Sunday, January 31, 2010

Transition- E-Portfolio Entry



There is no doubt that journalism is a career in transition. Many speak of a new journalism emerging, driven by a new uprising of online media that has encroached on territory traditionally controlled by print. There are those who preach of the print apocolypse, who spread fear and doom throughout the industry. They cry that print media must repent for its monopolizing ways before the coming of the online rapture. Others, with a seemingly more rational view, argue that this is not an end, but merely a new beginning. As traditional print cannot dream of competeing with the sheer speed and efficiency of online sources, there are still print loyalists who are certain that in the face of adversity, print will blossom anew and narrow their focus to a more editorial and feature aimed approach, where rather than fighting to get the story out first, print will compete to get the story out best.




However, in this heated debate between print death and print supremacy, there seems to be a lack of discussion around those who create the news, those referring to journalists. How will they fair in the face of a career in flux? At first glance, one could argue, not well. Professional newsrooms are cutting staff left and right. Where once a large event would warrant an entire team, a single journalist, armed with a camera, voice recorder, and notepad is expected to cover the entire story solo. However, one must remember to focus on the long-term, rather then view these changes (which have occurred over a relatively short span of time) in short-sighted terms. It is in my belief that this the dawning of a new era for journalists. As bloggers lose some of the stigma around their work, and as more and more gain respect and credibility, we are seeing a transition from the cold style of traditional news writing, to a return to the time of the story teller.




Journalists do not sit around dreaming of getting their Pulitzer for the inverted pyramid on a story about a robbery in a local corner store; on the contrary, the journalist dreams of chasing down wild leads and catching a rare glimpse into some of the darkest corners of our own society. Journalists want to tell stories, and be allowed to share them in a way that is enticing and compelling. With the fall of corporate monopolies who controlled print media, journalists could finally be allowed to be as expressive as they have longed to be, and be allowed to demonstrate the art form that is true journalism.




Thursday, January 28, 2010

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Ricki Cundliffe



When it comes to "bloggers" and others who cover the news without receiving payment, I think that is 100% a personal choice. I don't understand any reason for mockery or ridicule directed towards these select people from critics, because these "bloggers" are clearly engaging in activities that they find enjoyable, interesting, and/or therapeutic. One of the best things about the Internet is being able to interact with people all around the world from the comfort of your own home; it is very beneficial to all to be able to contribute valuable knowledge to society via the Internet. Arianna Huffington states, "the critics of new media [who] clearly don't understand that technology has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation." In my opinion, Huffington has hit the nail on the head. With that being said, I think any sort of mockery by critics in this sense is unnecessary and inappropriate, because in essence, it does not affect these critics as individuals one bit.

"Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks, or even months in their stories, all under the tattered veil of 'fair use,' " Rupert Murdoch said. "These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others...To be impolite, it's theft." In this case, I definitely agree with Murdoch. There is a big difference between contributing to the World Wide Web in comparison to cluttering it up with unnecessary repetition. If you really enjoy something that has been published by a fellow "blogger," there is absolutely nothing wrong with re-posting the piece while adding your own thoughts and ideas, AS LONG AS YOUR ATTRIBUTE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE! Search Engines are very advanced, and a simple background check will easily prove who the original composer was; it's doesn't help anyone to plagiarize, and it is especially offensive to those who initially posted their own views.

Overall, I understand there is a possibility of charging people to view the news online. It is more convenient to access than newspaper are, and there has always been a price on purchasing those. "In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites...The critics say people won't pay," Murdoch said. "I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don't get something for nothing." I, too, share the belief that people are willing to pay for something convenient, beneficial, and original. On the other hand, I do not agree with putting a price tag on blog posting and similar sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). "Bloggers" should be able to take advantage of expressing themselves and their ideas online without having to cover costs. If these sites began charging their contributors, I believe the usage will decline dramatically, and the entire site will go to waste.



Note: Image from: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&q=computer+cartoon&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Journalism 2.0 E-Portfolio


As a student journalist working towards entering this changing industry, I find the concept of the changing face of journalism very troubling. Journalism is no longer straightforward, but is morphing into something completely different, and I am unsure what exactly I will be doing when I enter the workplace. With the bankrupt state of certain news agencies I am wondering if I will be entering the workplace at all.

As we are now in the age of digital literacy, experienced and respected journalists are finding themselves thrust into a whole new form of writing and investigating. They are experiencing a whole new world of media communication, which they have to learn.

One of the most prominent points in favor of digital journalism is the fact that information is accessible all around the world in an almost instantaneous manner. Another is that there is an opportunity for virtual collaboration with almost anyone and the news and the people that choose to report it. Anyone with a computer can be vocal and active with internet journalism. If you are displeased with the news or the way that it was reported you can instantly comment on it. Also, internet media could prove to be a lucrative business if advertising is used responsibly- it would have a low overhead. Journalists' travelling expenses will be nonexistent because travelling is unnecessary with the internet. Why send a journalist to cover a story in another country when there is a journalist that is living there that could get the story in a matter of minutes?

The negative points of internet journalism are far more daunting than one might expect. There is a lack of accuracy and credibility when one is reading news on the internet. Research must be done to find out which sites provide news that is correct and trustworthy. There is also a lack of editing, which leads to greater chances of slander or libel within news stories. Also, there is no set of ethical rules for citizen journalists like there is for journalists. This could prove difficult when trying to vie for attention with news stories that citizen journalists can write in a “juicier” manner, perhaps with information that as a responsible journalist, we cannot provide.

I believe that now the days of “selling” the news are over, and what people will pay for is accuracy, trustworthiness, and respectability because news is simply too easy to obtain at this point.

Print and daily television are becoming aged methods of gaining news information. They are less intriguing when one may access information minute-by-minute via the web at a computer all day at work. When this is a regular occurrence, how do you capture the public attention with old information? The only defense is to make it trustworthy.

It is in my opinion that when the seniors of our generation pass, so will the archaic methods of news transmission. I believe that they exist now only as a method of informing those who do not have the technological skills to access information the digital way.

Not only hard news, but comics, horoscopes, community events and job searches can all be found on the internet now rather than in a newspaper.

In a way, trained journalists are much more equipped to write for the web because they must be well versed in many topics; health, court, technology, etc. whereas citizen journalists seem to have only one or two areas of expertise that they cover. Trained journalists can seguey from topic to topic. Also, student journalists that are graduating in this age of digital information are trained to write for the internet, radio, print and television and to take their own news quality photos. We are more equipt to provide news to the public that will be valuable. We are the “credible bloggers.”

I believe it is important for us as journalists to grow with technology and to create a niche for ourselves in this ever-changing industry. As Hunter S. Thompson said, we must, “Buy the ticket, take the ride.”
Interesting reading by a self-proclaimed blogger on journalism 2.0, who has some good points on the blogger vs. journalist debate.

Image from http://images.dailyme.com/websites/corporate/26newsie.jpg

Crap Detection, Megan Perras


Currency


I believe that this article was current as far as technology was concerned. There was a lot of references made to the past technologies as well, which I think aided in making the point that the evolution of information systems creates a need for an evolving information filter. It references twitter and other social media sites which are current and popular media tools. All of the links seem to be useful and working as well.


Reliability


The information provided is cautionary advice, and is expressed as such, which creates an opinion-based reliability. The opinion is backed up with facts and examples which can be checked. The article doesn’t need to be balanced because it is expressed as a personal opinion, but it has a large amount of sites which are helpful and truthful in checking information which you find on the internet. There are links for almost every topic the author discusses.


Authority


Howard Rheingold gives his email, so you have a chance to respond, which gives the reader the authority to create a dialogue. Also, there are areas for the reader to comment and participate in the discussion with others who have explored this topic. The author has a full biography with references and is an author, editor and professor. This creates an aura of credibility surrounding the article. The overall goal of the article seems to be to teach and inform the public about misinformation online and create a forum for discussion.


Purpose/ Point of View


Rheingold gives both fact and opinion within the article. The information is not biased, but seems to be a realistic opinion on how one should approach internet research. The author is selling an idea, but not for personal gain.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Fact-Checking Megan Perras


Full Story:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Alberta+Education+investigates+rumours+exam+cheating/2486975/story.html

After fact-checking this story, as far as I know it is accurate. The story is about an allegation of cheating, and is difficult to prove true or false. Zoe Cooper is the Public Affairs Officer at the Government of Alberta, and she is called the “department spokeswoman” in the article. Cory Sinclair is an Edmonton Public Schools spokesman. Both names are spelt correctly in the article. I could not find a way to verify the exact number of students that wrote the exam. Also, I could not find any news articles that spoke about the 2001 cheating incident in St.Albert.

Accuracy is imperative in journalism, because it creates a trust and respect relationship between the writer and the reader. If a writer uses inappropriate or rudimentary grammar, then they lead the reader to believe that they are inappropriate or rudimentary, not to mention unintelligent. The consequence to that is then the reader no longer respects what they write, no matter how true or worthy their opinion.

Backchecking, Jesse Snyder




Interview was recorded.


Name seems to be correct.


No insight as to where the numbers from the poll came, only states "according to a poll."


No available links to verify information.


Only one single source throughout interview.


Skinny women. Yes.


Attribution is sound.


Location is unimportant.


FACT CZECHIN' - Devon Bowie


Full Article Here

By Randy Boswell, Canwest News Service January 26, 2010 3:55 PM


This article taken from the Journal's site seems to be accurate and have no glaring errors. Thumbs up.

Accuracy is an important thing. It is, for one thing, central to one's credibility, and thus career. Additionally, to be inaccurate would go against the very ideal of journalism. Thus, you better check yourself, lest truly, you wreck yourself.

Fact-Checking, Terra


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/UNICEF-closing-Winnipeg-office-82711202.html

This article just says it is writen by the "Staff Writer" and according to the CRAP test, we aren't able to see how credible the author is by using google to see what else he/she has done.

The statistics used in the article aren't backed up by any URL's or even supported by where the information is from.

The author does, however, attribute the quotes that are used in the article.

When I googled Sharon Avery's name, I was able to see that she did indeed work for UNICEF.

It is extremely important to be accurate and thorough because it helps with the writer's credibility. It is important for a writer to maintain a reputation of being accurate so that he/she will continue to have people who read his/her articles. People do not want to read articles that aren't accurate and many people don't have the time to fact-check every article they read. If they can simply trust what a writer writes it makes it more convenient for the readers in the future.

Fact Checking, Rob Smethurst

In the article from the Edmonton Journal, posted today, of a man rescued in Haiti, has to checked out as far as the checklist goes. It also touches on aid that is coming into the country as well as efforts to help clear the rubble. The reporter writes that helping out are several thousands of US troops, yet does not mention that there are many people concerned that such an American presence is a subtle takeover. Considering that this is supposed to be a good news story, I can understand why. Maybe the reporter could just do another story on the US presence in Haiti. They are armed really well....

Fact checking is so important in journalism it should be a basic move and secound nature to everyone in the industry, seeing as presenting the truth is the name of the game.

Fact Checking, Claire Theobald


After checking an article from the Globe and Mail called "Tim Trow to quit Toronto Humane Society board", I found the article to have no obvious errors. Quotes appear to be attributed properly, the spelling seems fairly consistent, and the facts are credible. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/tim-trow-quits-toronto-humane-society-board/article1445060/


Accuracy is what seperates news from rumour, therefore if a news source is to retain credibility as a news source, it must be fair, balanced, and accurate.


Fact Checking, Pamela Di Pinto


Here is my fact-checking mission as follows:

My article of choice, "Woman, 84, rescued after family hears cries," was published in the Edmonton Journal on January 23, 2010. It is one of the many hopeful survival stories surfacing in the news these days following the fatal earthquake in Haiti. In terms of fact-checking, the article "checked out," so to speak.

  • The numbers in reference to the quake are consistent with what has been reported thus far.
  • Names, titles, and locations appear to be in order.
  • Sources are well attributed.
  • Spelling and grammar were up-to-par with what I expected as a reader.

However, despite all of this, there were no external links within the story that allow the reader to physically confirm the above mentioned information. Including such links would have strengthened this story's accuracy and reliability. As well, there was no specific author mentioned. The byline simply read Agence France-Presse. Interesting...

In general, fact-checking is a crucial component to any successful piece of writing, especially in a field such as journalism. Even simple mistakes can set off a frenzy of skepticism in readers: Well, if they made a mistake in this article, have they made mistakes in the past? Will they in the future? The simple truth of the matter remains: No fact-checking=bad reputation=no readers=no career. You follow? Save yourself the trouble, and get your facts straight!


Fact-Checking, Ricki Cundliffe




CHECKLIST:
Ask sources to spell name & title: PROBLEM: "Inukshuks" is the English spelling. "Inuksuks" is the proper spelling.
Record or transcribe interviews: ---
Verify claims with reliable sources: CHECK!
Save links and other research: CHECK!
Ask sources what other reports got wrong: No other reports.
Numbers & Math: PROBLEM: The age's of Bruce's children are both under the number 10; therefore, they should be spelled out, according to CP Style.
Names: CHECK!
Titles (people, books etc.): CHECK!
Locations: CHECK!
Compare quotes to notes/recording: CHECK!
Quote Attribution: CHECK!
Definitions: CHECK!
URLs: ---
Spelling & Grammar: PROBLEM: "Inukshuks" is the English spelling. "Inuksuks" is the proper spelling.
Spellchecker Errors: ---

Accuracy and journalism truly go hand-in-hand. Without accuracy, there is no credibility. In turn, without credibility, there is not legitimate news. The biggest problem with inaccuracy is lack of time (and effort) in the proofreading stage. The reason news papers have editors is to preform this very task, and preform it well. There are certainly some things that go unnoticed, typically do to Spellcheck, but then again, editors should be the ones with the final say, NOT the computers.


Fact-Checking, Jayme

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Record+high+travel+Edmonton+airport/2486203/story.html

This article, written by Dave Cooper, has statistics listed for flights from Canada to the United States. The problem is he does not attribute the source of this data. In order for this information to be able to be fact-checked he would have to list where he is receiving the numbers from. He lists his email, so contacting to ask about this glaring omission is possible, but the average reader will not do this. Unfortunately, he does not attribute any findings throughout the whole article. I would say this story fails the accuracy test simply because I am unsure of where he is getting his information. He also mentions a new non-stop flight to Liberia, which does not make any sense to me. A direct flight from Edmonton to Liberia?

Without accurate referencing a person has to assume the article is not based on fact. It is important to check whether what you are reading is fact without blindly assuming it is correct. The internet has many unreliable writers on it and fact-checking is more important than it has ever been.

Fact Checking, Created Through Hard Work and Sweat Done by Steven Wagers

So, I am here to try my hand at being an editor for a news story that is currently online, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

The article is called Horcoff evidence of what ails Oilers and is on the Edmonton Sun's website at http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/myoilers/2010/01/25/12610681.html.

I shall start by checking the names of all the people mentioned in this story. The name Shawn Horcoff comes up again and again throughout this article, which makes sense seeing as the article is about him, and throughout they have the spelling correct not only for Horcoff, but for all the other players as well. Same thing with Pat Quinn's name.

In this particular article, there is a great many stats which must be verified, and after my review I can attest to the validity of those stats.

Seeing as there are no real titles outside of "head caoch Pat Quinn" which was done correctly, I am led to the conclusion that this was done properly as well.
The quotes have all been attributed properly, and whoever edited it in real life has done a good job of getting this article ready for publishing.

Having an article properly edited is essential to a story. If the article is filled with false facts, readers might lose trust in that particular news publication, and rightfully so. The publication isn't the only one at a loss either. The journalist also loses credibility, and if they ever need to find a new job, they could run into problems if they build a reputation of presenting false facts. Making sure your facts are correct is just so crucial to becoming a good journalist.




Fact-Checking, Jennifer Carbert


The article "Woman receives life sentence for role in brutal slaying of Courtepatte" from the Edmonton Journal January 26, 2010 has been checked for accuracy according to the Detriot Free Press checklist and found to patially pass.


Reporter Checklist

The names and facts of the article are correct and as far as I can tell from someone who did not conduct the interviews the quotes are correct. They may have given voice to the woman convicted if they were legally allowed, or at least attempted to get a quote from her. Since the woman has always been tried as an adult there should be an explanation of why her name is never used. Is it because of family issues, or is there some other reason her name is not used.


Assigning Editor Checklist

Many of the checks done are the same as those for the reporter and seem to have been done correctly. The names, numbers, and facts seem to be correct in the story and only a comment from the convicted woman might have added context.


Copy Editor Checklist

The headline is very well rounded and represntative of the story. Again they could have used a comment from the convicted woman to add balance to the story. In the lead there is a question of how she was automatically handed a life sentence when the murder happened a couple of years ago.


Conclusion

The facts in this story is pretty acurate there is just some unexplained anomolies in the information of the story. Could they get a quote from the woman? Could they use her name? Accuacy is very important in journalsim because newspapers give news to different people and are expected to be accurate. When Journalists mess-up they can defame someone or misrepresent an issue by not showing both sides, this could result in people losing jobs, and journalists being filed with a law suit.


Crap Detection, Aden Cruz


Howard Rheingold’s article “Crap Detection 101” appears to be well balanced and credible. His purpose of cautioning readers against false or deceiving information that litters the web is neutral, as he has nothing to personally gain in conveying this.

The information he provides is substantiated by links to tools and resources.

Links to Rheingold’s biography, e-mail, and website is also available, which helps to confirm the author’s credibility.

The article is also relatively current, having been posted on June 30, 2009.

Notes

Image from: http://www.leadminingmuseum.co.uk

CRAP Detection, Kris Hoyt

This is an attempt to apply the CRAP Test to Howard Rheingold's article "Crap Detection 101"


C- Currency- The article was written on June 30, 2009. That means that, on the day of this writing, the article is four days from being seven months old. This means that the article is not very current. However, the topic, which is about reliable sources on the internet, does not age quickly, especially with the methods mentioned in the article, which the author managed to apply to his sources for over ten years, as stated by Rheingold.

R-Reliability-The article is about online research and how one can verify the online sources. This article is filled with links. At nearly every point in which the article references an outside source, there is a link to the outside source, and usually more. With the ability to check where Rheingold got his information, we can get a good check of the articles reliability.

A-Authority- The article was written by Howard Rheingold, who looks around the internet for such things as reliability in facts recieved online. As this is the man's job, I think one can find the article to have come from a trusted source. Also, the article was posted on SF Gate, the home page of the San Fransisco Chronicle. As a newspaper, the site can also be seen as fairly trustworthy. There are a few advertisements, but they have little to nothing to do with the article, so it can be assumed that they were randomly chosen.

P-Purpose/Point of View- I found that the article had some opinion about it. He stated his opinion that most people do not have the necessary knowledge to check their facts. However, as stated previously, the article does have a fair deal of links, so most of the things stated in the article, mainly the methods of checking the facts, do have a basis in fact. The sole purpose of the article is to educate people on the risks of online searching and how to make sure they have the right information.






This Picture is from http://www.rheingold.com/howard/

Crap Detection 102, Kevin Penny

Crap Detection 102:
Where to detect the spewing of crap
While Howard Rheingold uses Hemingway as a great example for using the 'crap detection' methods, he centralizes the issue too much on Internet websites. Hemingway was born in 1899, and did not assume that his methods of detecting crappy information would pertain directly to the world wide web, but to every aspect of information gathering.

I do agree that everybody should have a crap detector built into them; it is common sense to use your common sense. The problem is when people use their detection skills, it is usually towards an unknown target (such as a little-known website) because of their distrust and unfamiliarity. However, these same people would be less prone to try and detect any crap spewing from their favourite news channels and political parties.

For example, most people do not know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which was the main reason why the USA began the Vietnam War) did not actually happen, and was fabricated in order to persuade the public into starting a war. If you are one of the few who did know this little-known fact, give yourself a clap on the back for your astounding crap detection.


Hemingway believed in constant crap detection because he knew that humans are prone to deceiving others (and occasionally, themselves). It is human to err, and it is human to deceive; therefore, a writer must be vigilant when gathering information. This includes every aspect of information, whether it be the Internet, a news broadcast, or a political speech.

Image taken from Iowansforpeace.net

CRAP Detection - Devon Bowie



The article seems to follow the C.R.A.P. detection rules fairly well, except in a few ways. A full report follows.






Currency: No problem. Site has been updated recently, article is less than a year old, and it's current enough to be relevant.





Reliability: It's largely an opinion piece, but the information checks out. It's factual.





Authority: Though I've never heard of the author, he apparently was a professor. He also wrote the article for a newspaper that seems to be well enough known. His personal site is well designes, too. http://www.rheingold.com/

Also apparently he'll be reading this. Hi! Claire says sorry.





Purpose: It's partially opinion, and it's biased, but as an opinion piece, it's allowed to be. He doesn't seem to want to sell me anything.

CRAP Detection, Robert Smethurst


As the author of Crap detection 101, Howard Rheingold, said, having to sort out all of the invalad information is not new to the computer age. While random gunk on the net seems more prevelant, that may just be becuase so many people have a voice that streches so far over the internet, where back in the early days of journalism thier voices may not have gone further than their own village.

People like to exagerate a story, in order to make it better and more exciting. That hasn't really changed, instead of stories of sea monsters and giants, we get slightly distorted facts, so close to the real trueth of the matter that it can become harder to see the differance. Some people may not even mean to alter reality, but it happens. However with that being said, there are a lot of people that want to share the trueth, and not change it. The trick is to know the differance.
The ability to develop accurate detecting skills becomes all the more important for journalists of today. Finding credible sorces is the key to reporting on the news, looking for people that know what they are talking about helps.

Crap Detection, Pamela Di Pinto


When performing the CRAP test on Howard Rheingold's article, "Crap Detection 101," it appears to score fairly well overall.


Currency:

The article itself was posted just last year, June 30, 2009, to be more specific. In terms of currency, this would be considered fairly acceptable to the average online news-goer; however, its lack of updated information is apparent, especially with the specific examples such as the Iranian politcal demonstrations of June 2009. Yes, at the time this would be considered up-to-date, but now almost a year later, it is lacking in the area of currency. The website in which the article is published has remained up-to-date, indicated by the Copyright 2010 at the bottom of the page. The topic Rheingold presents has become somewhat of a timeless topic in today's evolving "digital age," where individuals often turn to the Internet as a source for information.


Reliability:

The article is focused on self-help information. In other words, it allows indivduals to use many untapped resources to protect themselves against unreliable sources on the Web. His opinion is offered, but it does not appear as a primarily opinionated piece. He uses facts and sources to support a truth: that people should question the reliability of their sources. Not all sources on the Web are reliable! It may seem one-sided in this point--that all sources need to be questioned--but, all in all, it remains fairly balanced in regards to the topic.


Authority:

The author, Howard Rheingold, is clearly indicated at the top of the article (so, bonus points for that!). Rheingold has also been in the business of the "digital world" for a long time, with an impressive number of univeristy lectures and books under his belt. I'm guessing he knows what he's talking about. The article appears to be self-published, and yes there are advertisements on the page where the article is featured. However, I don't think this takes away from the overall message behind his article.


Purpose/Point of View:

As mentioned above, this article does reveal some personal opinion, but I still believe it is based more so on a truth: not all Internet sources are reliable! People should read critically, and always question the credibility of their sources. It is harmful to always believe what you read at face value. In my opinion, the article seems fairly balanced as well, with lots of sources to back-up his examples. I don't think the author is trying to sell the audience anything. He is acting as an advisor, urging users to protect themselves from unreliable sources. He is promoting a lot of online tools, but not in a way that might dupe the user in the end; he is citing them for the users benefit!

Crap Detection, Max Rausch

Okay, let's go through this Crap Detection process methodically, shall we? Does Howard Rheingold's article pass the test that he himself advocates?

First off, does it have credibility? The article itself is posted on a reputable journalistic website, Home of the San Francisco Chronicle, with recent news stories adorning the home page. of course, the article is not a news story, but even an opinion piece needs a a certain degree of credibility to be featured on such a site.


Next, we see if the sources cited in the article are reliable. In fact, links are provided throughout the article so that the audience may verify this for themselves. This forthcoming style makes him easier to trust, and lets us know that, to paraphrase the man himself, he is not actually trying to pull one over on us. the presence of the links themselves would not be adequate if they did not lead to trustworthy sources, but Rheinegold has based his thoughts on insight from reliable and trusted sources from the Web.



What about authority? Is Mr. Rheingold a reliable source? Wikipedia says he's a critic, writer, and teacher who specializes in the cultural, social and political implications of modern communications technology. And if Wikipedia says he's reliable, he probably is. Granted, that might not be enough for some people to lend him their time, but if we ask Google, then we can easily confirm that he is in fact a knowledgeable person who has been writing on related subjects for some time now.




Finally, we have to consider the point of view of the author himself. Does he have any ulterior motives besides informing us for the sake of doing so? His background as a teacher would seem to indicate that informing for its own sake is not outside his nature. Moreover, his message is one that has universal appeal-he is not advocating a political or idealogical perspective. He is merely informing us on how to protect ourselves when surfing the web.


Note: image from clipartof.com

Crap Detection, Claire Theobald


Although Howard Rhiengold does make a valid point when it comes to his "CRAP" detection strategies, I fear his article was more like going into an art class to teach about painting-by-number. Chances are, if you have posted your article online, you are preaching to people who already employ these blatently obvious tactics to wade through the sewage spewed in many search engines. However, if we are to blind ourselves to the problems within the crap detection system, we find that he does do a fairly good job of following his own made up rules.




Unfortunately for Howard Rhiengold in his article "Crap Detection 101", he appears to fall on his own sword when his writing proves to be primarily opinion based, and also lacking in a certain level of currency. The issues of currency arise in the topic itself. Using search engines blindely is not an issue, because search engines and their chronic issues of credibility have become second nature to our modern, western society. Then there is the fact that his piece is purely based on opinion. His rules clearly state that one should "turn your skepticism meter" up a notch when faced with a broken rule. However, I contest that this rule would only apply if one is looking for a scholarly article as having opinions does not necessarily mean a complete lack of credibility.




In short, his CRAP rules need to be taken with a grain of salt.






Crap Detection, From the Desk of Steven Wagers


First off, when verifying information set in articles and postings, we have to look at the currency of the article, in other words is it current? In the case of the article "Crap Detection 101" by Howard Rheingold, the article was written more than half a year ago (June 30, 2009). This makes the article somewhat out of date but I think that what is written still has merits when performing fact checks today. Obviously this cannot be the most reliable source for this kind of information due to when it was written, but it is still relevant.

As for the reliability, the information is there but I still feel like I ought to question some of the things that are written. There are a lot of book titles, and websites to go to so you can check some facts, which I feel adds to the credibility of this article. Overall I think that it is a fairly reliable source.

There is no shortage of authority when it comes to the author of this article. Howard Rheingold has written a couple of books (Tools for Thought, The Virtual Community, and Smart Mobs) as well as being an editor (Whole Earth Review, The Millenium Whole Earth Catalog). He has even spent some time as a teacher at UC Berkely. He possesses the pedigree that leads me to believe he is a credible source.

So we come to the last portion of the crap test: Perspective/Point of View, and I think that Rheingold has a perspective that should be well respected when it comes to this field. As a former teacher I would be willing to guess that he has spent some time fact checking himself and therefore I feel his opinion and information is valid.

CRAP Detection, Ricki Cundliffe


C- This post was made by H. Rheingold about seven months ago, thus the information is fairly new, and very relevent. It does not appear to have been updated more recently, but that does not change the facts Rheingold recites.


R- The information included in this post revolves around the Internet; more specifically, the not-so-useful information offered by the Internet. The content is more or less opinionated, although Rheingold does state opinions of critics, etc. "Some critics argue that a tsunami of hogwash has already rendered the Web useless. I disagree" (para. 2).


A- Howard Rheingold is the author for this posting, and his contact information and picture are both clearly posted, which makes the source that much more credible. Furthermore, Rheingold links the post to his own website and biography - this is (very likely) a real person. These things give the readers more of an idea of who originally created the post, as well as who to contact with any questions or concerns. http://www.rheingold.com/ is Rheingold's actual website, which increased credibility tenfold. There are some advertisements lingering on the right side of the post, although these are not "pop-ups" that distract and irritate readers. His main goal seems to be to inform rather than to strongly persuade his readers.


P- No sales are attempted to be made. Bias is apparent, but not overwhelming.

Crap Detection, Jayme

The fact that Howard lists his name and is not an anonymous poster adds credibility to his article on fact checking, he even lists an email to contact him at. The concept of CRAP detection in what you are reading is as relevant today as when Hemmingway first wrote it. With the amount of nonsense being put onto the internet it is extremely important that you make sure the 'facts' you are reading are fact. He links the appropriate websites and authorities whenever he is offering data, this adds to his credibility and gives you the ability to check that what he is writing is accurate. The article expresses his point of view clearly and he obviously had a purpose for writing it on his mind. This article passes the CRAP test in my books.

CRAP Detection, Jennifer Carbert


Howard Rheingold's article Crap Detection 101 discussed the issues of online search engines and how a person can tell the difference between a factually accurate website and a website that is not as reliable, otherwise known as CRAP. In his article Rheingold makes suggestions about things search engine users should look for. Let's look at the article in question and go through the steps of checking the Currency, Reliability, Authority, and Purpose.

Currency

The article is an article with fairly current information since it was posted on 30 June 2009. The article is relevant in saying that many people are willing to take information on the IInternet at face value, everything should be double checked and searched. There are comments at the bottom of the page that discuss this article as very valuable and that "[it] should be required reading". Comments like these suggest that people around the world are finding the article helpful and relevant to their lives today. The relevancy of the article also speaks to the currency of the topic. If the comments made January 8, 2009 say that the article should still be required reading obviously people still think this way. Based only on Currency and Relevancy we can determine this article to have passed the first half of the CRAP test.

Reliability

The article provides many a lot of good opinion information, but let us look into the reliablity of the author and the sources used in this article. The author, Howard Rheingold, has authority to write on the subject due to the fact that he is a professor at several universities in the communication and journalism programs. The man is very credible, however some of his links are not. His link to Canter and Siegel is to a wikipeadia source which is not very highly esteemed as a reliable source and wikipeadia itself says, "this biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources".

Authority

Rheingold, based on his credentials has great authority to speak on the topic of invetigating online sources since he teaches this very topic at various Universities. The story about teaching his daughter how to investiagte online sources also gives his authority to other parents as he portrays himself as a concerned parent.

Purpose

Based on the authors background and the tone of the article it is both opinon and fact. As a protective parent this is an opinion peiece based on how people use the internet. He cannot assume to know that everyone who uses search engines is oblivious to how to double check an online source as he does; however, he is right in saying that many people do not check the accuracy of the information they find online. In exploring his own opinion Rheingold checked many facts and wrote a very factual article based on his opinion. The point of the article is to inform and warn internet users how to double-check every page and every source they use.

Conclusion
In my opinion this article largely follows its own rules. The author is credible and has authority to be speaking on the subject. The information is current and timely and reflects almost universal truths. The point which could use some refinement would be in selecting better links, a link which goes to wikipeadia and does not source anything requiers a second look.

image from: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jdu/lowres/jdun425l.jpg

Crap Detection, Jesse Snyder


There is not usually one singular way to detect if information is factual or not. As Howard Rheingold says in his article Crap Test 101, finding misinformarion depends on taking multiple steps; verifying data can't usually be done in an instant. Checking for the site's author is usually the first step, as anonymity is misinforamation's right hand. Rheingold also states that an important question is: "Who are these other people whose opinions you are trusting? Is the site a .gov or .edu?" URL's ending with certain abbreviations also allude to the validity of a website.


When the author leaves links on their website, or when articles are open for comment or discussion, the overall validity also increases. When the public are able to verify or discuss issues, it is more likely that inconsistencies will surface. Be skeptical. Sites like the scholarly productivity index allow the public to see for themselves if author's really do have the paperwork to back up their claims. It is these kinds of sites that people can use as tools of detection in order to sift through the crap and find the true gems... uuuhhh.

CRAP Detection, Terra

This article is fairly current because it's still relavent today as the issue is still important today. People are able to comment on the article which helps it remain current as well. I think that the article is credible because according to the CRAP test, I can access information about the author if I please. He suggests trying to google the author and see what else he/she has had published. There are ways to contact Howard on his website as well as other articles and books he is a part of.
Howard also uses links in his article which improves credibility by displaying where he gets his information. I think that's also how we can tell he's a reliable source to access. He also requests people comment on relevent resources so that other people can check his information too if they like. It is his own point of view that has been adopted from Ernest Hemmingway, who is a very credible author.

Lecture 4: Fundamentals of Accuracy


In today's class we will review "Crap Detection" by Howard Rheinghold and focus on some basic tenets to ensure accuracy in our writing.



Activity 1:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rheingold/detail?entry_id=42805
Perform the “CRAP” test on Rheinghold’s article
Write a blog entry (not a comment) on your findings
Include an image that relates to your topic
Remember: remain professional and neutral in your writing style and tone



CRAP Test:

Currency –
  • How recent is the information?
  • How recently has the website been updated?
  • Is it current enough for your topic?
Reliability –
  • What kind of information is included in the resource?
  • Is content of the resource primarily opinion?  Is it balanced?
  • Does the creator provide references or sources for data or quotations?
Authority –
  • Who is the creator or author?
  • What are the credentials?
  • Who is the publisher or sponsor?
  • Are they reputable?
  • What is the publisher’s interest (if any) in this information?
  • Are there advertisements on the website?
Purpose/Point of View –
  • Is this fact or opinion?
  • Is it biased?
  • Is the creator/author trying to sell you something?


Examples of Common Mistakes

Names and titles
- these go wrong more than anything else
Numbers and math – “Anytime journalists get their hands on numbers and math there’s a huge probability that things will go wrong” ~ Craig Silverman
Typos -You can blame spell check programs for some of these though it's best not to rely on these programs
Misquotes and misidentifications – “I’ve seen a lot of men become women, mothers become daughters" (Silverman). It can get really bad when identifications are mixed up and a crime is involved.


Activity 2
:
Go online
Look for a factual or grammatical error in a local news publication
Add your finding (with a link to the original article) and correction as a comment to today’s lecture post

20 minutes


Checklists:
In a 2000 article for the British Medical Journal, James Reason (one of the world’s leading researchers of human error) emphasised that “it is often the best people who make the worst mistakes - error is not the monopoly of an unfortunate few.”


Examples of Checklists:
Detroit Free Press and the San Jose Mercury News



We Regret the Error - Accuracy Checklist:





Activity 3:

Find a news story in a local publication
Go on a fact-checking mission
Complete as many of the accuracy check-list points
Create a blog post
Include all bibliographic information of your chosen story
Include your analysis of accuracy errors and corrections
Embed an image appropriate to your topic
Write a short paragraph on the importance of accuracy in journalism


Homework:
Read Chapter 4




Note: Top image, "Fact or Crap," from Calendars.com.au.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Jesse Snyder

Of all the recent advancements made in journalism, the ability for readers to instantly verify information is one of the most substantial. Unlike the traditional form of journalism where readers were expected to accept facts at face value, they are now able to locate information via the internet and instantly verify data. In doing this, readers are able to create a more two-way medium, where people are essentially taking part in journalism themselves. The website World Government Data allows England's public to instantly download government data in any realm of the news. Crime rates, environmental information and sports statistics are all available on a single website. This in a sense creates more accurate journalism that is essentially proofread not only by an editor, but potentially by the entire public. People are then more qualified to comment on stories and give feedback, causing a more conversational style of journalism to emerge.

This conversational style of journalism is integral for bloggers, who otherwise have no editors, to back check and verify information. Without the ability for people to converse, bloggers are using their posts only as places to vent and give their opinion. In order for citizen journalists to be credible news sources, there must be verification from the public. Without open discussions occurring blogs become untrustworthy. But can the public actually be trusted to verify data? The Internet doesn't supply bloggers with angry bosses to break their knees if they step out of line, so how does one know which sites are written objectively?

It can also be noted that most popular bloggers earn credible reputations before they actually begin getting heavy traffic to their site. Most blogs aren't viewed by more than a handful of people, and don't display any links or data pertaining to the story. Regardless, blogs have been growing rapidly. This growth seems to make citizen journalists believe they are the modern and righteous journalists of today, attracting spite and hatred from the traditionalists who feel they are the way, the truth, and the light. It is an ongoing and treacherous battle; although, soon enough the relentlessness of technology will give everyone the ability to be journalists. With that said, there are times when citizen journalists are just as apt as paid journalists. Things like town hall meetings and novice hockey games are surely right up the alley of a retired high school teacher with a Nikon Coolpix camera.

The future likely holds a place for both citizen journalists and professional journalists, as there will always be certain stories that are impossible for bloggers to cover, and others that are just as easily covered by average citizens. It is important for citizen journalists to display the same objective and discussion-based reporting as the major media outlets in order to convey the news honestly. In the end, only someone with a known background will be looked toward for, say, insight on the war in Afghanistan or global politics.

Note: Image from Google Images.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Journalism 2.0: Benefit or Burden? Kevin Penny

TweetDeck, The Final Frontier...
People believe that society is moving at light-speed, and that their news should be provided to them at the same speed. But nobody steps back and asks, what happens when we move at such speeds? Are there repercussions to using technology like the Internet or television? As we move towards a more techno-savvy future, with our news being beamed directly to our iPhones and Macbooks, are we looking at what repercussions there are?

It's a media over-load trying to keep up with all the news on the internet...

In countless studies done over the years regarding TV and the Internet, scientists have found a link between our multimedia talk-boxes and depression, ADHD, obesity, and many other symptoms. This tells me that if we shift our news media sources such as newspapers and magazines to a more digital form, it will only increase problems in our society. I really don't want my kid growing up angry, depressed, antisocial, and can't pay attention for more than five minutes. We should take care to remember which world is more important, lest we turn into a bunch of zombies infront of view-screens.

Although I will digress that the Internet supplies vast amounts of information to the general public, we as a society must learn to use it responsibly. It cannot be good for humans to be staring at television and computer screens, absorbing vast amounts of information for long periods of time (my eyes can attest to that). We should learn that although there is a vast world we can explore on-line, we must not forget the world we come from as well.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Changing Journalist, Shannon Findlay


What is journalism? In recent years this term has been a hard one to pin down. The ever emerging technologies that have made new and faster ways for the free flow of information are changing the face of journalism as we know it. At one point news was reserved for the papers. If you wanted the sure-fire way to find out what was going on you picked up a newspaper. The introduction of the radio, brought a new and faster method. Following closely behind, the television arrived and news delivery was once again changed forever. Cue the entrance of the Internet, and journalism has become a whole new ball game.

With the arrival of the Internet came widespread accessibility. Not just for the reader, but for the writers as well. No longer is the reporting of news left to the professionals; on the contrary, any person with access to a computer and Internet connection can make a mark on the world. This new group of self motivated news writers have been labelled 'citizen journalists'. At one time the bringing of news was an elite market, reserved for those trained in writing and research, but now, the door has been thrown wide open as anyone with something to say can let it be heard in the vast sea of knowledge that is the Internet.

With so much information to be found in one place it can create a difficult issue of trying to decipher the fact from the fiction. Does every blogger really know what they are talking about, or are they describing personal opinion and labelling it as fact? As Megan Perras said in her blog post on citizen journalism, "everyone wants a shot in the limelight." Bloggers are finding their limelight online by writing for all to see, but with so many different blogs to choose from, it is hard to create an audience of any significant size. Such a phenomenon can be compared the movie "The Incredibles", when the 'bad guy', Syndrome, plans to sell his electronics to the world so that anyone wishing for super powers can have them. He says, "I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can have powers. Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super-- no one will be." When everyone is a journalist, is journalism still a job? Or when everything is being reported on, is anything news?

Citizen journalism has its ups and downs, just the same as professional journalism. However, it is important to know what is news and what is someone's opinion. In the world of online, where any and all information is just a click away, it is the reader's job to read critically and be aware of what is worth reading. It easy to find the scribblings of a person vying for their turn in the limelight, but it is a much better idea to look harder and read what is true.

*Note: image from Biske.com

E-portfolio: Poor, poor pitiful journalists... Max Rausch

Pity the journalism students of the first decade of the twenty-first century. With our feet barely on the ground, we're constantly threatened by the possibility of swept away by the current of changing technology. Almost all of us walked through the doors on the first day of university with a pristine picture of our future selves in mind. Covering hard news, analyzing politics, maybe writing sports stories; some of us writing for newspapers, others choosing broadcasting to present ourselves to the public. Our options were comforting without making our lives too complicated.

But things have changed this past decade, and our situation is overwhelmingly complicated. Audiences are turning away from print, and refusing to wait on broadcasters for their news. Yes, the audience still wants to read, and broadcasting personalities are still trusted. However, the audience is living at a faster pace, therefore information, arguably the journalist's main commodity, must flow even faster to compensate. Kevin hit the shark on the nose when he observed that people expect their news to be provided at light-speed. Alfred Hermida, a journalism educator, has coined, in my opinion, the best moniker for the emerging solution: ambient journalism, which is better than "Journalism 2.0" or "Journalism Plus" because it specifically describes the attributes of the new systems.

To as briefly but as accurately summarize the theory as possible, ambient journalism is a method of gathering and distributing information based around awareness systems. Alfred Hermida defines an awareness system as "a computer-mediated communication system intended to help people construct and maintain awareness of each others' activities, context, or status, even when participants are not co-located." The ideal of ambient journalism is rooted in the same truth as Journalism 2.0, that Internet tools like Facebook and Twitter are indispensable to the new age journalist, but expands upon it. No more will consumers be hanging on our broadcasts or printed stories as they once did: instead, they will call up the most recent information on any topic they desire practically at will, a few keystrokes aside. By taking advantage of networking tools (Facebook), micro-blogging (Twitter), and mobile technology, journalists spare audiences the struggle of finding information, instead allowing it to flow freely as a part of the audience's environment, hence the term "ambient".

So for the audience, life is only to get easier. For us, the journalists, life is bound to get even more complicated. Even Mr. Hermida acknowledges that the new methods "present challenges to the established practice of relying on the journalist as the filter of information," and openly acknowledges that the validity of information using such open mediums can be questionable. "What I am suggesting is that another approach is needed to unlock the potential of collective intelligence of (awareness systems like) Twitter." When the industry itself doesn't know the best approach, I can safely say they can't teach it to us in university.

The Importance of Being You, Katrine Sorensen


With the rise of web 2.0 came the need to create a personal image or a personal brand.

Since success is measured in the number of followers on Twitter or the number of friends on Facebook, it has become very important to have a distinct personality or controversial opinions to break through the digital wall.

Reality tv is an excellent media for broadcasting an exaggerated image of the people involved by creating a media personality. Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie are excellent examples of people that have created an image that is so entertaining, appealing or controversial that they have become famous for their, hopefully, exaggerated alter egos. The outrageous personalities who are the driving forces of reality tv raise the question: is reality tv reflective of reality? Does it give a fair and balanced representation of the characters of the people involved? These concerns can very well be transferred to online media. Are the online celebrities giving a fair and balanced account of the issues they are trying to raise attention to? Is controversy and biased views shortcuts to attention? Kevin Penny brings Fox News up in his blogpost about bias. Fox News is a news station that is infamous for its biased discussion and unjournalistic methods; however, it still has the most viewers in the states. Perhaps a biased and one-sided world simply easier to follow for the average viewer/reader?

Of course, new media can also be used for aspiring journalists to have their voices heard in a time where competition is only becoming fiercer; however, I think the discussion of a distinct online 'voice' is problematic when the most integral qualities of a journalist are fairness and objectivity. Perhaps the greatest challenge for citizen journalists or journalism students is to trust their own abilities, so they do not need to rely on fake eccentric personalities to become popular online.
This blog provides tips to building a personal brand online.
Note: Image from usmagazine.com.

Changing times, Jennifer Carbert


Journalism 2.0 is emerging in the online world and changing the ways in which people consume news and facts. Journalism 2.0 creates a new dynamic in which backpack journalists are becoming dominant because they know how to include text, video, and audio. There is also a change in the perspective of citizen journalist. Official news sites are inviting readers to leave comments, create blogs and share stories using social media interaction. The new Journalism 2.0, although not eliminated the need for journalists and solid facts, will change the way news is gathered, composed, and received.

Today consumerism has changed. People no longer go to the street corner to pickup the newspaper, instead they go online and find the stories they want to read. Readers scan the material to see if there is anything relevant before actually reading the material. "In radio and television time is limited. In print journalism space is limited. But on the Internet there is essentially an unlimited amount of time and an unlimited amount of space. The limitation is the attention span of the Internet users," said Vinton G. Cerf in his article How the Internet is Changing the Concept of Journalism
.The online world also lends itself to a more diverse media setting. Previously news could be found in either audio, video, or print. With the Internet and Journalism 2.0 all three of these factors can be combined to create a compelling story. CBC is a great Canadian example of a news agency which has adapted to online. CBC combines the text of the news, audio from the radio, and video from the television.


A large majority of news sites also offer a chance for readers to become interactive. Instead of writing a letter to the editor and waiting for the response to maybe eventually make the way into the newspaper, responses can be posted, read and responded to by many almost instantaneously. With interaction a new dynamic of deciding which sources are trustworthy and which are simply rambling on a certain topics has become prominent. Many sources do research and have trustworthy information, but not all, sometimes the information is completely fabricated as Jayme stated very well in his previous post Independent Journalism when he said, "Since anyone and everyone has access to the Internet, you can't just assume a blogger who does no fact-checking is going to be giving you anything other than his outlandish opinions. The responsibility falls on both the reporter, to maintain his credibility by stating sources for information, as well as the reader, for insuring what they are reading is, in fact, fact". The reader must decide which information is trustworthy.


Journalism is in the infant stages of online development as Karen Zypchyn would say. We are still learning how best to adapt information gathering for the Internet. Combining audio, video, text, and images along with linking and creating an article that is scannable and searchable are all things which the 2.0 Journalist must consider on top of double checking facts and validating sources. The future is both scary for journalists and exciting to see what is coming, the era of backpack journalists who can be versitle in every medium and gather information quickly and accuratly is on the horizon.

The Digital Era and Global Awareness



Before the digital era
In 1994, the United States (and other parts of the world) was extremely hesitant to call the killings in Rwanda a genocide because doing so would have required United Nation intervention. President Clinton said, "we did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide," when he was apologizing for ignoring Rwanda's suffering. In comparison, the crisis in Darfur has been labelled as "genocide" hopefully resulting in more United Nations' action and international support (However, I think the issue shouldn't be the labeling but rather how to stop and prevent mass killings in the future).

Citizen journalism impact
Citizen journalism exists because people are becoming digitally literate. Paralleled to the frequent updates about the earthquake in Haiti that Jayme discusses in his blog post, people can easily and frequently upload audio, video, text and pictures to display what is happening in Darfur. Blogs such as The Darfur Blog offer information about what is going on in Darfur currently and offer ways for people to gather more information. The quote from the homepage:

"The United Nations has called it the greatest crisis in the world. The United States calls it genocide,"

addresses how the United Nations is hesitant to label the 10 000 to 500 000 people (the exact numbers are unknown) who have been murdered in Darfur as victims of genocide. The pressure created by media attention (citizen journalism and/or credible news sites) is needed in order to enforce United Nations intervention to save innocent people.

Digital era impact
Today's digital era makes it much easier for the public to learn about what is going on in the world. It is more difficult to cite ignorance as a reason for not acting when genocide is occurring. The public is now able to find information about the genocide in Darfur if it chooses to because of the digital era. There are many sites that promote peace for Darfur and provide people with an outlet to try and make a difference. If the public chooses to, it can pressure its government to be accountable for what it has promised to do. People are only able to ignore what is happening in Darfur if they decide they'd rather be blissfully ignorant, which many people choose to do despite the digital era. The internet can only direct people to the truth, it cannot force them to open their eyes. At least not yet.


Note: Photo from ScrapeTV.