Of all the themes in Matt Welch’s pieces, one thing that struck me was his ongoing criticism for censorship and restrictions. Unafraid of insults or quick punches at new moguls, Welch is sure to disparage of anyone who dares limit an individual. Whether it is arguing to the defense of Geoffrey Davidian’s Putnam Pit, or Sergio Bichao’s DaHiller!, no organization is too small for attention. Censorship is censorship.
Especially interesting is his look at “Woe is Media” an article that contains the byline, “It’s time to save journalism from its saviors.” This piece criticizes A-list journalism advocates such as Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel, Alfred A. Knopf and Jim Bellows. These celebrities are not only highly respected in the field of journalism, but also authors of books I have been required to study for journalism classes here at Miami. Though, much like Shafer’s attacks on the Shield Law, my pre-exposure seemed to automatically want to argue in favor of such works. Yet, Welch’s arguments are both articulate and convincing. A journalist should always seek the truth and encompass the ideals those such as Kovach and Rosenstiel so adamantly favor, but the new wave of media is not to blame for the costs of people’s negative feelings toward journalism.
It’s the over-sensationalism of crimes and corporate competition that is killing the quality of news. Everyone wants to beat out the competition and it has led to hurried deadlines that often create mistakes, or lack of heart in a reporter’s piece. Surely it is hard to be passionate about every assignment a reporter is given, but one should always keep in mind that when reporting a crime, both the victim and the criminal have families. While I am not claiming that these pieces should be written at a bias, it should be a consideration towards the serious nature of the piece. Journalism affects people; both those involved in a story and those without any affiliation. People should make sure the truth is done justice.
This is, as Welch argues, a major positive of this new journalism era. As Welch’s article, “Emerging Alternatives: Blogworld” states, due to the new allowance for blogging, “Freedom of the press belongs to nearly three million people.” This concept is stunning. While blogging does have its negatives, the fact that there are people out there pushing journalists to do their best is a great motivation. These people should not be censored. If anything, the professionalism of a blogger should merely be a bigger consideration when a person is reading a site on the internet.
Welch is certainly not the first to criticize censorship. The idea was established as early as those of our Founding Fathers. He is, however, a sound voice that brings its importance to contemporary public attention.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Creative Journalism: A look at Adorno's thoughts today
Tiffany readjusted herself in her chair, with no idea of what her cultures professor was talking about. Bored, she reapplied her Chanel 009 lip gloss, which was the same exact color Blake Lively wore on episode six of Gossip Girls. Instead of taking notes, she used her computer screen as a diversion to employ adequate facebook stalking for the day. She occasionally texted her best friend, Laura, a petite redhead who sat right next to her, with any interesting tidbits she stumbled across.
“The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular,” said Professor Adorno, as he circled his desk in the front of the room. He glanced up at his students. A hand elevated, stood perfectly erect. “Yes, Max?”
“Yeah, what’s microcosm?” asked Max, chewing a rather large bit of a turkey club sandwich.
The professor sighed, irritated. “A smaller model of something. The human being as an exact miniature version of the larger universe or macrocosm.”
Tiffany sat quietly wondering what macrocosm was.
“Under monopoly, all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce,” continued the professor. His speech was monotonous, but his eyebrows flared in a way that invoked both passion and fury. It was only when he paused to catch his breath that he noticed Teddy’s hand was now raised. “Teddy, thoughts?”
“I would have to say I disagree. While certainly both film and radio need to produce a level of entertainment in order to hold an audience and gain a profit, it is overly critical to say that they are not an art,” said Teddy, his voice careful. “Take film for example. If done right, the originality of the writer, the precision of angles of the director, the dramatic tension between the actors…sure it’s a process, but it’s certainly an art. It takes a certain degree of talent. Not to mention, if every film was overtly the same thing reproduced with different packaging then people wouldn’t attend them. There would be no emotion, which is arguably what film is supposed to spark.”
The professor ruled his eyes. Every year someone objected. He marginalized it down to the student being an over-exposed media junkie, tainted by the industry’s power of persuasion. “Furthermore," the professor stated, ignoring Teddy’s argument. “It is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result of the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows even stronger. He smiled smugly at Teddy.
Teddy leaned back in his seat. He knew better than to try and argue with the professor. Adorno was stuck in this 1940s mentality, where the threat of a new, rebellious generation and counter culture seemed to somehow lead to the Armageddon of both intelligence and class.
“The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it,” said Adorno. “Yes, Max?”
Professor Adorno was vivid, both at the fact that his class again this year seemed to possess no degree of aptitude, and also that the constant interruptions were a vile distraction from his elegantly-crafted theories.
This was not a discussion class.
“It is something that is represented as such, but not the real purpose,” He snapped, then added, “Buy a dictionary.”
The professor went to his desk and swallowed four aspirins before continuing. In the third row a student was ferociously scribbling, new media is death, with all the proper illustrations.
Now composed, Professor Adorno continued. “If one branch of art follows the same formula one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience—a jazz or a cheap imitation; of if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled into a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.”
Tiffany was struck by his words, not because they ignited some passionate counterargument or that she realized the depth of which his intentions, but because it just reminded her that Sex and the City was out on DVD today. She immediately texted Laura, who replied that they should have a theme party where they only drink Cosmopolitans, dress like their favorite character, play the film’s soundtrack, the movie itself, and read passages from the original Candace Bushnell novel. Tiffany nodded rapidly in agreement.
“How formalised the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end,” said the professor.
Teddy raised his hand, though he knew the professor would not call on him again. He decided to interject anyway, “Well, isn’t the elaborate collaboration of art, film, and music a phenomenon on their own? How people can puzzle together pieces that do not even remotely match and create a whole new meaning for something? Kind of like contemporary poetry does?”
Of course, he would like contemporary poetry, Professor Adorno mused, and irritated with anything that strayed from the likes of Robert Frost. “Only if you consider clumsily compiled pieces of nonsense to be a prophetic work of art.”
Before Teddy could form a rebuttal, he, along with the rest of the class, realized it was ten till and their class session was concluded.
The class exited the building. Tiffany and Laura climbed in Tiffany’s car, each spoke separately into their cell phones, in attempt to organize their party. Max decided he should bookmark dictionary.com in his favorites, but lost the urge as soon as he started listening to Limp Bizkit on his I-pod. Teddy was determined to go home and blog about new media, and his particular disgust for tyrant professors.
This was a response written from Adorno's theories published in "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"
“The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular,” said Professor Adorno, as he circled his desk in the front of the room. He glanced up at his students. A hand elevated, stood perfectly erect. “Yes, Max?”
“Yeah, what’s microcosm?” asked Max, chewing a rather large bit of a turkey club sandwich.
The professor sighed, irritated. “A smaller model of something. The human being as an exact miniature version of the larger universe or macrocosm.”
Tiffany sat quietly wondering what macrocosm was.
“Under monopoly, all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce,” continued the professor. His speech was monotonous, but his eyebrows flared in a way that invoked both passion and fury. It was only when he paused to catch his breath that he noticed Teddy’s hand was now raised. “Teddy, thoughts?”
“I would have to say I disagree. While certainly both film and radio need to produce a level of entertainment in order to hold an audience and gain a profit, it is overly critical to say that they are not an art,” said Teddy, his voice careful. “Take film for example. If done right, the originality of the writer, the precision of angles of the director, the dramatic tension between the actors…sure it’s a process, but it’s certainly an art. It takes a certain degree of talent. Not to mention, if every film was overtly the same thing reproduced with different packaging then people wouldn’t attend them. There would be no emotion, which is arguably what film is supposed to spark.”
The professor ruled his eyes. Every year someone objected. He marginalized it down to the student being an over-exposed media junkie, tainted by the industry’s power of persuasion. “Furthermore," the professor stated, ignoring Teddy’s argument. “It is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result of the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows even stronger. He smiled smugly at Teddy.
Teddy leaned back in his seat. He knew better than to try and argue with the professor. Adorno was stuck in this 1940s mentality, where the threat of a new, rebellious generation and counter culture seemed to somehow lead to the Armageddon of both intelligence and class.
“The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it,” said Adorno. “Yes, Max?”
Professor Adorno was vivid, both at the fact that his class again this year seemed to possess no degree of aptitude, and also that the constant interruptions were a vile distraction from his elegantly-crafted theories.
This was not a discussion class.
“It is something that is represented as such, but not the real purpose,” He snapped, then added, “Buy a dictionary.”
The professor went to his desk and swallowed four aspirins before continuing. In the third row a student was ferociously scribbling, new media is death, with all the proper illustrations.
Now composed, Professor Adorno continued. “If one branch of art follows the same formula one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience—a jazz or a cheap imitation; of if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled into a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.”
Tiffany was struck by his words, not because they ignited some passionate counterargument or that she realized the depth of which his intentions, but because it just reminded her that Sex and the City was out on DVD today. She immediately texted Laura, who replied that they should have a theme party where they only drink Cosmopolitans, dress like their favorite character, play the film’s soundtrack, the movie itself, and read passages from the original Candace Bushnell novel. Tiffany nodded rapidly in agreement.
“How formalised the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end,” said the professor.
Teddy raised his hand, though he knew the professor would not call on him again. He decided to interject anyway, “Well, isn’t the elaborate collaboration of art, film, and music a phenomenon on their own? How people can puzzle together pieces that do not even remotely match and create a whole new meaning for something? Kind of like contemporary poetry does?”
Of course, he would like contemporary poetry, Professor Adorno mused, and irritated with anything that strayed from the likes of Robert Frost. “Only if you consider clumsily compiled pieces of nonsense to be a prophetic work of art.”
Before Teddy could form a rebuttal, he, along with the rest of the class, realized it was ten till and their class session was concluded.
The class exited the building. Tiffany and Laura climbed in Tiffany’s car, each spoke separately into their cell phones, in attempt to organize their party. Max decided he should bookmark dictionary.com in his favorites, but lost the urge as soon as he started listening to Limp Bizkit on his I-pod. Teddy was determined to go home and blog about new media, and his particular disgust for tyrant professors.
This was a response written from Adorno's theories published in "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"
Political Spotlight: Roger Stone, the political liability
What interested me perhaps the most about Stone was his contrary nature. Like politics, the surface of Stone was much different than the deeper underground. When you look at him, you see an aged, conservatively dressed man with an old school sense about him. He is articulate, speaks in a no-bullshit manner, and is filled with a history of politics, having seen and heard it all. A gentleman, who resembles an old mobster, prefers clubs with a jacket requirement and asserts that a man should never wear “white dress shirts after six.” Yet, it is maybe this knowledge that makes him an opinionated, sarcastic, cunning, political operative who would implement anything up his sleeve to get his way. Despite all his tricks, Stone seems to remain upfront about them and has become a force to be reckoned with in the fields of politics, informing and persuaded the public by all necessary means.
Looking simply at the articles and videos we were given to formulate opinions on Stone, the contradictions continue. The short quips with StoneTV seem remotely harmless. He approaches and issue or political figure such as Barack Obama with a standard, critical journalism style. He has an opinion, such as a columnist would, and sticks with a precise, quick argument filled with research to back his arguments. The only remote line of sarcasm is delivered without a punch as he says Obama is delivering the “same old baloney”. His blog appears to be written in about the say style. You get a clearer vision of Stone’s historical involvement with politics, with the same quick journalistic sentences and arguments for McCain and Palin. This can be viewed in articles such as his standard “Palin’s Checkers Moment,” and even “Hurricane Ike”, which is delivered with a bit more dry humor.
However, when we get into the ReasonTV segment we are encountered with a man who seems to step out of the aforementioned mold of your average conservative liability. With the encouragement of our well-known interviewer, Stone cusses, jumps from topic to topic, and reveals just how colorful of a personality he possesses. Certainly, he keeps within the step of historical backing and references, but you begin to get an idea of just how tricky and dirty he is willing to play things, even if it means slandering a candidate with claims of mandatory class on Saturday in a first grade election.
This clearer view of who Stone really is becomes propelled in the “Weekly Standard” and “The New Yorker” articles, which illuminate him with titles such as “the dirty trickster”, a “professional lord of mischief” and his self-reference of “If it rains, it was Stone.” Here we continue to get below the surface and see just who Stone is—an intelligent, knowledgeable man who is willing to attack in the muddiest of ways.
So if everyone knows Stone is a source of waywardness and turmoil, why does he remain to be such an intact force in American politics? The answer lies in the exploration of the word truth.
When it comes to the reporting by journalists, Stone seems to be the first person to get the scoop. Maybe this is because he’s been behind the scene for forty years and possesses the knowledge of all things politics with the right connections to collect scandal. Perhaps it is because his all-too watchful eye knows just how to spot the absurd, such as Spitzer’s affair with a prostitute.
Regardless, of the reason, Stone gives the general public insight and reveals the truth, as ugly as it may be, and truth, above all is what journalism is crucially about. Whatever his ulterior motives may be, the American public seems to be appreciative of him. Even journalists, who despise him, trust his information. Not to mention, you have to at least be pleased about a man who does not fear, but rather embraces the opportunity to expose what others are trying to hide. People have a right to know who is representing them and running their government, be it local, state, or federal.
It is the political exploration of this truth that leaves a question ringing around the word. Stone always has some type of motivation for what he’s doing, whether it is to bring forth the right issues, elect the person he’s backing by making the other guy look bad, or create an outbreak of conversation to circle around the water cooler. This is the guy who is the avid supporter for Nixon-like politics who knows the greatest way to win can lie in the art of the con. One has to wonder just how honest these truths can be, when Stone believes that, “Politics is not about uniting people. It’s about dividing people. And getting your fifty-one percent” as well as his rule stating, “The only thing worse in politics than being wrong is being boring.” It then becomes a fine line between discovering necessary scandal and exposing the dirty politician, and having an unscrupulous consultant who searches for redundant truths and capitalizes on them. Clearly Stone is a biased political mind that is paid to cause trouble, and does his job immaculately. He has five Jaguars to show for it. Yet for every candidate he represents, he also knows how to cover their impropriates, thus hiding other necessary truths.
The one truth we do know is that Stone is a character of both intelligence and deviance. Political campaigns for years have both benefited and capsized because of him. He likes to fight dirty, and he’ll be the first to tell you it.
Looking simply at the articles and videos we were given to formulate opinions on Stone, the contradictions continue. The short quips with StoneTV seem remotely harmless. He approaches and issue or political figure such as Barack Obama with a standard, critical journalism style. He has an opinion, such as a columnist would, and sticks with a precise, quick argument filled with research to back his arguments. The only remote line of sarcasm is delivered without a punch as he says Obama is delivering the “same old baloney”. His blog appears to be written in about the say style. You get a clearer vision of Stone’s historical involvement with politics, with the same quick journalistic sentences and arguments for McCain and Palin. This can be viewed in articles such as his standard “Palin’s Checkers Moment,” and even “Hurricane Ike”, which is delivered with a bit more dry humor.
However, when we get into the ReasonTV segment we are encountered with a man who seems to step out of the aforementioned mold of your average conservative liability. With the encouragement of our well-known interviewer, Stone cusses, jumps from topic to topic, and reveals just how colorful of a personality he possesses. Certainly, he keeps within the step of historical backing and references, but you begin to get an idea of just how tricky and dirty he is willing to play things, even if it means slandering a candidate with claims of mandatory class on Saturday in a first grade election.
This clearer view of who Stone really is becomes propelled in the “Weekly Standard” and “The New Yorker” articles, which illuminate him with titles such as “the dirty trickster”, a “professional lord of mischief” and his self-reference of “If it rains, it was Stone.” Here we continue to get below the surface and see just who Stone is—an intelligent, knowledgeable man who is willing to attack in the muddiest of ways.
So if everyone knows Stone is a source of waywardness and turmoil, why does he remain to be such an intact force in American politics? The answer lies in the exploration of the word truth.
When it comes to the reporting by journalists, Stone seems to be the first person to get the scoop. Maybe this is because he’s been behind the scene for forty years and possesses the knowledge of all things politics with the right connections to collect scandal. Perhaps it is because his all-too watchful eye knows just how to spot the absurd, such as Spitzer’s affair with a prostitute.
Regardless, of the reason, Stone gives the general public insight and reveals the truth, as ugly as it may be, and truth, above all is what journalism is crucially about. Whatever his ulterior motives may be, the American public seems to be appreciative of him. Even journalists, who despise him, trust his information. Not to mention, you have to at least be pleased about a man who does not fear, but rather embraces the opportunity to expose what others are trying to hide. People have a right to know who is representing them and running their government, be it local, state, or federal.
It is the political exploration of this truth that leaves a question ringing around the word. Stone always has some type of motivation for what he’s doing, whether it is to bring forth the right issues, elect the person he’s backing by making the other guy look bad, or create an outbreak of conversation to circle around the water cooler. This is the guy who is the avid supporter for Nixon-like politics who knows the greatest way to win can lie in the art of the con. One has to wonder just how honest these truths can be, when Stone believes that, “Politics is not about uniting people. It’s about dividing people. And getting your fifty-one percent” as well as his rule stating, “The only thing worse in politics than being wrong is being boring.” It then becomes a fine line between discovering necessary scandal and exposing the dirty politician, and having an unscrupulous consultant who searches for redundant truths and capitalizes on them. Clearly Stone is a biased political mind that is paid to cause trouble, and does his job immaculately. He has five Jaguars to show for it. Yet for every candidate he represents, he also knows how to cover their impropriates, thus hiding other necessary truths.
The one truth we do know is that Stone is a character of both intelligence and deviance. Political campaigns for years have both benefited and capsized because of him. He likes to fight dirty, and he’ll be the first to tell you it.
Journalism Spotlight: Jack Shafer, Slate Media Critic
While Shafer writes in a manner which reflects a newer, blunt, and opinionated press, he in fact exudes favoritism towards the morals of old-fashioned journalism. He wants the best form of journalism, be it a lack of plagiarism and “loophole” usage, a no-claim policy for who can call themself a journalist, or merely the feel of a fresh copy of the New York Times. While Shaker often writes about the popularity and demand of new media, he tends to criticize it, also showing his “old soul” attributes. His continued idealism for the respect of journalism shines past his quick jabs and sarcasm with the traditional backing of information by sources, despite the fact that he is often writing about something strictly stemming from opinion over issue.
Whether I agreed or disagreed with Shafer, which changed from article to article, I always saw his side of things. As in the case of his Shield Law argument, I had always been in support of a federal shield law when studying the basics of it in previous journalism classes, yet never really considered the threat of having to license and define journalists. His arguments, though they tend to ramble, are clearly presented and unexpectedly examined without a bias before he concludes his opinion. Basically, Shafer is the guy in the back of the room that listens, nods his head, and then says, “I understand what you’re saying, but…”
Though at times I found Shafer’s topics to be a bit unnecessary, other than its comedic premise, such as “Fisherman Beats Rare Dolphin to Death,” I enjoyed the nature in which his articles relate. Journalism is often compromised. It is biased, stolen, repeated, and sensationalized. This was never its original intent, nor should it be.
Whether I agreed or disagreed with Shafer, which changed from article to article, I always saw his side of things. As in the case of his Shield Law argument, I had always been in support of a federal shield law when studying the basics of it in previous journalism classes, yet never really considered the threat of having to license and define journalists. His arguments, though they tend to ramble, are clearly presented and unexpectedly examined without a bias before he concludes his opinion. Basically, Shafer is the guy in the back of the room that listens, nods his head, and then says, “I understand what you’re saying, but…”
Though at times I found Shafer’s topics to be a bit unnecessary, other than its comedic premise, such as “Fisherman Beats Rare Dolphin to Death,” I enjoyed the nature in which his articles relate. Journalism is often compromised. It is biased, stolen, repeated, and sensationalized. This was never its original intent, nor should it be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)