Celeb-Crazed Nation

OK, I get it: Brad Pitt is one of People Magazine's "Sexiest People Alive". But seriously, is it really necessary for him to be a headline on CNN.com's homepage?

The article, whose headline is on the same list as a Clinton-Obama story as well as one about a mall shooting, is considered to be one of the most important stories on the website. I guess I just never understand America's obsession with celebrities. I mean, they're people. They're not the second-coming of the messiah. I believe People Magazine even has a section entitled "Stars Are Just Like Us!" Which shows fascinating pictures of celebrities such as Pitt or the Olsen twins doing things like picking their noses, changing a flat tire, or picking up dog poop. Riveting.

So in a world where there's war and genocide happening every day why are we so fascinated with celebrities? It is it to turn off our minds to the terrible things happening, just for a moment, or is it because we truly have lost sight of what's important?

News Feed

After the magazine 02138 published a less than flattering article about The Facebook father Mark Zuckerberg, he sued.

The story covers Zuckerberg's geeky wardrobe, cracking voice, and a lawsuit accusing him of stealing the Facebook idea from fellow Harvard students.

It is accompanied by documents that had been ordered "sealed" by a judge in his recent legal dispute. They include his handwritten Harvard application and an excerpt from his old online journal, "biting comments about himself and others".

Video Game Guru Luke O'Brien, the freelance reporter who wrote the article accompanying the revealing documents, denies any malicious intent. A court clerk apparently made a mistake by letting him read and photocopy the secret documents.

A federal judge ruled in the magazine's favor, and the article is still online, along with all of those juicy documents.

Are 02138 and O'Brien ethical? Should links to Zuckergerg's online journal and application to Harvard be published alongside an article making fun of him?

Read the article. I think the magazine went too far.

Day at the LSJ

Thinking about it, my afternoon at the LSJ turned out to be fairly depressing. The newsroom was struggling - not many seemed to really be into their job, except for the new guy who does multimedia, and there was a lot of complaining about menial pay and crap equipment (which is probably common in newsrooms).

Of course, there will always be an LSJ, at least for a while, but there lacked some serious excitement.

Are these newsrooms just step-up positions for young reporters looking for the cool job? What about the veterans there - are they just waiting on a pension?

It really made me think deeply about what I want to do with a journalism degree. I don't want to be a bitter sap 10 years from now wishing I had a "cool" job.

The Times Make Staffing Cuts

A little more on print vs. online journalism...While I and everyone else who pays attention to journalism trends is well aware that online news is becoming increasingly popular while the print medium is going down the tube, I wasn't entirely aware of the fact that large newspapers such as The New York Times were also suffering from the trend. Just last week the Times announced they would be cutting a significant amount of jobs from its newsroom, and a couple weeks prior, they announced a freeze on all new hires. I know they've run into some budget issues, but I'm still somewhat surprised to find that a paper with such a wide ranging audience and well respected reputation is still affected by the success of online journalism.

Get It Straight

In light of our pending broadcast efforts, I figured I should mention something that happened over the weekend with the quality journalists at ESPN.
Kirk Herbstreit, the former Ohio State quarterback turned football analyst, reported that his sources said Les Miles, the head coach of Louisiana State football, had taken the job to replace Lloyd Carr at U-M. The only problem is he hadn't.
Miles called a press conference specifically to deny these claims 20 minutes before his game against Tennessee for the SEC championship. Miles first heard of his new job from friends and had to clear the air with his team, university and everyone involved that he had not taken the job and was at LSU to stay.
Herbstreit says it was bad timing and LSU worked out a deal after he had spoken to his source and before he made the announcement.
Sure other publications speculated Miles would take the job, saying Miles was a near lock to join U-M because his best friend said he would, or that he couldnt pass an opportunity to coach his alma mater.
But, if they are going to break the story as fact, shouldn't a station as large and influential as ESPN leave the breaking news investigative journalism to actual journalists?

Slander doesn't hurt the famous

Does Don Imus deserve to be back on the air? After almost an eight-month hiatus, the radio personality is sorry about his racist comments to Rutgers women's basketball team, according to this CNN article. How much can a celebrity like Don Imus apologize until people think he is really sorry? Imus says his comments have changed his life for the better, but who's the sucker here?

Despite the four-year, $40 million contract with CBS he signed right before being fired for the comments in April, he is not announcing his salary at this time. Even if he is not making as much as before, he is rewarded with the same job back.

This leads to one conclusion: not every journalist will lose their job for good when exhibiting slander, especially if the source absolutely did not deserve it. Money is power in this business, not necessarily good judgement.

Stranger Than Fiction

This week in the news: A police officer in Washington State pulled over a man using a mannequin as his passenger to drive in the HOV lane, two hostages were taken at Hilary Clinton's campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire, and a British teacher was arrested in Sudan for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed".

You really can't make this stuff up.

In 2003, a New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, was caught fabricating material for many of his stories. He made up things like quotes, details, and odd behaviors that his sources supposedly displayed. All of this information could have been collected the right way- through an interview. Needless to say, he was caught and his career all but ended.

The sad thing is, many people he misrepresented in his stories didn't come forward because they beleived that most news stories had some stuff made up. Tabloids and the paparazzi give us a bad name for distorting the truth. Credibility is something that is earned, and once lost is hard to gain back. People like Jayson Blair break the eggshells that people in the business are already walking on.

So with all of the news out there that's already compelling, strange, and interesting, why do journalists feel the need to make stuff up?