The Shelter article along with the recent class discussions has made me start to rethink the power of independent media. With so many journalists flooding the airwaves of main stream media with their horseracing coverage, leaving the actual reporting to the independent bloggers it often left me asking so what? The real information is out there but it is hidden behind the New York Times and CNN and Washington Posts of the country. Where  do I find it? Is it even being read by anyone anyway?

 

Shelter’s article discussed the power of networking and information sharing sites like youtube and facebook. It is encouraging to know that 2/3 of people under the age of 30 are getting information in this way. I read in one of my other classes that of all the people using the internet in the U.S. nearly ¼ are 17 or younger. I am happy to know that the information posted on these blogs is actually finding a way to an audience; a younger one but a growing one nonetheless. When I stopped and think about it only two weeks ago I was sitting in a Park Lab surfing youtube with my cousin who was up visiting me for the weekend. I showed her some of the clips we had seen in class regarding Palin and in turn she showed me a half dozen clips that I had never seen. I forget sometimes that we have that ability to seek out information and share it that easily via the Internet.

 

I remember hearing about the huffintonpost  story. I happen to agree that in today’s day in age everything a politician says is on the record. Yes, her article did not portray Obama in a favorable light, but just because she is a supporter does not mean everything she writes about him has to be favorable. Isn’t that the point of objective reporting? Being able to separate your bias from reporting on the situation for what it is. I don’t think every journalist going into campaign territory has to identify themselves as journalists, but in this case they all knew she was a journalist for the huffingtonpost. Bottom line if Obama didn’t want the comment he made to be heard, then he shouldn’t have said it.

 

I expected the audio of Bill Clinton calling the reporter of vanity Fair a scumbag to be much worse. I didn’t read the vanity fair article so I’m not sure whether or not the reporter was honest or completely did fabricate the story. Now I’m saying that even if he did do dishonest reporting that warrants the former president calling him those names. It is just the way Fowler’s article made it sound like he was just sitting there calling this guy all these names, when in fact you listen to the audio you hear a man obviously upset and disappointed he was portrayed like that and it is hurting his wife’s campaign so he got carried away and made some comments he should not have made.

 

I think the way that Fowler worded her question made it a loaded question because she wanted to get a certain type of response. It wasn’t exactly professional but I’m not sure if I would consider it unethical. I have seen journalist ask questions that almost reinstate an attack someone else made about the person in order to get a really emotional response. I remember watching Diane Sawyer ask Martha Stewart “Why do people hate you?” during a sit down interview after Stewart was accused of insider trading. Honestly what kind of question is that? I think Stewart answered with an I don’t know, which is really the only way to answer a loaded question like that without seeming completely vain or admitting to flaws.