Nobody can fully grasp the influence of the media, but almost nobody denies its existence. With access to the Internet it is now all the news, all the time, and every company tries to serve their customers.

Whereas, 20 years ago, a family would sit down and watch a recap of the daily events in a compact 30 minutes, the U.S. is now served by three 24/7 news channels, and everyone gets their customized news via email or directly onto his mobile device.

Are we missing something in the flood of information or are we better served, now that we receive the news we want? The aim on this website is to introduce the reader to various issues facing not only the audience, but the industry itself in today’s modern media age.

Who is in charge of the selection process, now that we get what we want, whenever we want it? The first article is asking if mass media can play a helpful role in deciding for us, what is important, or are they just trying to defend their elite status that is taken away by citizen journalists? The second article introduces methods of Internet companies, as well as mass media outlets, to get their viewers involved in the production process. Is the man on the street with a cell phone camera a valid replacement?

In the third article we dig deeper into the work of journalists and the kind of problems they face. Should they be able to protect sources no matter what, or does the public have a right to know? The fourth article discusses the issue of embedded journalists and reporting about war in general. When do you stop supporting the troops and when do you start reporting the truth?

Is there any reason to decline coverage of a crisis abroad only to pick it up when things get out of hand? The fifth article takes a look at the coverage of the three major networks and the influence that can have on the publics mindset. Staying with the topic of Iraq, the sixth article discusses one issue, the definition of words, and how important they are to explain things that sometimes seem to be unexplainable.

Then, are citizens really served well when news start attacking themselves, rather than telling an objective story? The seventh article takes you inside the war of Fox News and MSNBC and while they both profit from it, the audience is loosing trust in their news.

To conclude, the eighth article is looking at the economical situation of the print media industry and the consequences of cutbacks on the paper, as a whole.

At each end of the article, you are encouraged to voice your opinion. Use the questions provided as a starting point of you like. This website also provides a lot of follow-up links to the various topics at the end of each article, as well as on a special weblinks-section.

The media and the profession of journalism as we know them, are about to change. What is the future of the news and how can we make sure that it always serves one cause: the public’s interest.

Start reading below or go to an overview of all articles.

This site is created for Firefox. The use of all other browers can lead to unwanted distortions. Please download the software by clicking the graphic.

This website is a term project by Franz Strasser for Modul 6, B.A. American Studies at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Phil Rosenthal, writer of the Chicago Tribune asks: “Now that people get what they want the way they want on the Internet, where does that leave those mainstream media outlets that, in traditional fashion, pair the news people want with the news it is thought they need?”

Charles Gibson, anchor of ABC World News Tonight, has an answer: The importance of the mass media, in his opinion, has not shrunk, but rather increased because of the Internet.

“You are choosing the particular kind of news that’s interesting to you,” Gibson states. We become more important because our mission is to expose you to things you wouldn’t have clicked on.”

It sounds as if someone is trying to defend an elite status, Phil Rosenthal argues, but Gibson counters, “It’s a defense of journalism. It’s not that we know better. It’s not an elitist function. It’s an editorial function. It is a function of taking a look at what’s important in diet of daily news and saying, `Here’s what I feel is important.’”

Gibson made those remarks on a day in which the whole nation was watching news of the death of Anna Nicole Smith. His broadcast, mind you, started its program with news about the increase of autism.

It is truly an interesting thesis and not to be taken slightly. Mass media was able to influence the public discourse with its selection of news for many years. Today, it tends to bring attention to news, that would certainly be left out of the conversation.

You could see it as a last charge by an industry in pressing needs to defend its powerful status. As a consumer, you can also see it as a chance to be informed about news that you would not have noticed in the massive amounts of information, or ignored altogether. The former gatekeepers can merely shift our attention to their selection of news. The public discourse is defined by others.

Discussion:

1) Is Gibson right in his assessment that mass media has gained influence in the internet age?

2) Are we in need of someone who brings our attention to important topics in this age of customized news?

3) Has the editorial process of news outlets changed because of the pubic’s increasing access to information via the internet?

Works Cited:
Rosenthal, Phil. “Gibson thinks old-style news more vital now” Chicago Tribune 9 Feb. 2007. 18 Mar. 2007 <http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0702090051feb09,0,6782398.column?track=rss>

> Back to articles

–>

The so-called “citizen journalism”, in which normal citizens mutate to journalists with their cell-phone cameras, made another step forward lately. First, CNN started “I-Report”, in which it asks viewers to upload videos and photos to the CNN website, and now Yahoo and Reuters have started a partnership called “You Witness”.

The idea is the same. When someone takes a picture of snow chaos on the highway, or shoots some video footage during a protest in Lebanon, he can send this material to those portals and then they are either shown on websites or make it into the evening news on CNN.

This is another try, so a statement by Reuters, to convert viewers into “on-the-spot journalists”. Hereby, Yahoo seems to have a slight advantage towards traditional news agencies because of its already existing ties to a large, active Internet community. Flickr, a website for photo-uploads, which also belongs to Yahoo, is supposed to play a vital role in the overall “You Witness” concept. With Reuters, it seems like this project gained a serious distribution partner.

To people who ask themselves if they even have a chance to make the cut as an amateur in this profession, Yahoo and CNN already have an answer. Yahoo offers a small video course, in which the audience can learn about simple, but vital techniques. CNN helps out and lists which topics are of major interest to the news desk.

Whereas the videos are certainly not convincing, yet, due to a lack of professionalism, the pictures are an enrichment, and receive great feedback in the coverage of CNN TV. Even in Germany, RTL advertises its “Handy Reporter” segment in front of every news show, in which people can receive 100 EUR for every published photo and 500 EUR for every video broadcast on air.

At CNN, however, you get nothing for your effort, and Reuters and Yahoo are debating about how to pay off their best content providers.

In the near future, Yahoo wants to focus more on local issues and is promoting pictures and videos of high school sports. The “on-the-spot journalist” could also write articles about the latest game. Compensation will certainly become an even bigger issue with this strategy.

But even if no money is offered, it seems as if those projects will soon be part of mainstream media. Many authors of weblogs are already providing important and influential content and get no reward for it. This step is just taking the idea of print into the visual market. The result is a world with a better flow of information in which its citizens can identify more with “their” world and “their” news.

Stories will not go through the filter of media conglomerates, but go from source to receiver without any detour. An important step to a better understanding.

Discussion:

1) What are advantages and disadvantages of normal citizens reporting the news to each other?

2) Is “citizen journalism” as direct as advertised, or do new filters and gatekeepers appear in the process?

3) Is the idea by CNN and Yahoo limited to local topics because of the limited range of reporting by its contributors?

Additional Information:

> I-Report Portal
> Huffington on new citizen journalism portal Assignement Zero
> Washington Post’s Leslie Walker on Citizen Journalism
> OJR’s Mark Glaser on Hyperlocal Citizen Media

Works Cited:
Auchard, Eric. “Yahoo partners with Reuters on eyewitness pictures” Reuters 4 Dec. 2006. 11 Jan. 2007 <http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSNAAD040120061204>

> Back to articles

–>

An overview of all articles.

The selection of News
> In the age of the internet and customized news. Who is in charge in the selection process and do we still need mainstream media.
News Without the Filter
> When citizens become reporters and mainstream media features their work in the broadcast, the messaging process is about to change.
The Freedom of Speech
> When reporters protect their sources. Are they doing us a favor and what are the dangers of having no shield-law at all.
Journalists at War
> When a journalist can no longer hold back with his opinion he is subject to scrutiny. But does he serve the public by going out of his way.
Media re-discovers Iraq
> What motivates an outlet to diminish its coverage of one of the biggest conflicts only to pick it back up when times could not be worse.
The Call for Words
> How important is the right choice of words and what happens if there are none to describe something. How two simple words stimulate a debate.
When News are Biased
> What happens when news stop reporting about news and start criticizing each other. Can the role as watchdog harm the audience.
When Newspapers Subside
> Does economic benefit rank above editorial decisions and when can a cutback become a setback for whole profession.
___

> Categories
> Discussion
> Introduction
> Weblinks

–>

The “U.S. vs. Libby” lawsuit did not only put an administration and its actions in the wake of the Iraq war on trial, but featured many stars of the political media landscape on the witness stand.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former top aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney was on trial for purgery and obstruction to federal investigations, but with Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Robert Novak, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, some of Washington’s most influential journalists were questioned about their involvement in the leak of a C.I.A. undercover agent.

In March 2002, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, is sent on a trip to Niger on behalf of the C.I.A. He is ordered to look for evidence that Niger sold nuclear technology to Iraq. Shortly after his return, Wilson explains that there was nothing to that story. Still, President Bush will use it as an argument to defend an invasion of Iraq in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. He announces that British intelligence has gathered evidence that Iraq bought significant amounts of nuclear explosives in Africa.

In July of 2003, Wilson publishes an op-ed column in The New York Times with the title “What I did not find in Africa” and erodes Washington, especially the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney and his aide Scooter Libby.

A few months prior to that, in Mai of 2003, Libby and Rove react to an article by N.Y. Times writer Nicholas Kristof, who reports that an unknown ambassador has visited Niger and could not find any connection between this country and Iraq.

In an attempt to discredit Wilson, Libby and Rove talk to several reporters and leak the name of Wison’s wife, C.I.A undercover agent Valerie Plame, who reportedly sent him on this trip. After those 15 famous words of President Bush in his State of the Union, the administration blamed the C.I.A. for the mistake.

Libby learned of this connection in May of 2003 by a state department official, but claimed during the first hearings that he lost his memory about those talks because of the flood of information that came in during this period of time.

In June of 2003, Libby talks to N.Y. Times reporter Judith Miller several times about Valerie Plame’s identity, so the charges. Leaking her identity would be present a felony.

A week earlier, Bob Woodward, writer for the Washington Post, talks to Secretary of State Richard Armitage and becomes the first to learn about Plame’s identity. Armitage admits these talks with Woodward and is not charged due to inadvertence.

Armitage will also talk to Robert Novak, who will later become the first journalist to publish the story. Bob Woodward, until this day, remains the only person involved in this issue, not to have written a single article about it. He never saw it as an important enough topic. Later on, Woodward will talk to Scooter Libby about the Wilsons.

In July of 2003, Wilson’s op-ed column is published in The New York Times and Dick Cheney gets involved in the dealings. He writes notes next to the article, questioning if the C.I.A. has done this sort of thing before: Sending an ambassador on a covert mission. He also asks in these notes if his wife might have been the one that sent him.

Scooter Libby, shortly after, talks to Ari Fleischer, then Press Secretary of the White House, about the issue and the connection to Plame and adds, that not many people would know about this. Ari Fleischer confirms this talk, but Libby claims he has never talked with Fleischer about Plame.

Thereafter, Libby meets with Judith Miller for a second time and asks her to refer to him as “former Hill staffer”, if she wanted to publish the story. This identification, and Miller’s decision not to reveal it, will put her into jail for 85 days, until Libby reveals himself to be the anonymous source. A source, that only appeared in Miller’s notebook and was never published in an article.

After his talk to Miller, Libby will also have a conversation with Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press. Libby now claims that he learned about the identity of Valerie Plame in this conversation. Russert denies ever talking to Libby about Plame. Shortly after, Libby also talks to Matt Cooper, writer for Newsweek, about Plame, claiming that he had heard about the rumor himself.

Later on, Libby will tell the grand jury, “I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact. I thought I was — all I had was this information was coming in from reporters.”

On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak publishes the story that reveals the identity of Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. agent and wife of Joseph Wilson and causes a federal investigation on weather administration officials leaked her identity.

Judith Miller, who has notes about Valerie Plame, refuses to identify her sources and refers to a shield law which exists in 30 states and Washington D.C. Because the leak of an undercover agent is considered a crime, and Miller may be aiding the perpetrator, she is sentenced to jail until she reveals her source.

Now Judith Miller sees herself as defender of a whole profession. She demands her rights to protect a source, because those are vital to investigative journalism. Such a protection should exist to not scare away potential whistle blowers, no matter if a source is a good, or a bad one.

Branzburg v. Hayes announced in 1957 that a journalist had no right to protect a source if a criminal investigation depended on it. Still, the importance in this 5-4 decision was put on the minority dissent of Judge Powell who explained, that every case needed to be treated individually. He acknowledged that Branzburg v. Hayes did have its limits.

Judith Miller knew who she granted anonymity and knew, that she protected an administration that not only went to war with false information, but tried to discredit the ones who wanted the truth to be heard. One of these people is now on trial on accounts of obstruction and perjury.

Freedom of Press and protection of sources are vital for a free democracy. Without it, there would not have been a “Deep Throat” or Jeffery Wigand. However, those sources ought to be protected to serve one goal: the public’s interest.

It is questionable if the protection of Scooter Libby served in that interest. Especially in the months after the original invasion, it would have been of great importance to uncover the wrongdoings of administration officials.

Journalists need protection to do their work. But they should always remember that they do this work to serve in the public’s interest. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility.

Discussion:

1) Is Judith Miller right in arguing for protection of sources, no matter if they are good or bad ones?

2) Do you think journalists should have a special right, just as doctors or lawyers, to protect information in order to serve the public?

3) Where are the dangers in a town as Washington D.C. where every journalist depends on background informations and off-the-record statements by politicians?

Additional Information:

> Branzburg v. Hayes
> First Amendment Center on Shield Laws
> New York Times timeline about “Plamegate”
> MSNBC article about Libby’s actions

Works Cited:
Seidman, Joel. “Backstory: How the CIA leak case began” MSNBC.com 12 Jan. 2007. 11 Mar. 2007 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16599094/>

> Back to articles

–>

A rundown of all the categories provided on this website.

To see all articles of major topics, click on one of the three parent categories.

___

> Articles
> Discussion
> Introduction
> Weblinks

–>

Über diese Website:

Diese Website ist die Modulabschluss-Arbeit von Franz Strasser zum Modul 6 in B.A. Amerikanistik an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Wintersemester 2006/2007.

Autor:

Franz Strasser
E-Mail: mail [at] franz-strasser.com
Inhaltlich Verantwortlicher gemäß § 10 Absatz 3 MDStV.

Inhalt/Kopierrecht:

Alle Inhalte, sowohl Texte, als auch Webgrafiken, wenn nicht anders vermerkt, unterliegen dem Kopierrecht von American Media.
© 2007 by American Media

Haftungshinweis:

Trotz sorgfältiger inhaltlicher Kontrolle übernimmt der Autor keine Verantwortung für die Inhalte externer Links. Für den Inhalt der verlinkten Seiten sind ausschließlich deren Betreiber verantwortlich.

–>

To take part in the discussion on this website you can do the following:

• Use the comments at the end of every article to voice your opinion. Feel free to use the questions listed as reference to your comments.

• Write an answer to those questions or other opinions on your own website by linking to the specific post via the “Trackback”-function at the end of every article. Your response will automatically appear as a comment on this website.

• To suggest links, or other important files discovered on the web, write an email to mail[at]franz-strasser.com
___

> Articles
> Categories
> Introduction
> Weblinks

–>

On this page, you will find links to selected websites, weblogs and podcasts. They should provide an intimate look into the current issues in the media industry and in American politics.

In addition, at the end of each article, you will find supplementary links to selected articles that are relevant to that specific topic.

Politics
> Websites and Weblogs about Washington, the 2008 elections, and current issues in politics.
Daily Kos > Markos Moulitsas’ influential Democratic weblog.
Huff Post > Arianne Huffington and others blog about politics.
MSNBC First Read > Preview on the day in politics.
The Politico > Website about the Hill and the ‘08 campaign.
NYT Politics > Times’ politics section
The Note > ABC News’ look at current issues.
The Caucus > Times’ weblog analyzing the day in Washington.

Media
> Websites and Weblogs about the state of the media.
Media Matters > Video and audio clips of relevant topics.
NYT Media & Advertising > Times’ section about media.
Romenesko > Daily look into the media industry by Poynter Institute.
TV Newser > Mediabistro’s rundown of news in the news industry.
CBS Public Eye > CBS watchdog website.
Editors Weblog > Website about media industry.
Assignment Zero > Citizen Journalism portal to cover ‘08 elections.

Podcasts
> Audio- and Video downloads from popular talk shows to public radio programs. To subscribe, copy link location into your favorite podcatcher (e.g. iTunes). To listen to each file, follow the links below.
ABC This Week > Sunday talk show with George Stephanopolous.
ABC World News (Video) > Evening news show with Charles Gibson.
Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points > Controversial show on Fox News.
CBS Weekend Roundup > A rundown of news of the week by CBS Radio.
CBS Face the Nation (Video) > Sunday talk show with Bob Schieffer.
CNN Late Edition (Video) > Sunday talk show with Wolf Blitzer.
DW Correspondents Report > World news covered by correspondents.
DW Fokus Nordamerika > North American news by Deutsche Welle Radio.
MSNBC Countdown > Controversial Show with Keith Olbermann.
NBC Meet the Press (Video) > Sunday talk show with Tim Russert.
NBC Nightly News (Video) > Evening news show with Brian Williams.
NYT Front Page > A rundown of the front page of the New York Times.
NYT Washington Report > Washington correspondents report.
NYT Backstory > Interview and analysis with authors of selected articles.
NYT World View > Times’ international correspondents on world issues.
NPR It’s All Politics > Ken Rudin and Ron Elving on the news in politics.
NPR Talk of the Nation Opinion Page > Interview with author of controversial op-ed column.
NPR Media Matters > Bob McChesney’s radio show about media issues.
WNYC On the Media > Interviews and background on current media topics.

Tools
> Websites that offer tips and tools for the curious media student.
Poynter Everyday Ethics > Discussions on ethical decision-making.
Power Reporting > Database of free research tools for journalists.
Who owns what > CJR’s online guide to what major companies own.

Extra
> Free but valuable content on the internet.
PBS Frontline: News War > A four-part series about ethics, economics and the future of Journalism.


___

> Articles
> Categories
> Introduction
> Discussion

–>

Each Sunday, Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, interviews the most influential politicians and most important press members in his Sunday talk show and it should come to no surprise that there is only one topic since the mid-term elections: Iraq.

In a recent episode, Russert talked to two columnists of The New York Times, David Broooks and Tom Friedman, about the current situation in the Middle East and their latest columns in which they paint a dark picture of the future of this critical part of the world.

Especially Tom Friedman gave some of the most distinct bullet points about the conflict in which he did not mince matters and illustrated the kind of dilemma journalists are facing while covering this national identity crisis.

On the question if we can even assess the situation, he answered: “They [the Iraqis] want justice before democracy. The Shiites want justice for the last 30 years. The Kurds want justice. The Sunnis want justice for a war that overturned their dominance. My fear about Iraq right now and the reason I wrote that column is that I get the sense that our vision of Iraq, a democratic, or democratizing pluralistic Iraq, is everyone’s second choice there.”

While American soldiers risk their lives each day to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, this would be one goal, but not the most important goal for the people there. Certainly an argument which most Bush-critics are pointing out these days. It is not the Americans that decide about the future of this country, but the Iraqis themselves. It is vital that they want democracy more than anything, because no military power can force it onto them.

About the issue weather we can call the conflict a “civil war”, Friedman argues: “We had a civil war in our country. We had a civil war because we thought some people in our country believed really bad things. Really bad things about human dignity and equality, about the right of one people to enslave another. They’re having a civil war in Iraq, only it’s not about ideas, it’s about tribal issues. There is no Abe Lincoln there. It’s the South vs. the South, that’s the problem with the fight right now.”

On the question what the Iraq conflict means to the rest of the region, he goes on, “if you step back, look at what’s been going on there for the last year. In Iran, they just had a conference on why the Holocaust didn’t happen. In Iraq, you have people fighting over who is the proper heir to the prophet Mohammed. And in Syria, basically, the government of Syria killed the prime minister next door, and wants to get off with a parking ticket. This is a freak show, OK? There’s no other part of the world that’s behaving like this.”

Iran is supporting the Shiite militia, Saudis are concerned about the Sunni minority and threaten with an invasion if the Americans should leave them behind, and the Kurds in Northern Iraq have banned the Iraqi flag and consider themselves a self-governed state.

This is where David Brooks jumps in and explains to Tim Russert, “A great historian, Michael Oren, says there are three authentic nation states in the Middle East: Turkey, Iran and Egypt. All the rest are phony nations. Sometimes with family—run by families with armies. And that’s—that is fragile. And that could all come undone and that could all be part of the spreading wave of chaos.”

In the week of the interview, First Lady Laura Bush and former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, criticized the media for focusing only on the bad news about Iraq and sending a wrong impression to the American people.

Friedman in defense of his coverage, “I wanted this to succeed, you know, as much as anybody, because I thought it was really important. But I thought it was really important and really hard. And to me, what history will damn these people for is they thought it was really important and really easy.”

And Brooks, asked about his journalist-colleagues on the ground in Iraq, adds, “They’re not biased about this. They want the best for the Iraqi people, they want democracy. Listen to what they’re reporting, they’re reporting chaos. You have 100–I don’t know what it is, 1.6 million people leaving Iraq. You’ve got 9,000 Iraqis every week who are moving to their Shiite homeland, or to their Sunni homeland. This is a country—it’s not civil war, it’s just disintegration. So the idea that this is some media concoction, you—I said that a year ago, two years ago. But at some point, face reality.”

At the end, we should face reality and take it for what it is. It is not the Americans who can solve this crisis, but the people that want to live in this region peacefully. And when an administration sees no way out but to blame the media for their reporting, then you know the times are bad.

Discussion:

1) What are the difficulties journalists face when reporting about a national crisis overseas and how can they avoid to focus on bad news only, but report accurately?

2) Should Tom Friedman and David Brooks be as open as they are about their reporting style or could that lead towards a credibility problem with their readers?

3) How does the element of embedded journalists add to the dangers of reporting from a war zone?

Additional Information:

> AP Story about Embedded Journalists
> Baghdad Correspondent Richard Engel’s War Zone Diary
> NBC’s Meet the Press

Works Cited:
“MTP Transcript for Dec. 17″ MSNBC.com 17 Dec. 2006. 27 Dec. 2006 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16153676/>

> Back to articles

–>