He was a young, new graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. Post-graduation, the mid-20’s urban professional became the hip, up-and-coming, hot shot reporter of The New Republic...Anything of this sound familiar, yet?
As journalism students, -- well, as students in general -- most of us have been indoctrinated to never plagiarize, never copy and paste someone else’s work and claim it as your own. Well, along with these lessons came the story of Stephen Glass. Stephen Glass has now become synonymous with literary distortion.
I’m sure most people have some knowledge of the film “Broken Glass” depicting the lengths Glass underwent to cover up the concocted sources and claims in his false stories and the downfall of his promising career. Most notable of his fraudulent stories, which most of us journalism students have read, is “Hack Heaven.” The story details the sophomoric, yet genius, escapades of teenaged software hacker Ian Restil, who penetrated the security system of a company called Jukt Micronics.
But, as we all know, this story proved to have been completely fabricated when sources were checked and when Jukt Micronics was googled. The “big-time software firm” did not appear on major search engines, further verifying Glass’ plagiarism.
And, this wasn’t even the only story he invented and contrived.
OK, so I know most of you are probably wondering how this relates to “We the Media.” The main question I had, and still have, while reading this book was/is, if professional journalists with experience employed with reputable publications can fabricate stories, sources and events, then can we really trust citizen journalists?
Dan Gillmor discusses topics and a theme that seem somewhat obvious to us: the Internet changes the relationship between the media and consumers. Now there has been a transfer of power from the big news corporations to the regular, everyday reader, changing the way news is handled. Technology and the Internet have provided the means for anyone to become a journalist efficiently and economically, transforming the role of journalism as more grassroots and democratic.
Cell phones equipped with cameras and smart-phone technology -- that allows you to upload videos anywhere instantly -- buffers the lines between professional and novice journalists. While there are pros to this concept, I still doubt the authenticity or credibility of amateurs. Not only are they unfamiliar with AP style, but they are also untrained in the SPJ code of ethics and lack a basic background in journalism. If we cannot trust professionals to do their jobs scrupulously, then can we really have faith in others?
I do appreciate the idea of people expressing their opinions openly and freely and serving as a check on monopolized big corporations controlling news content. But, what will happen to journalists? I’m already fearful of the job market that’s going to welcome -- or reject -- us. And now that just anyone, any age, in any country can be a journalist, what will happen to my role in the field of journalism? But, more importantly, what happens to people and humanity?
In a world where we’re already jaded and unwilling to reach out to others, I almost feel that people will become even more cynical and skeptical of each other, especially when they don’t know who is reporting the news and when that news could be false or a hoax. We don’t know who these people are, where they are getting their information from or how they obtained it. If we cannot even trust the information disseminated by The New Republic (Stephen Glass) or The New York Times (Jayson Blair), then who can we really trust?
Is the Internet just a reflection of our uneasy world? What are the long-term effects of citizen journalism for the world? For the optimist, it can unite us and make us open and trusting of our communities. Citizen journalism can bring people together when we need encouragement and support. When there is an injustice afflicting people, they can voice their opinions, facts and arguments on the Internet, garnering support from fellow activists and proponents of their plight. In some respects, I admire bloggers and ordinary citizens who are fighting for their rights and causes. And I applaud the Internet’s role in bulldozing the big corporations that dominated news-gathering. I don’t doubt the Internet’s effect on making the news more accessible and democratic; I just hope it doesn’t spiral out of control, allowing anyone to report on the news.
How many times have we heard about Elvis’ resurrection from the grave or women bearing alien babies? Yes, those are very extreme cases, and I know we’re not psychotically gullible to believe this absurdity, but these people exist, and the Internet is facilitating and opening more channels for these unstable people to get their deranged messages across.
Gillmor touches on this and questions the accuracy and credibility of citizen journalists, suggesting that skilled and experienced editors will be in high demand to monitor and police online news and information. However, he is still more optimistic than I am. Gillmor believes that the more people accessing and surveying the web, the more supervision there will be over what is dispersed. He also recommends that we teach and indoctrinate these beginner journalists with the ethics and skills involved in being a professional because, he says, their participation in online journalism it’s inevitable anyway. So, we might as well furnish them with the knowledge and tools. But, no matter how many people we teach or instruct, I will still be guarded and suspicious about this effect on the future of journalism and humanity.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Internet connects
There’s no doubt about it. The Internet has completely and totally revolutionized and altered our lives: instant shopping for the anthropophobiac crowd haters, immediate news updates from Twitter and news sites, video chatting with friends abroad in foreign countries, and cyber stalking and bullying thanks to MySpace and Facebook. Chris Hansen wouldn’t have the opportunity or means to combat pedophilia on his show, “To Catch a Predator,” if not for the chat rooms used to lure in disturbed attackers. And, we wouldn’t be graced with Justin Bieber’s mellifluous, canary-like voice if it weren’t for the Internet and his YouTube videos that catapulted him to fame.
Yes, the Internet saves us time and makes transactions efficient and quick, so we can work longer and have more free time. The Internet is our doctor, providing forums and sites that can diagnose and prescribe remedies; our banker, allowing us to pay bills and check our credit scores; and our unemployment agent, sending out our resumes and cover letters to potential employers. In this era of online dependency and convenience, we wouldn’t even have to leave our houses for years.
But, how does the Internet impact and affect companies and business?
According to the authors of “The Cluetrain Manifesto,” online and direct communication between the customer and the company is essential to the success of the business. Rather than being voiceless and lost in a sea of millions of consumers, we are allowed to express our opinions openly and honestly in blogs, comments and social-networking sites, where we can criticize and praise a company’s services or products in hopes of consistency or improvement on behalf of the corporation. “Cluetrain” condemns corporate bureaucracies, claiming that businesses have been disregarding the power and influence of the human voice and spoken word on the interconnected Internet.
The Internet has played an important role between customers and employees recently when news broke of a pharmaceutical company’s new recall.
In the past year, Johnson & Johnson McNeil has recalled millions of products and over-the-counter medications people use casually: Tylenol, Rolaids, Motrin and Benadryl. Many of these antidotal remedies are commonly and even impulsively used when the start of a negligible headache may be approaching, both across the globe and among the young and elderly.
As a result, the public and prominent news media have been exposing and documenting the downfall and potential resurrection of this company that has been manufacturing and supplying pharmaceutical items for more than 100 years.
Journalists are reporting on the damage and problems of these recalled products: tiny particles of wood and metals ingrained in medications. Editorials express professional and amateur opinions, and ignite debate. And consumers are blogging and commenting on stories about the recall, expressing their concerns about the potential hazards, their distrust, doubts, questions and skepticisms. Like “Cluetrain” encourages, people are communicating openly and directly, and spokespeople from Johnson & Johnson are responding.
The New York Times recently reported on the recall and combined all of these above elements in the story titled “Can Johnson & Johnson Get Its Act Together?,” exemplifying some of “Cluetrain’s” mantras.
In the article, Erik Gordon, a professor of business at the University of Michigan, said, “Nothing is more valuable to Johnson & Johnson than the brand bond of trust with consumers.”
The Times’ story also includes the opinion of a blogger, a mother who questions and challenges Johnson & Johnson products after the recall: “I don’t even consider buying them anymore,” said the mom Thien-Kim Lam, who asserted her opinions in the blog DC Metro Moms in the post “Makers of Tylenol, I’m Disappointed in You,” to the Times.
And to rebuild the trust that Gordon maintains is so important between the company and its consumers, Johnson & Johnson representatives are responding and using the Internet to reassure and restore confidence in customers.
Bonnie Jacobs, a spokeswoman for the company, said the company “will invest the necessary resources and make whatever changes are needed to do so, and we will take the time to do it right.” The Times reported that Jacobs sent this message via e-mail, employing “Cluetrain’s” axioms of utilizing the Internet to a company’s benefit and opening and linking correspondence with its consumers.
Jacobs also told the Times that the company is planning to “take whatever steps are needed to ensure our products meet quality standards, including further recalls if warranted.”
And the site also provides accommodations for readers to comment and articulate their thoughts, just like Lam did in her blog post. Even if you leave just one comment on one story, you never know who will read, process and apply what you have to say. With around-the-clock, worldwide access of the Internet, anyone and everyone can read your post, bringing action to your cause, wants and desires.
This kind of dialogue between large corporations with thousands of employees and millions of customers trumps any kind of embellished or biased advertising and publicity. Discussion boards, e-mails, chat rooms, reviews on websites all help to tear down barriers between the ordinary patron and the executives and workers producing what we use and ingest.
In order to really bulldoze customer anxieties and strengthen faith in its products, Johnson & Johnson needs to establish a relationship with its consumers, as the Nigerian pastor, Sayo, from “Markets are Relationships” professes. Sayo’s story and advice early in “Cluetrain” reverberated and lingered as I continued reading the book. When we create and maintain more individualized connections, we care more about the people involved. The Internet facilitates conversation, and conversation opens the door to trust and relationships, two qualities currently lacking in Johnson & Johnson products.
While a multi-billion-dollar corporation may not be able to personally reach out to its customers all around the world, the Internet may be able to bridge this gap by equipping both parties with the means to speak candidly, naturally and without any reservations. This honest dialogue gives everyone the chance to listen and be heard. Companies can read customer complaints; witness their patrons’ true stories of tragedy, fear and blight; and do something about it. Corporations should take action not because they have to for their bank accounts and finances, but because their customers have communicated with them and shared their personal accounts, like you would with a friend or family member with whom you have a strong relationship.
Would you sell your close friend or loved one faulty medication?
Yes, the Internet saves us time and makes transactions efficient and quick, so we can work longer and have more free time. The Internet is our doctor, providing forums and sites that can diagnose and prescribe remedies; our banker, allowing us to pay bills and check our credit scores; and our unemployment agent, sending out our resumes and cover letters to potential employers. In this era of online dependency and convenience, we wouldn’t even have to leave our houses for years.
But, how does the Internet impact and affect companies and business?
According to the authors of “The Cluetrain Manifesto,” online and direct communication between the customer and the company is essential to the success of the business. Rather than being voiceless and lost in a sea of millions of consumers, we are allowed to express our opinions openly and honestly in blogs, comments and social-networking sites, where we can criticize and praise a company’s services or products in hopes of consistency or improvement on behalf of the corporation. “Cluetrain” condemns corporate bureaucracies, claiming that businesses have been disregarding the power and influence of the human voice and spoken word on the interconnected Internet.
The Internet has played an important role between customers and employees recently when news broke of a pharmaceutical company’s new recall.
In the past year, Johnson & Johnson McNeil has recalled millions of products and over-the-counter medications people use casually: Tylenol, Rolaids, Motrin and Benadryl. Many of these antidotal remedies are commonly and even impulsively used when the start of a negligible headache may be approaching, both across the globe and among the young and elderly.
As a result, the public and prominent news media have been exposing and documenting the downfall and potential resurrection of this company that has been manufacturing and supplying pharmaceutical items for more than 100 years.
Journalists are reporting on the damage and problems of these recalled products: tiny particles of wood and metals ingrained in medications. Editorials express professional and amateur opinions, and ignite debate. And consumers are blogging and commenting on stories about the recall, expressing their concerns about the potential hazards, their distrust, doubts, questions and skepticisms. Like “Cluetrain” encourages, people are communicating openly and directly, and spokespeople from Johnson & Johnson are responding.
The New York Times recently reported on the recall and combined all of these above elements in the story titled “Can Johnson & Johnson Get Its Act Together?,” exemplifying some of “Cluetrain’s” mantras.
In the article, Erik Gordon, a professor of business at the University of Michigan, said, “Nothing is more valuable to Johnson & Johnson than the brand bond of trust with consumers.”
The Times’ story also includes the opinion of a blogger, a mother who questions and challenges Johnson & Johnson products after the recall: “I don’t even consider buying them anymore,” said the mom Thien-Kim Lam, who asserted her opinions in the blog DC Metro Moms in the post “Makers of Tylenol, I’m Disappointed in You,” to the Times.
And to rebuild the trust that Gordon maintains is so important between the company and its consumers, Johnson & Johnson representatives are responding and using the Internet to reassure and restore confidence in customers.
Bonnie Jacobs, a spokeswoman for the company, said the company “will invest the necessary resources and make whatever changes are needed to do so, and we will take the time to do it right.” The Times reported that Jacobs sent this message via e-mail, employing “Cluetrain’s” axioms of utilizing the Internet to a company’s benefit and opening and linking correspondence with its consumers.
Jacobs also told the Times that the company is planning to “take whatever steps are needed to ensure our products meet quality standards, including further recalls if warranted.”
And the site also provides accommodations for readers to comment and articulate their thoughts, just like Lam did in her blog post. Even if you leave just one comment on one story, you never know who will read, process and apply what you have to say. With around-the-clock, worldwide access of the Internet, anyone and everyone can read your post, bringing action to your cause, wants and desires.
This kind of dialogue between large corporations with thousands of employees and millions of customers trumps any kind of embellished or biased advertising and publicity. Discussion boards, e-mails, chat rooms, reviews on websites all help to tear down barriers between the ordinary patron and the executives and workers producing what we use and ingest.
In order to really bulldoze customer anxieties and strengthen faith in its products, Johnson & Johnson needs to establish a relationship with its consumers, as the Nigerian pastor, Sayo, from “Markets are Relationships” professes. Sayo’s story and advice early in “Cluetrain” reverberated and lingered as I continued reading the book. When we create and maintain more individualized connections, we care more about the people involved. The Internet facilitates conversation, and conversation opens the door to trust and relationships, two qualities currently lacking in Johnson & Johnson products.
While a multi-billion-dollar corporation may not be able to personally reach out to its customers all around the world, the Internet may be able to bridge this gap by equipping both parties with the means to speak candidly, naturally and without any reservations. This honest dialogue gives everyone the chance to listen and be heard. Companies can read customer complaints; witness their patrons’ true stories of tragedy, fear and blight; and do something about it. Corporations should take action not because they have to for their bank accounts and finances, but because their customers have communicated with them and shared their personal accounts, like you would with a friend or family member with whom you have a strong relationship.
Would you sell your close friend or loved one faulty medication?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)