Fabric of our lives...oh...jk it's not fabric. It's plastic.

Fabricating the news is really a concept that is baffling to me.  With how much crazy stuff is really happening to us right now, WHAT is the need to make more of it up?  It seems that in most instances we've studied in class, the stories are all real things that I'm sure have happened to someone, they just haven't done the research to find the person.  So in other words, you could say they are lazy, or just reporting the story backwards.
For a fascinating article on the top 10 most famous "journo fabrications" click here 

It's not only journalists who are making up these facts- take the scandal of James Frey's book A Million Little Pieces, that was almost compeltely fabricated.  Having been suggested on Oprah's reading list, it was a media frenzy when the news broke and brought on an entire new meaning to fabrication, even inspiring a slew of new words to be added to conversation such as knews and Sprinklegate.

So why do it? In nearly every incident the journalist has been fired, and every incident their reputation has been smeared, tattered, esentially destroyed.  With so much riding on your reputation of being fair, honest, balanced, as a journalist, why take the risk of making up facts?

The only possible conclusion I can think of is to cut corners.  Not worth the extra 20 minutes you might gain by making up a fact for a lifetime legacy of being "that guy who completely made up that book- you know, the one with the hand covered in sprinkles on the cover!"

His Girl Friday Response

11.     How did the movie reflect (or criticize) the era of Pulitzer and Hearst in their approach to news?

     It was get the news fast, get it first, and get it out.  Not a whole lot of fact checking being involved or even thought on future consequences to the subject of the story.  It is such a fast paced movie with the dialogue sped up; it was over before you knew it started.  I think that really must have been what that era was like, with so many competing newspapers all with the same resources and newsworthy stories to pull from, it must have been a mad-dash every day trying to find the story, write it and get it out first before your competitor. 

22.     How do the film’s characters violate journalistic ethics?

    So many times.  The entire basis of the movie is questionable ethics; it’s what makes it so funny.  From paying out sources, lying to reporters, to kidnapping witnesses and harboring a criminal inside the newsroom, His Girl Friday is full of journalistic ethical follies.  However, I think with the blatant disregard for a moral code, it almost highlights what good ethical behavior a journalist should have, do everything opposite of Walter Burns. 

33.     Did the characters “Minimize Harm?”

     No.

44.     Do the film’s characters remain independent and neutral?

     Not at all.  All of them are working on an angle, working with some other story in mind, thinking how they can spin it to win over public affection.  I love the scene when the Prisoner escapes and all of the reporters run back to their phones, with hardly any facts, each spewing off a completely different story that would entertain their audience.  So funny.

55.     The Front Page, on which “His Girl Friday” is based, is said to be “an old-fashioned valentine to journalism and American life.” How is that so?

     Old-fashioned valentines were never cheapened by commercialism as they are nowadays.  They were really ornate and meaningful, having the card itself being represented as the gift.  I think that despite the satirical ethics involved, His Girl Friday and The Front Page represent that true form of journalism.  Hildy has to get this story because she is so passionate about the field; she can’t step away from it, even for her own wedding.  This was the only way people were being informed, they were dependant on the newspaper and their reporters, and though it was a cutthroat business to get into, it truly was full of adventure.  A “golden-age” you could almost say.

66.     In its first incarnation, the “Front Page” was loudly criticized by the highbrow newspapers of the time. One wrote, that reporters were made to look more like gangsters than a moderately well off businessman. Do you agree?

     I agree somewhat.  With Walter Burns go-to man character, he basically was a true gangster; handing out counterfeit money, kidnapping the Mother-in-law, putting Hildy’s fiancé in jail on multiple accounts, all in the name of the story yes, but actions of a true 1940’s gangster, complete with the Italian accent.  Even in Walter Burns character you see hints of it from his Zoot Suit clothing to his at-all-costs attitude.  However, although I’m sure the movie and play were dramatized quite a bit, it can’t be too far off when it comes to down to whether you get the story or you don’t.  

77.     The original version featured two men, as did a later version with Walter Matthau (Walter Burns), Jack Lemmon (Hildy Johnson) and Susan Sarandon (Peggy Grant). How did the woman Hildy change the dynamics? What does it say about women in journalism?

     It completely changed the dynamic I think.  When Hildy goes in to get her interview with the prisoner, in my mind (being a female) it stood out to me how tender and soothing she was talking to the prisoner to get him to talk.  I kept thinking, “Wow, it’s the woman’s touch” something a man couldn’t have gotten out of him! Although I’m sure that’s slightly biased, I think a woman brings something a man can’t.  Even down to when Hildy is comforting the girlfriend of the prisoner, no other man was doing that and it ended up benefiting her in getting the complete story with the girlfriend on her side. 

War of the ......Networks?

Having just watched the Presidential Debate, I found it interesting flipping through CNN back to Fox, how truly biased these networks were towards one particular party. (as you can see by those headlines on their website's in the link) and it got me thinking: How would you do it differently? Usually at the debates, I stick to watching and reading things that align within my political view or else I get so mad at how biased they are skewing the facts to their advantage, but am I not doing the same thing by sticking to watching those certain channels?

This line of thinking got me to checking the Twitter world in the #debate category.  Thousands of tweets were coming through per second, an array from all over the political scene, each claiming that their side had won.

Like in class, we talked about the question of journalists being objective or subjective, and no matter how hard they try, by human nature they are going to be slightly skewed because of the differences in their lifestyles etc. How true that was manifested tonight in the coverage following the debate.  It was sad actually, because there really is no way to get pure un-biased analysis on the debate in the media now-days.  Everyone has a motive, which is now making it hard for the American people to be educated.  Depending on what news channel you watch, if you are truely an "undecided" voter, that channel will more than likely persuade you into what candidate they are supporting.  I started thinking how even in the newspapers, what should be "hard-news" stories somehow end up being somewhat editorial in the way the facts are presented.

The only fair way I could think of was to have a split newspaper like they tried having so many years ago, where one side will present it's case, having the other side presenting theirs, since it is so rare to find someone truly writing with both sides in mind.

This country has really been split into blue and red more and more as each election comes, and it's only a matter of time until it becomes too much of a divide to bring back together under one nation.

BYU Professor gives Journalism a face-lift

PROVO—A journalism professor at BYU is calling for a serious revamping of the media industry, more specifically Journalists, who are responsible for “upholding equity and justice” he believes. 

Professor Joel Campbell spoke in a lecture series put on by the school last Thursday to an audience of students, professors, and members of the community. 

Campbell stated that LDS journalists have a unique perspective and have an obligation to keep the press going, thus the call for a change in the moral code of journalists. 

Campbell began the lecture by going through a history of the press, all the way back to Gutenberg’s invention of the moveable type, showing how the events have perfectly set up the press for where they are today.  Campbell believes that there is a theme throughout history of a divine intervention of most major breakthroughs of the media.

 “If the Constitution is of divine origin- what does that mean for the free press?” Campbell said.  

The world has made a significant jump recently in the number of countries that now allow freedom of information.  There are now 90 countries entitled to that freedom, when there were only two back in the 1960s.  

With this new freedom comes new responsibility according to Campbell, who listed many examples of how the journalism field can improve.  Many of these value improvements were expected, such as accountability, conscience, trustworthiness etc. that have always been problems in the media in the last decade.  However, things such as Solutions Journalism, Empowering Information and maintaining a respect for leaders were somewhat fresh topics. 

Due to the current Presidential elections, the maintaining respect for leaders was particularly emphasized in this campaign season. 

“We can disagree [with the President], but there should be no ad hominem attacks…I have been very disappointed in some of the chain emails I have received from friends in relation to this,” Campbell said.

Campbell refers to many more stories of faithful journalists, trying to educated the public about this Constitutional role of a journalist, however there is still need for a call for reform he said, where innovations in the media will help to build up their communities, not destroy them.  

Gretchen Morgenson

We were so lucky to have Gretchen Morgenson from the New York Times come to our school and give us a lecture on her new book "Reckless Endagerment".  I'll be honest, in the beginning, I had no idea what she was talking about.  Having been both a business writer and a editor in her career, Morgenson really knows her stuff.  However, after a few minutes I felt I was caught up to speed and really did enjoy her lecture.  She had the whole audience engaged and I really believe it was because everyone in that room could tell she was passionate about what she was saying, you could feel it.

Her new book she co-authored talks about how we have gotten into this economic crisis, and why we are still in it today, so many years later.  Something that really hit me was her opening comment.  She said how when she began in this career, she used to write about innovative companies, successful business plans etc. believe it or not.  Now, ever since 1998, it has been "all scandal, all the time," which really is sad.

Having not a lot of background in Finance, it was interesting to hear how the financial sector has become much bigger and more powerful than ever before.  Because it has been dominating the economy, it has helped to create an imbalance in our country- thus leading to the crisis.  She talked a lot about the "Too big to fail" laws, which sadly was the first I had heard of them.  I was glad I attended the lecture as later that night it was discussed heavily in the Presidential Debate! It was the greatest feeling to actually understand what the issue was they were debating about, and have already made up my decision, based on facts I learned at the lecture, so I could gauge the candidates answers to mine.

Probably the most depressing aspect of the lecture however, was the lack of legal consequences many bank officials have received due to this financial crisis.   Morgenson stated that only one major executive has gone to jail, from some obscure company with $3 billion in fraud.  Compared to the bank failures in the 1970's with 1100 cases brought to court and 839 officials put in jail, we can see the stark contrast of how the SEC has handled the situation today in 2012.  With only 31 cases, and a $12 million recompense from the nine executives, it hardly makes a dent in the billions of dollars lost in the suffering economy.

It gave me hope to see that people such as Morgenson and her colleagues with fairly influential positions were not turing a blind eye to this crisis, however, I hope more light is shed onto this in the future, before it's too late.

Crandall's Printing Press

Yep, lived in Provo almost my whole life, and it wasn't until this summer that I had even seen Crandall's Printing Press. 

I am so glad we were required to go for class, I probably never would have gone in on my own. 

The sweet old men who helped us and gave us the tour seriously made it worth the visit, they were so cute! 

 I learned so much from that short little tour, I really felt like I became an expert on printing.

It was cool being able to see an LDS view of the history of printing, all the way back to writing scriptures.  What did they use? How did they write? These were all questions I had never even thought to ask, and now I know the answer! It really makes the scriptures that much more real: real people had to write these and they used real techniques of the time.  It was fascinating for me. 

 It was crazy to learn all of the elements of Gutenberg's invention.  He not only invented the moveable type, but also literally had to invent everything to go along with it.  The number of things he started really did blow my mind, and it was a testimony to me of how famous figures throughout history really were inspired to help progress the work of the gospel.

Being able to "walk through" the history and development of printing (literally) was something you don't usually get to see in a history class, taking 4 months to see the same process.  Different things made connections being able to see it from one stage to the next right after each other.  How cool is it that Gutenberg got his idea for the printing press from an olive press something very prominent in the Bible.  The fact that Gutenberg built six different printing shops and trained the staff was a miracle that helped progress the work, vs. a disaster that ruined him according to most scholars.

 Something that really stood out to me however was coming to "E.B. Grandin's shop". I never thought about the history of man who printed The Book of Mormon but how fascinating! The fact that the Eerie Canal was completed RIGHT before the book was printed, and just happened to pass right in front of his shop was no coincidence.

I saw the hand of the Lord in this process, more than I ever had before.  I really hope he receives church sponsorship like he has hoped, because it truly is an experience every member of the church should have.  

The coolest machine ever, the Linotype!