2.03 Save the Light Bulbs radio broadcast

     The radio broadcast presented by NPR news titled "Future Dim For 100 Watt Bulb, Despite Congress' Stall" presented by Peter Overby on December 22, 2011 was presented very nicely. It was informative and thorough without becoming boring. I enjoyed the different aspects presented by Overby in this broadcast. He presented the topic from both an economical and political stand point and succeeded in blending the two topics flawlessly. He reported equally about both sides, and not impose his own ideas on the listener.

     Peter Overby is the money power and influence correspondent for the NPR station. Overby reports on campaign finance and lobbying. While Peter Overbys' stories are mostly centered around politics, like this one, he does sometimes report on other topics. His career with NPR started in 1994 and before radio broadcasting he was the senior editor for Common Cause Magazine.
    I would consider the report credible because of the integrity of the station, NPR, on which the story was presented, the reporter that gave the report has a long history of reporting and he is accustomed to the topic. Overby gave accounts from numerous sources including depot stores that sell the 100 watt bulb and prominent political figures for and against the legislation. This topic is political and because of that the reporter has to give his broadcast considering that most listeners have bias opinions concerning almost any political issue. At first I was against the new legislation because, like most, I shy away from changes. However, as the report progressed I changed my mind and in my opinion getting rid or 100 watt bulbs is not that big of a deal. As many of the sources stated, the transformation is already in progress and it is impractical to try and stop it.

2.04 Broadcast Television, O' Reilly

1. What news show (or shows) did you watch? "The O' Reilly Factor, Voters Who Don't Know Anything"
2.  Categorize the show- Political Talk Show
   
3. Did you see any opinion being expressed? Please quote the instances in your answer.
   The whole show is an opinion. "Many voters are confused.""Anything can happen in 2012"
4. Was this show effective in informing you about a topic? What did it do right? What could have been better? 

This show was very informative. The host discussed the upcoming election and his opinions concerning the nominees and Barack Obama. In politics reporters don't equally show both sides of the story because the bias is so pronounced. Obviously political shows have their own category concerning opinion vs fact. The show is mostly (if not all) opinion, backed up by facts.
     I enjoyed listening to Bill O' Reilly because he shares his opinion but does a good job of not sounding judgmental or condescending to anyone he opposes. I like that there are video clips of President Obama speaking, that dispels doubt about what he actually said.  He touched on several different topics which kept the show interesting but he didn't stray too far from his main topic.
     I would have liked him to have another person on the show, to give another opinion. Obama was in video clips but because he was not there in person and there was no opposition to Bill O' Reilly it was much easier to think that there was only one side. It is hard to remain objective in situations concerning politics but I believe that the Mr. O' Reilly was very informative and helpful in his show.

4_02 Logical Falicies

     A lot of the time when I hear a logical fallacy from a friend it is in a joking way, "You can either go to the mall or the movies. Either or. Come on, come on chop chop. Choose!" Obviously I can choose to do something else but this is a logical fallacy, false dilemma, and in this situation we are not being serious. Often times though I will hear this logical fallacy on the radio in a fashion, not quite so abrasive or blatant as the situation presented above.
     With family and friends this next logical fallacy is probably the most common in my life, "Everyone is doing it..." or "Everyone has it." I hear this from friends especially now that Christmas is around the corner and I even find myself using this false logic. This logic prevails with some, for instance my boss. She will get her kids anything just so they can "fit in" and have the same fashions that everyone else has. This logic begs the question "If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?" The answer is all too commonly, "Do they all have parachutes?"
     We all want to find a reason to buy something or do something. We come up with connections, no matter how distant, and use those connections to make a point. We learn to draw paths in our mind linking two almost unrelated events and then we listen and believe others that do the same thing. These lines are drawn so precisely and data is shown. Then it must be true, right? This logical fallacy is known as correlation and causation and it is one of the most convincing.
Logical fallacies happen around us all of the time. We are told not to be so skeptical but a skeptic is the one unswayed by the false information. In the words of Henry James,

Do not mind anything that anyone tells you about anyone else. Judge everyone and everything for yourself.

4_00 Persuasion

     Advertisements are everywhere, on the radio, the internet, on the side of the road, on t-shirts, you name it, and of course I am influenced by them like most other people. The thing to remember about advertising though is that the consumer still has a choice. I personally find that I am most influenced by an advertisement if they say or show an image of something that I was already thinking about or had thought about recently. For instance at lunch time if I hear an advertisement for a Café whether or not I planned to go there if I have no other particular place in mind I will most likely end up going to eat at the first place I hear about or see.
        Similarly the other day I saw an advertisement for a pair of shoes that I did not need or was particularly thinking about but when the advertiser said “A perfect gift for the holidays…” I was hooked. I did need to buy gifts. It is hard to distinguish between what we wanted before an ad comes on and what we decided to need afterwards. Producers rely on consumers money, that fuels every advertisement and commercial, because money makes the world go round.
         The diet trend has been around for longer than a while. The quickest, easiest, no change, no exercise, everyone has to be better. I am personally not swayed by diet commercials because I quite frankly don’t care about them and most are not realistic. Some people become desperate though and those advertisements are most likely to catch them at a time of doubt. Commercials and advertisers can only influence a consumer as much as they allow. We have to open the door and think the first thought and since most commercials don’t rely on logic or reason, rather feelings and emotions, all it takes is logic to prove them wrong.
     

3_04 Hypothetically if this happened...

A high school prints a monthly bulletin for students and parents. In it the administrators post the license plates of vehicles they contend have been speeding in the school zone. Several parents sue, stating that they have been unjustly identified.

This is not libel because it is public knowledge. The school did not put out names, they put out license plate numbers allowing students and parents to check and see if they were the alleged speeders. In my opinion the school made the right decision and put out the information in a polite and yet pointed way. The parents acted irresponsibly. Instead of suing they should have gone and checked the facts and the school should have been ready to present them. The school stated the problem, speeding, and the people they claimed were guilty with no apparent malice or injustice on their part.

Freedom of Speech

      Freedom of speech, a controversial subject in many cases. It is a unique and very precious right that we have in America and one that we protect with almost as much zeal as we condemn it. We want to speak and express but get offended when others feel they are doing the same. On the other hand, all rights come with restrictions.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                                                                              -Bill of Rights

     A pretty straight forward statement almost vague in its simplicity, I wonder if the writers really knew how many ways it would be interpreted and expanded over the years.  
     It is almost hard to believe that so few words, forty-five to be exact, can have such a crucial role in forming our country today. Putting aside the larger ramifications that this Amendment has had on America; politics, women's rights, equal rights, war, the economy and so on, it can effect even the quietest of citizens in big ways. 

There are more than enough examples but, for no other reason than because of the recent date, we are going to examine the case Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District. Strange, don't you think? That high school students would actually sue their school? Maybe not. 

• On May 5, 2010 (Cinco de Mayo) several students wore shirts with the American Flag emblazoned on the front. The assistant principal ordered them to remove them calling them “incendiary.” Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday and one could see why wearing these shirts may be a little annoying or unconventional to a person that celebrates or honors Cinco de Mayo.

     Three students sued the school for violating their First Amendment Rights, before I reveal the verdict let me draw your attention to two other cases concerning the First Amendment that were very controversial.

• First, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) These students were in a similar, if not more dramatic situation. Three students wore black arm bands to school showing their protest to the Vietnam War. They were then suspended for disobeying a school rule stating that students could not wear arm bands. This rule was actually put into effect because the principal gained knowledge that a group of adults and these students planned to wear these bands for a determined amount of time. The case went to court and the school lost the case due to the First Amendment, which also protects freedom of expression. 

To read more about the details of this case please go to:  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html

• I was drawn to this next case mostly because of the recurring symbol of the American Flag. In Texas v. Johnson (1989) A man burned the American Flag. Burned it. He was with a group protesting the Reagan administration by marching through the streets, chanting and then burning The Flag. No one was physically injured or in danger but many spectators were very offended. Johnson was arrested under "desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute" The case went to Court and Johnson was found not guilty. The reason being, the flag was burned at the end of a political protest and expressive conduct is protected under the First Amendment.

     As I said before, freedom of speech can be controversial. Both of the above cases were politically involved, both involved adults, and both had laws or rules prohibiting the action. (The school principal prohibited arm bands and the state of Texas prohibits the desecration of a venerated object.) In both cases the First Amendment won out. However in Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District they lost. There is no rule or law that prohibits wearing the Flag on any day of the year or to any place, no law banning many students from wearing that same Flag on the same day, but because the school feared violence, or racial gang violence freedom of expression was barred. The possible ramifications, physically or emotionally, to the students if this incident had remained unchecked are not known but many will wonder if the school and the court made the correct choice. They were in a catch 22 and there was not much they could do. To let the action continue, the shirts had been worn in the previous year, no one knows what could have happened. Violence had already been threatened and the school wanted to avoid “ongoing racial tension and gang violence within the school.” To make them remove the shirts "would allow those other students to impose a “heckler’s veto” on the plaintiffs protected speech." 

     The attorneys that represented the students vowed to appeal and you can decide for yourself whether or not that is a good idea or just a waste of time.

 

 Works Cited

Bill of Rights,  http://www.archives.gov.html

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Texas v. Johnson, http://www.ala.org, http://www.law.cornell.edu 

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, http://law2.umkc.edu

 

3_01 code of ethics

Freedom of speech is a right all citizens of the United States have. The freedom to express our opinions and views is invaluable. We can share and learn, creating opinions that make us different and individual. The problem is that we can't always trust what we read or sometimes what we see. It is hard to trust a person that you don't know, in essence a stranger, with the responsibility of informing but a code of ethics can help.

My Code,
1. Report the truth to the best of your knowledge.
2. Clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
3. Always cite sources and give credit where credit is due.
4. Inform without exaggerating or embellishing on the truth.
5. Do not stereotype or pass judgement in writing.

I believe this to be the best code in the fewest words possible. In journalism it is important to tell the truth as simply and straight forward as possible, to report on events and people that are newsworthy, and to refrain from pushing personal opinions onto readers.

3_00 Ethics

                  An ethical person is a person with integrity. A person that can look in the mirror and like what they see because they know what they do is right, despite what others think. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, but how a person defines those two words, that is the differentiating quality. The saying "Let your conscience be your guide." from Disney’s Pinocchio makes the whole concept of choosing between right and wrong seem so simple. In reality there may be more than one right answer or the line between right and wrong may be blurred until it is nearly unrecognizable. However, an ethical person is someone that does what they believe to be right whether or not it is easy.

                  A person’s ethics take shape over time. A younger child or even a teenager can draw from their parents’ beliefs, political or religious and in turn their ideas of right and wrong. Over time we develop our own sense of ethical behavior through experiences, learning and our own choices. To have ethics is to be respectful to others, their time, money, life and possessions. If a person can cover all of those then they are incredibly ethical.

                  If the above person described was put into a situation with a friend that was lying and possibly in trouble then they would of course tell the parents. That would show respect for their friend, her parents and herself. They would probably talk to their friend first and then make a joint decision.

         Ethics in Journalism is one of the most important things. To have an honest journalist is indispensable to a media company and to the public. To learn the truth from a constantly reliable source would be a relief. A big part of listening or reading news is sifting through it to find the facts. We would get so much farther with journalism if everyone had good ethics and was honest with one another, from the first primary source to the reporters pen, the public would know more.

                 

How do most newspapers make money? 2.01

        Newspapers make money through adds, subscribers and now even online. thePaperboy.com boasts a "List of 6049 Online Newspapers..." The New York Times has online subscriptions available for tablets, laptops and smartphones to name a few. Newspapers are fairly cheap to subscribe to online, The New York Times is only 99 cents for the first four weeks. The Wall Street Journal costs around $2.00 per week for the online copy compared to the local paper in my home town, Palm City. They does not charge for the online copy but have lots of advertisements on their website.

       Advertisements from businesses, companies and personal adds supply most of the money to the newspapers. Advertising is one of the reasons that already prosperous newspapers prosper more and new papers have a harder time. Another factor is location. There are two fairly well known newspapers in New York alone, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Why is this? While not geographically large, many people pick up the paper on their way to work, and the plethora of cultures makes it a prime location for journalism and news. Different ideas and opinions all mixed together in a busy working community leads to more newspapers because of consumer demand. On the flip side in small towns where a local paper has already been established it is much harder for a new paper to come in and make money. Companies want to advertise with the biggest newspaper to get more publicity.

       The most obvious ways that newspapers make money is through their hard copy sells. These could be people that subscribe weekly, businesses that then sell them in their shops or quarter vendor machines. It is still all about publicity, the most popular newspaper gets the most money. It is more about name recognition for less experienced readers and it then turns into preference for journalists, photographers and sometimes the comics. How picky you can be depends on location, some towns have only one paper. The whole process is amazing, how a newspaper can survive on seemingly so little money and so many expenses but somehow it works. The people will have what the people want.

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, TCPalm (respectively)

http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp3004.html?campaignId=384LY

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

http://www.tcpalm.com/

What is News? 2.00

                                                           

Something happens on the other side of the world and we hear news about it within moments through the media. News is anything! Anything and everything that happens anywhere is news. The distinction is the who. Who cares about the news that is happening. An uneventful wedding in Maryland won't concern the world so that would not be on national television it may however be in the local newspaper.

Something new and interesting, in someones opinion at least, is something news worthy. The amount of attention the event or person receives is dependent on the normalcy. When something is incredibly different or new, more people are likely to be interested in it, for example a cure for breast cancer or the discovery of a new species. The reason that we hear about celebrities and the sleaze in the world so much is because it will concern more people.

I've heard people complain about the amount of time spent on bad news and disasters but really it is what people want to hear about. The new and exciting is what grips a persons attention and that is why news producers talk about it. They need jobs too. The definition changes depending on the individual what is news to me may not be to you. Everything new is news, from big to small, personal to general.