildren.
With all this information, it's important we begin focusing on how we can make a change. Two of the crucial elements that need to happen in response to these findings must involve efforts by world governments to cut emissions, as well as a plan already lined up to adapt to world climate change. Ways to cut emissions include increased funds for public transport, stricter emission regulations on new cars, and harsher penalties for factories that do not process energy in a safe, clean way.
Adapting to some of the inevitable changes might prove to be a bit more difficult. Those living in coastlines will have to spend a good deal of money to raise properties and build dams and levees. In some extreme cases, folks may need to move further inland altogether.
The bottom line is, while some of the more severe changes might be 50 or 100 years away, there are things we can do to help dwindle possible damages and in other cases prevent devastation completely. There is still time but the clock is ticking.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Should Photographers Interact with Their Subjects in Moments of Grief?
Recently, NPR broached a very interesting question regarding journalistic ethics: In times of grief, should photographers go out of their way and ask their subjects for permission for the photos they use?
The answer in a primitive, gut reaction sense seems obvious. If you're taking someone's picture, surely it's more sensible to ask for their permission as opposed to hiding in a bush, grabbing a picture and scurrying off into the night.
And yet, as I say that, I'm trying to think of myself in that situation, put on assignment at a scene where hours previously, parents had learned their children were dead. Would I be inclined to interrupt the grieving process? Probably not.
But is that because it's the easy thing or the right thing? Here's where it gets tricky. It can be both and is completely situational. There are scenarios where it might be best to ask for permission. The picture in Newtown, referenced by NPR, might actually be one of them. The woman was not a mother of the children and was not attending a private funeral, but rather grieving in a public space. It would not be a comfortable conversation but I don't think anyone enters journalism for its comforts.
Conversely, a situation where it might be best to avoid communication with the subject might be in the direct aftermath of a gunshot crime or a car wreck, where a victim lies down dead, whilst his or her loved one is standing over them grieving. This is an extreme setting but nonetheless one where it might be more respectful AND more ethical to simply stand in the shadows and capture the images, using discretion during the editing process about whether or not to distribute them to an audience.
This acts as just another reminder to be cognizant and respectful of one's subjects and to remember that, while journalism serves a very powerful purpose, it is a collaboration with subjects and many times, they should have a say in your work.
The answer in a primitive, gut reaction sense seems obvious. If you're taking someone's picture, surely it's more sensible to ask for their permission as opposed to hiding in a bush, grabbing a picture and scurrying off into the night.
And yet, as I say that, I'm trying to think of myself in that situation, put on assignment at a scene where hours previously, parents had learned their children were dead. Would I be inclined to interrupt the grieving process? Probably not.
But is that because it's the easy thing or the right thing? Here's where it gets tricky. It can be both and is completely situational. There are scenarios where it might be best to ask for permission. The picture in Newtown, referenced by NPR, might actually be one of them. The woman was not a mother of the children and was not attending a private funeral, but rather grieving in a public space. It would not be a comfortable conversation but I don't think anyone enters journalism for its comforts.
Conversely, a situation where it might be best to avoid communication with the subject might be in the direct aftermath of a gunshot crime or a car wreck, where a victim lies down dead, whilst his or her loved one is standing over them grieving. This is an extreme setting but nonetheless one where it might be more respectful AND more ethical to simply stand in the shadows and capture the images, using discretion during the editing process about whether or not to distribute them to an audience.
This acts as just another reminder to be cognizant and respectful of one's subjects and to remember that, while journalism serves a very powerful purpose, it is a collaboration with subjects and many times, they should have a say in your work.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Unhappy Interns
Internships are a vital part of college and an even more important aspect of the communications realm. Every summer, eager students apply for a select few positions in order to learn tricks of the trade and, perhaps more importantly, network with people in their prospective fields.
It's a popular move and a vital one to getting an early foot in the door of the real world. But there's a catch. Many if not most of these jobs are unpaid. Kevin Goldberg wrote a piece last year in the Comm Law Blog discussing several recent court cases that are challenging this long-used method of employing students without pay.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor released a statement called Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under the FLSA. This set of rules said many things but in short, basically stated that a worker who is provided aid or instruction is not an employee if the work he or she does serves his or her own interest.
This begs the question: Is this fair?
As a sophomore in college and someone who is currently in the process of finding an internship for the upcoming summer, this is especially interesting to me and, to be honest, I'm 100% behind the Department of Labor's stance. By receiving and fulfilling these highly coveted jobs, students can gain experience that far outweighs any paycheck at the end of the summer. The work you do may not be vital to a company's operation but you learn incredibly valuable skills in a real world environment and get to meet people you would not otherwise. Clichés are fun and thus, I ask, a fisherman would surely rather fish for a lifetime than a day, right?
This is not a time of life to be accumulating a pile of cash. That will come later. Obviously, you may need a job to bring in some income but, as much as it might pain you, that should come in another environment. Summer internships should be about experience and a focus on your future, not some artificial imbursement for the present.
It's a popular move and a vital one to getting an early foot in the door of the real world. But there's a catch. Many if not most of these jobs are unpaid. Kevin Goldberg wrote a piece last year in the Comm Law Blog discussing several recent court cases that are challenging this long-used method of employing students without pay.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor released a statement called Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under the FLSA. This set of rules said many things but in short, basically stated that a worker who is provided aid or instruction is not an employee if the work he or she does serves his or her own interest.
This begs the question: Is this fair?
As a sophomore in college and someone who is currently in the process of finding an internship for the upcoming summer, this is especially interesting to me and, to be honest, I'm 100% behind the Department of Labor's stance. By receiving and fulfilling these highly coveted jobs, students can gain experience that far outweighs any paycheck at the end of the summer. The work you do may not be vital to a company's operation but you learn incredibly valuable skills in a real world environment and get to meet people you would not otherwise. Clichés are fun and thus, I ask, a fisherman would surely rather fish for a lifetime than a day, right?
This is not a time of life to be accumulating a pile of cash. That will come later. Obviously, you may need a job to bring in some income but, as much as it might pain you, that should come in another environment. Summer internships should be about experience and a focus on your future, not some artificial imbursement for the present.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
To Comment or Not to Comment
Last fall, Popular Science made the carefully constructed decision to turn off the ability for its online readers to comment on articles. Why would a publication designed to encourage scientific discussion and debate remove the very feature that allows this? The answer is simple-online comments do more to hurt than help positive discussion. While far from a majority, a small minority of internet trolls and anti-intellectuals can actually hold the power to influence other readers' views on articles.
Popular Science cites a study by the University of Wisconsin, which found that readers were more likely to think strongly of the negative sides of a story after reading user comments.
I think on matters of science, those who bring erroneous and hate-filled commentary to an article can be especially dangerous. As Popular Science noted, "A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a variety of scientifically validated topics." That last part is crucial. Things that have been proven to be true by a wide array of scientists, with almost no argument from anyone in the scientific community are being tossed back up in the air by folks who have no clue what they're talking about.
Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on science, but I like to think I have the wherewithal to at least trust those who do. The world of anonymous online commenting doesn't seem to agree. So, I'm all for the magazine turning off the comments feature.
Now comes a tougher question: Is this the right move for other online outlets as well?
I think the answer, as much as it kind of hurts me to say it, is yes. One of the most important tenets of journalism at its very core is to inform people so they can debate amongst themselves in order to make an educated decision. Questions of concrete science, where there isn't much debate to be had about facts is one thing but most other news that we as journalists produce and distribute is released in order to help folks come to their own conclusions. For many, a vital part of the decision-making process is to talk with one's peers and discuss positives and negatives on an issue. Despite the fact that there will be those who abuse this process, it's an important one and one that dates back to the founding of our nation when our forefathers gathered constantly to weigh the issues at hand.
The internet makes things tricky because people tend to be far more cruel and nonsensical when under the cloak of anonymity but that's something we can get around. People say stupid things in person too and, if we're wise, we'll just choose to ignore it.
-Taylor Wilson
Popular Science cites a study by the University of Wisconsin, which found that readers were more likely to think strongly of the negative sides of a story after reading user comments.
I think on matters of science, those who bring erroneous and hate-filled commentary to an article can be especially dangerous. As Popular Science noted, "A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a variety of scientifically validated topics." That last part is crucial. Things that have been proven to be true by a wide array of scientists, with almost no argument from anyone in the scientific community are being tossed back up in the air by folks who have no clue what they're talking about.
Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on science, but I like to think I have the wherewithal to at least trust those who do. The world of anonymous online commenting doesn't seem to agree. So, I'm all for the magazine turning off the comments feature.
Now comes a tougher question: Is this the right move for other online outlets as well?
I think the answer, as much as it kind of hurts me to say it, is yes. One of the most important tenets of journalism at its very core is to inform people so they can debate amongst themselves in order to make an educated decision. Questions of concrete science, where there isn't much debate to be had about facts is one thing but most other news that we as journalists produce and distribute is released in order to help folks come to their own conclusions. For many, a vital part of the decision-making process is to talk with one's peers and discuss positives and negatives on an issue. Despite the fact that there will be those who abuse this process, it's an important one and one that dates back to the founding of our nation when our forefathers gathered constantly to weigh the issues at hand.
The internet makes things tricky because people tend to be far more cruel and nonsensical when under the cloak of anonymity but that's something we can get around. People say stupid things in person too and, if we're wise, we'll just choose to ignore it.
-Taylor Wilson
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Ira Glass on Storytelling
I recently watched a clip of Ira Glass, host of radio program This American Life, talk about storytelling and its challenges when starting out.
Ira stressed the fact that those who go into creative work do so because they have good taste but when starting out, many creative minds don't make very good work. This isn't because they aren't talented or don't have an abundance of creative juices. Rather, it's because good work simply takes a lot of practice and a lot of bad predecessors before it makes itself seen.
As a writer, creator and aspiring journalist, these words were extremely inspiring and I think ring very, very true. Creative work is unique in that there is never a right or wrong answer. Therefore, the quality of the work is tough to assess. That said, artists with good taste know the difference and it can be really disheartening to put your entire soul into something and have it come out the other end as a disappointing final product. There's definitely something to be said for making more and more stuff, whatever it may be in order to finally start creating work that you can be proud of.
I'm not sure if I've reached the point where I can start enjoying and really feeling proud of many of my final products. With most of the things I create, I feel good about their completion and find myself in a kind of neutrality about their quality. I don't think they are bad but none of them are transcendent or particularly innovative. I'm confident that as I make more creative work, things will improve. How good will they be? That remains to be seen, but they will get better. Thanks, Ira.
-Taylor Wilson
Ira stressed the fact that those who go into creative work do so because they have good taste but when starting out, many creative minds don't make very good work. This isn't because they aren't talented or don't have an abundance of creative juices. Rather, it's because good work simply takes a lot of practice and a lot of bad predecessors before it makes itself seen.
As a writer, creator and aspiring journalist, these words were extremely inspiring and I think ring very, very true. Creative work is unique in that there is never a right or wrong answer. Therefore, the quality of the work is tough to assess. That said, artists with good taste know the difference and it can be really disheartening to put your entire soul into something and have it come out the other end as a disappointing final product. There's definitely something to be said for making more and more stuff, whatever it may be in order to finally start creating work that you can be proud of.
I'm not sure if I've reached the point where I can start enjoying and really feeling proud of many of my final products. With most of the things I create, I feel good about their completion and find myself in a kind of neutrality about their quality. I don't think they are bad but none of them are transcendent or particularly innovative. I'm confident that as I make more creative work, things will improve. How good will they be? That remains to be seen, but they will get better. Thanks, Ira.
-Taylor Wilson
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)