"Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?"

"Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" A quote from "The Outlaw Josey Wales."

I've watched bits and pieces of the three major interviews that have been conducted with Sarah Palin since she was announced as John McCain's running mate. I found three different approaches by each interviewer.

Charlie Gibson, of ABC, at times appeared above Sarah Palin, using a condescending tone, etc. I have seen other interviews of Gibson's and immediately noticed his colder and, at times, almost patronizing demeanor. He asked tough questions with no mercy, and pressed issues when not given a satisfactory answer (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHnzTN95kRc).

Contrast that with Sean Hannity of FOX news. From the offset Hannity wore a warm, adoring smile. He posed questions in a casual, kind way, asking about family and her thoughts on the world's issues - almost like a backyard bbq. Hannity, a Republican, obviously was going to help his girl out (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVR2QCH3-fg).

That brings us to the most recent interview with CBS's Katie Couric. In my opinion, Couric seemed to be the most balanced of all three interviews. She didn't appear overly warm, asked tough questions, but respectfully, and even cracked a slight smile from time to time. She wasn't condescending, but she wasn't idolizing Palin either (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc).

After watching these interviews, I wonder to myself, who was the best journalist? Who delivered the story? Who presented the story in a way that gave unbiased context and meaning to it? Who constructed the social reality of Sarah Palin as a possible vp most effectively? Who, in effect, best represented the public?

Is it okay to show bias? Is it okay to be borderline disrespectful if it is someone you don't neccessarily respect? How do you hide your personal opinions, whether it be in print, online, or broadcast journalism?

Just to lighten things up on a Monday morning...

Corporations, Congress, and Communications

"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."

That's how the first amendment reads.

So Congress can't limit freedom of speech or of the press, but what about corporations?

As I've been firmly planted on my bed or on the couch (thanks to an ankle infection) for a couple days now, I finally decided to catch up on some Comms 101 reading. This past week in class we were discussing Media Ethics. I've found it all very intriguing and thought provoking.

Henry Luce, founder of Time magazine formed a commission that sought to study the press' responsibility within the United States. The commission was headed up by a scholar named Robert M. Hutchins. In the textbook, Mass Communitcation, Robert E. Hanson summarizes the commission's findings:

...the commission concluded that the First Amendment, by itself, might not be enough to protect the free speech rights of the public because a small number of corporations controlled a large number of the available communication outlets. Although the government might not be limiting free speech, corporations might do so.

Hanson further suggests that, "This problem of a conflict of corporate interest extends beyond suppressing stories; it also involves actively promoting the company's interests."

What does all this mean for up and coming journalists? If we choose to follow the idea that it is a journalist's prerogative to deliver the truth to the masses, to give meaning and understanding to news, how can we be independent when dependent upon "the man"? I don't know what I am trying to say...I just found this idea interesting.

How Far Do You Go?

This weekend I had the oppurtunity to see a new film called "Traitor." It has Don Cheadle from "Hotel Rwanda." I highly reccommend this film. It was a very thought provoking film for me. It had me pondering different aspects of life at different levels, from my faith, to whether or not the U.S. is like a terrorist organization in that it is willing to kill innocent people for the cause of greater good, and my future career as a journalist, among other topics....

In this film, a man becomes firmly entrenched in a role in order to accomplish "greater" things. He does things in this role that he otherwise would not do, all the while trying to convince himself that it will be worth it in the end.

In journalism there are many examples of people going to extremes to get the story and report it. To be the first, to be the best. Nellie Bly (as mentioned in class) is an example of a journalist who went to the extreme of going undercover in an insane asylum. Daniel Pearl, a journalist for The Wall Street Journal, was beheaded in Pakistan in 2002 while trying to uncover and report possible links between Al-Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl). In 2006 Reuters pulled 920 photographs taken by freelance photographer Adnan Hajj after it was learned that many had been "photoshopped" (see http://tiny.cc/G8Dhs).

We all want to succeed in our professions, but to what extremes? How far do you go?

What/Who Is a Journalist?

To me, a journalist is someone who feels compelled to say something, and does, through whatever medium they can best use to express themselves. Whether that is spoken words, printed words, sounds or images.

This is what makes the likes of you and me journalists, as well as the Christiane Amanpours and Fred Barnes' of the world. We see something, we read something, hear something, and it causes us to react, to speak up, speak out. This is what makes someone a journalist. Not only do they experience the world around them, like everyone else, they record it, they act.

The Bush Doctrine

I finally got to sit and watch some of Charlie Gibson's 20/20 interview with Sarah Palin. I had heard one of her blunders was that she didn't seem to know what The Bush Doctrine was when Charlie asked her about it. I watched the segment and thought she responded as appropriately as a VP candidate could. But, I thought to myself, "I don't even know what the Bush Doctrine is." Is it okay to admit that? Does everybody else and their dog and their Liberal Book Club friends know what the Bush Doctrine is? I quickly went on Wikipedia.org for a quick definition.... Here it is:

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way."

So now you know....question is, do you know what the Clinton Doctrine was? Do you know the Monroe Doctrine? What about Nixon, or Carter? For details visit
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-United-States-Presidential-doctrines