Soliloquy of the Sasquatch

Big Thoughts from Bigfoot

  • Home
  • Web Resume
  • JEM 422 Home

Making Journalism Valuable: the Final Analysis

Posted by sasquatch678 on 05/01/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment
(Photo: Wiki Commons) Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been banned for life and fined $2.5 million by the NBA.

(Photo: Wiki Commons) Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been banned for life and fined $2.5 million by the NBA.

Buzzfeed: Ahead of the Curve

This lengthy column by Fox News on the racism and corruption of Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano’s revelation of some of his comments is a great example of watchdog journalism.

This is the owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers that we’re talking about here—the longest-tenured owner in the NBA, as a matter of fact.

And the representation of views in the article are nothing but harsh toward Sterling, but nonetheless they were the views of reputable opinion-leaders in our society. The author, Howard Kurtz, holds no bars in the relentless onslaught of the reputation of a man who apparently viewed himself as impervious to such attacks.

Kurtz reveals Sterling’s use of money, such as donating large sums to the NAACP, earning an award that has now been pulled by the LA chapter of the organization.

However, Kurtz does announce at the top and bottom of his column that he is a “liberal columnist,” so the attacks on a man embodying the corruption of big money may carry some bias. However, at the end of the day, it’s hard to say there’s much bias, as the long list of Sterling’s offenses speaks for itself.

The column also allows for a large degree of interactivity—readers can join in the discussion at the bottom of the page in the comments section, which displays the most recent comments for all to see. Also, there are links to share on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn and email.

Kurtz does his best to still display balance, as he brings in a number of sides—religious (Al Sharpton), behind the scenes of the Clippers organization (Elgin Baylor), the NAACP and other media outlets, such as TMZ, which obtained Stiviano’s damning tape. The video included also shows a photo of the Clippers wearing their jerseys inside out in protest against their owner, providing yet another perspective.

The layout of the story is very clear, as the most recent developing events are at the top, followed by a detailed history of Sterling’s wrongdoings.

 


This article by John Branch with the New York Times develops the story further than the first, as it was released after the NBA had banned Sterling for life and fined him $2.5 million.

This story takes a different approach than the Fox News political commentary approach, as it is in the sports section. Therefore, the initial focus is on NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s handling of the final decision and his statements, then going on to elaborate on this situation’s effect on the Clippers, who are still fighting for their lives in the NBA Playoffs.

Furthermore, as a news piece rather than a column, this story appears less biased, more balanced and less condemning of Sterling—the reader can come to that conclusion themselves, rather than being fed it like in the Fox column.

The use of photos evenly distributed throughout the story also keeps the reader more engaged. Fox News brought a more “wall of text” approach, which isn’t as appealing to the eye.

This article includes a comments section, but it is small and on the sidebar in the middle of the article—not an easy place to find it. I had to actively search in order to discover it. Also, the links to share are only at the top of the article, rather than top and bottom like the Fox and Buzzfeed works. In today’s age, you want to make interconnectivity as easy for the consumer as possible, and the New York Times struggles in that aspect.

 


This Buzzfeed article by Make Hayes brings an entirely different approach than the previous mainstream news outlets.

Rather than working from the present backward, Hayes briefly outlines the current situation with the NBA and David Sterling before backtracking to Sterling’s beginnings in a section-by-section analysis. The other two pieces did not divide the story out by subheadings like this article—“Who is Donald Sterling?” is followed by “How did Sterling make his money?” and “How did he become an NBA owner?”

This format allows the reader to follow his life in a forward-chronological (past to present) manner, which to some may be easier to follow and understand than the backward method employed by Fox News and the New York Times (present to past).

The article also appears the most balanced, as a section is dedicated to Sterling’s First Amendment rights in the situation. This provides more balance than the others, which simply tore Sterling apart.

Additionally, Buzzfeed dropped photos throughout the story—a big plus for the modern journalism consumer.

Buzzfeed also has the best layout for the comments section. Rather than listing the most recent comments, Buzzfeed lists the comments as a “Facebook conversation” with the comments receiving the most likes listed first. This makes the most sense for the audience, as the most widely supported views are often the most sought-after.


Taken as a whole, the Buzzfeed article does the best job with this story. This may come as a surprise to those who stick to the mass media outlets, but maybe Buzzfeed’s size is a greater impetus to put more work into best meeting the needs of consumers.

On the other hand, Buzzfeed is catering to a younger generation than the New York Times, which explains Buzzfeed’s much higher level of interactivity.

The layout is also more geared toward today’s generation of shorter attention spans, which could be why I, as a 22 year old, prefer the way Buzzfeed does things.

However, it is the job of the media to stay up-to-date with technological innovations and societal developments like these, and Buzzfeed takes the cake there. The mammoth organizations should ought to take note and get with the times.

Advertisements

RUSSIA’S TRADING PLACES GAME

Posted by sasquatch678 on 04/15/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/storymapjs/latest/embed/?url=https://www.googledrive.com/host/0BzmYh8GMElTWV2ZjeWlUUXh2bVk/published.json


 

Data used for story, pulled from peoplemov.in:

Exchanging Country Moving from Russia to ___________ Moving to Russia from _________________ Net Gain for Russia Migration Corridor Total
Ukraine 3,684,217 3,647,234 -36,983 7,331,451
Kazakhstan 2,226,706 2,648,315 421,609 4,875,502
Belarus 680,497 958,719 278,222 1,639,216
Uzbekistan 404,356 940,539 640,943 1,344,895
Azerbaijan 50,007 866,843 816,836 916,850
Georgia 109,968 644,390 534,422 754,358
Tajikistan 191,754 392,446 200,692 584,200
Kyrgyzstan 87,762 474,882 387,120 562,644
Armenia 32,993 493,126 460,133 526,119
Moldova 147,802 284,330 136,528 432,132
Germany 299,596 N/A (too small) Decrease N/A
USA 421,459 N/A (too small) Decrease N/A
Israel 712,261 N/A (too small) Decrease N/A

 

Russian population: 139,390,205

Russian total immigrants: 12,270,388

% of population: 8.8%

Highest immigrating countries:

1)   Ukraine

2)   Kazakhstan

3)   Belarus

4)   Uzbekistan

5)   Azerbaijan 866,843

6)   Georgia 644,390

7)   Armenia 493,126

8)   Kyrgyzstan 474,882

9)   Tajikistan 392,446

10)                  Moldova 284,330

 

Russian emigrants: 11,034,681

John Seigenthaler “very proud” of eponymous bridge, calls Internet “flawed”

Posted by sasquatch678 on 04/08/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment
image-2

Seigenthaler will be recognized in a ceremony April 29.

Renowned journalist John Seigenthaler spoke Tuesday at the University of Tennessee, discussing the renaming of Nashville’s Shelby Street Bridge as Seigenthaler Bridge, among other topics

The change, passed by Metro Council on April 1, according to The Tennessean, recognizes Seigenthaler’s 29-year career as the top editor of the paper while also remembering the time the journalist saved a man from jumping off the same bridge.

Seigenthaler said he was “very proud” to receive such an honor, which will be bestowed in a ceremony on April 29.

The talk also came only weeks after Tennessee House Republicans pulled legislation condemning UT’s Sex Week, which took place in early March. The event includes education on venereal diseases, premarital pregnancy and is “LGBTQ-friendly,” according to the week’s website. House Republicans moved to suppress the week, calling it “outrageous.”

UT President Joe DiPietro and student leaders took the stance Sex Week is protected by the First Amendment, while Republican lawmakers sought to limit university spending in retaliation, according to the Knox News Sentinel.

As the founder of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, such an issue takes hold with someone like Seigenthaler. In a recent conversation with the Nashville Arts Magazine, he reacted to the issue.

Seigenthaler: "The internet is a wonder world at our fingertips, but it is flawed."

Seigenthaler: “The internet is a wonder world at our fingertips, but it is flawed.”

“It’s tougher today to identify discrimination [in today’s world],” said Seigenthaler.

The whole world has changed because so many young people who previously would not come out of the closet now are out. I think the next big challenge is for this society to come to grips with the reality of where the next generation is.”

In today’s talk, to an audience heavily populated by students and faculty of the same university the state’s legislature sought to stifle, Seigenthaler hinted at such a point of contention.

“The only problems [with how we interpret the First Amendment right now] are those that restrict our ability to express ourselves,” said Seigenthaler.

He also fielded questions about the nature of the Internet as a means of communication in today’s world. As the world moves ever more into the “E world,” it becomes necessary to recognize the flawed nature of this form of communication.

photo 1

Seigenthaler: “The only problems [with how we interpret the First Amendment right now] are those that restrict our ability to express ourselves

“I honestly believe that if most people can come to understand the downside and be aware of the trap [of the Internet],” said Seigenthaler, “in ten years more people will be aware that this is a flawed means of communication. The result will be better.”

This take on the Internet, or the “wonder world… way of the future,” is tempered by Seigenthaler’s experience with Wikipedia.

The journalist was administrative assistance to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in the early 60’s. This fact was included in his Wikipedia biography—which also named Seigenthaler as a chief suspect in the murders of both Robert and President John F. Kennedy. The bio also claimed he defected to the Soviet Union when nothing could be proven against him. These falsities led Seigenthaler on a mission to right this “Internet character assassination.”

As a pallbearer at Robert Kennedy’s funeral in 1968, Seigenthaler was upset by these attacks on his reputation. He tried every investigative technique to get behind the damaging five-sentence bio, which he discovered in 2005.

Eventually, he called Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and requested the removal of the falsehoods. Wales called the words part of the “Internet democracy” and had them removed from the page, but not from the Internet entirely—they are still archived.

However, Wales did advise Seigenthaler to file a John Doe lawsuit against the Internet service provider of the perpetrator—BellSouth. Upon contacting the company, Seigenthaler was told it is against company policy to release the information.

The Communication Decency Act says “Online information service providers shall not, under this law, be treated as publishers or broadcasters,” according to Seigenthaler. This means if you’re an information service provider like Wikipedia, Google, AOL, etc., that you can’t be sued for libel, which allows for researchers to be misled.

photo 2

Seigenthaler was falsely labeled the chief suspect in the murders of Robert and John F. Kennedy and accused of raping Jackie Kennedy by Wikipedia posters.

Rather than sue BellSouth for the identity of the guilty party and then sue that individual, Seigenthaler “knocked Wikipedia’s ass off in [a USA Today editorial].

“Within 24 hours, all hell broke loose,” said Seigenthaler.

He was flooded with messages from others reporting similar issues with Wikipedia. His profile was inundated with even more ludicrous accusations, including that he had raped First Lady Jackie Kennedy.

Wales was forced to lock his page, preventing further malicious posts.

With the help of Daniel Brandt and his startup Wikipedia Watch, the initial mystery poster was uncovered. Wikipedia Watch tracked the IP of the poster to Rush Delivery, a company in Nashville. In December 2005, Brian Chase admitted to the post that spawned the whole controversy and had caused him to lose his job.

“I don’t get on Wikipedia much anymore,” said Seigenthaler.

 

image

A provision of the Communication Decency Act allows researchers to be misled, according to Seigenthaler.


John Seigenthaler, former publisher of The Tennessean, the first editorial director of USA Today, and now director of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, speaks at the University of Tennessee at 1 p.m. Tune in right here for live coverage of the event!


 

12:59
Renowned journalist John Seigenthaler, director of the First Amendment Center in Nashville is speaking in #JEM499 at the University of Tennessee in 2 minutes. Tune in now for live coverage of the event! #SeigenthalerSpeaks
  Edit   Delete Entry
1:02
Seigenthaler served in the Justice Department under Robert Kennedy, working on their dealing with the Civil Rights Movement. He was in Alabama standing up to the violence occurring there, which nearly got him killed.
1:03
The Shelby Street Bridge in Nashville will be known as the Seigenthaler Bridge as of April 29.
1:03
Seigenthaler had an unpleasant encounter with Wikipedia.. details to follow.
1:05
Seigenthaler: “I’m very proud of [the bridge being named after me].”
1:08
Seigenthaler: “I don’t get on Wikipedia much anymore.” He received a phone call from Victor Johnson, now deceased, who says, “I want you to Google your own name.” He found a five sentence bio of himself, the first sentence saying he was Administrative Assistant to Robert Kennedy in the 60’s.
1:09
The second sentence–after the death’s of John and Robert Kennedy, Seigenthaler was the chief suspect. Nothing was ever proved, and he defected to the Soviet Union.
1:10
Seigenthaler: “Why would anybody do this, who would do this to me and for what reason?” So he decided to find out.
1:11
Seigenthaler decided not to sue, but felt they at least owed an answer for saying such things. He was Robert Kennedy’s pall bearer at his funeral in 1968…
1:11
Seigenthaler tried every investigative technique he could to get behind the five sentence biography, but he couldn’t do it.
1:14
Seigenthaler called the founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales to claim wrongdoing and ask for removal of the falsities. Wales claims the statements are part of their internet democracy and can archive it.
1:15
Wales then has the words removed from the page, but they were still archived. He claimed the post was anonymous and there’s no way to find out who did it except one–the I.P. address.
1:16
Wales: All you have to do is file a John Doe lawsuit with your server (BellSouth) and take them to court, and BellSouth will be asked by the judge to reveal the identity of the culprit.
1:17
Seigenthaler contacts BellSouth directly, who claim it’s against company policy to reveal who entered the information.
1:18
Six months later, Seigenthaler decided to write a piece in USA Today about how Wikipedia publishes false information. “I just knocked Wikipedia’s ass off in this piece. Within 24 hours, all hell broke loose.”
1:19
He was flooded with emails, letters and phone calls from people facing similar issues, as well as from Wikipedia. This goes on for five months.
1:19
The crown–an accusation that Seigenthaler had raped Jackie Kennedy.
1:20
Wales blocked Seigenthaler’s page on Wikipedia, not allowing anyone to post these malicious non-facts.
1:20
Daniel Brandt calls Seigenthaler about his startup Wikipedia Watch, which takes down the lies and corrects them. It also helps track the offender to Rush Delivery.
1:22
By this time, the USA Today story resulted in many of Seigenthaler’s friends in journalism trying to help him.
1:23
A man left a letter in Seigenthaler’s office on December 15 confessing that he did it as a joke, that he had been fired from Rush Delivery, the IP the attacks stemmed from, and he apologized for his actions.
1:25
Fuzzy Zeller, a professional golfer, was accused on Wikipedia of being a drug addict, alcoholic, and had been convicted of abusing children and his spouse. His lawyer called Seigenthaler to tell him they were going to file a John Doe lawsuit.
1:26
They trace the Zeller defamation to a PR agency in Florida via their IP. They claim no knowledge. Zeller’s lawyer and an investigator interview every employee and can’t find out who did it.
1:27
Zeller was forced to drop the lawsuit.
1:28
David Atkins, or the comedian Sinbad, has also been attacked on Wikipedia. His job depends on people’s knowledge that he is alive, but Wikipedia has claimed that he has been killed numerous times.
1:28
Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident
The Wikipedia biography controversy, also called the Seigenthaler incident, was a series of events that began in May 2005 with the anonymous posting of a hoax article in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia about John Seigenthaler, a well-known American journalist.
1:28
John Seigenthaler
John Lawrence Seigenthaler (; born July 27, 1927) is an American journalist, writer, and political figure.
1:29
Seigenthaler: “Wikipedia has killed Sinbad over 200 times.”
1:32
Chase Masterson’s (Christianne Carafano) dating board post lists her exact measurements and what kind of sex she likes–things she has never revealed. She sues Metro Splash and the dating board.
1:33
The Communication Decency Act has one section not struck down, which says “Online information service providers shall not, under this law, be treated as publishers or broadcasters.” This means if you’re an information service provider like Wikipedia, Google, AOL, etc., that you can’t be sued for libel.
1:34
The person that files the posting, however, can be sued for libel. Nonetheless, the only way to get this person’s name is to bring suit against the service provider to get their name, then file suit against the offender.
1:35
Since then, a body of law has developed around the ruling in this case.
1:36
Seigenthaler: This provision of the Communication Decency Act makes it possible for you to be misled in online research.
1:37
In Seigenthaler’s article in USA Today, he said “Wikipedia is a world populated by people that post reliable information, as well as those who are poison-penned intellects determined to abuse their privileges and write false and salacious material.”
1:38
The internet is a “wonder world at our finger tips, but is flawed.”
1:39
Seigenthaler: “If we are to have media that is reliable, old values like accuracy, balance, and depth are going to be vital–for journalists online in the future, or in print or broadcast.”
1:40
Seigenthaler: “Since starting my career in 1949, I’ve never sat down to write a story that was on the cutting edge of controversy without checking the facts and sometimes calling the newspaper’s lawyer to make sure I was protected.”
1:40
“As careful as I was as a reporter, I’ve been sued. We won because we had good, expensive lawyers, but” the situation was still always tough.
1:41
Seigenthaler: “I relied on those old values of accuracy, balance and depth–much of my work was so borderline that lawyering the story became part of the process, so that I could expose what needed to be exposed while also protecting myself from lawsuits.”
1:42
Seigenthaler: “The E world is a wonder world. It is the way of the future. There is no television station, network, newspaper, magazine with a news program that DOES NOT recognize that online is where the action is going to be.”
1:43
Seigenthaler: “To ensure your credibility and be accountable, dedicate yourself to commit to the age old values of accuracy, balance and depth.”
1:46
Seigenthaler: “I’m committed to maintaining the First Amendment without amendment. I don’t want to make it easier to sue anybody.”
1:47
Seigenthaler: “I don’t want to use my own grievance to change the law and make it more difficult for people to post what they like to post.”
1:48
Seigenthaler: “I honestly believe that if most people can come to understand the downside and be aware of the trap, in ten years more people will be aware that this is a flawed means of communication. The result will be better.”
1:49
Seigenthaler: “I’d prefer for more people to understand that their own accountability depends on their ability to post facts and true statements that are founded in some rationale that you can support realistically.”
1:51
Seigenthaler: “The only problems [with how we interpret the First Amendment right now] are those that restrict our ability to express ourselves. The First Amendment is not absolute. It does not protect obscenity, libel, or falsehoods. I think enough protections are there; there are places you know can’t go and if you do go, odds are strong that you will face the expense of a suit and money damages.”
1:52
Seigenthaler: “In all my years as a journalist, the realization of that was a bit of a deterrent.”
1:54
Seigenthaler: “Your legal protection is there if you have been wronged, ad infinitum.”
1:56
Seigenthaler: “I think the court has closed its eyes to the reality. Money buys not only speech, but also elections at times. That defeats democracy, and I’m hopeful that at some point there will be limits on money and speech, as there are with speech.”
1:56
“I’d be more comfortable if more determination was based on what’s rational and real, not by what the courts decide.”
1:57
If a third party wants to support you with their money, the situation becomes more complex. Money is speech, but it’s also needed for elections.
1:58
Money buys speech, and speech may be libelous. It gets borderline when it’s a political message, and they can be designed to demean and undermine the opposing candidate.
1:59
The Herald Ford campaign in Tennessee a few years back had a 10-second spot with his wife. The ad was never taken off the air, but some people believe it should have been. ?
2:00
That’s all for today’s lecture.

 

McDonald’s debuts Vietnam drive-thru, McPork

Posted by sasquatch678 on 03/11/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Big Mac, Burger King, District 1, Forbes, Henry Nguyen, Ho Chi Minh City, McDonald's, McPork, NY Daily News, Saigon, Vietnam. Leave a comment

McDonald’s debuts Vietnam drive-thru, McPork

McDonald’s, the largest fast-food chain in the world, opened its first restaurant today in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam–the first-ever drive-thru in the country. Furthermore, the food retailer will launch the McPork line of burgers to reflect local Vietnamese tastes.

The rise of the age of drones

Posted by sasquatch678 on 02/28/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

The rise of the age of drones

Screen Shot 2014-02-28 at 6.17.10 PM

Sources

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/12/the-drone-age-is-here-and-so-are-the-lawyers/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/this-amazing-footage-shows-why-drone-journalism-is-about-to

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/what-new-faa-plans-will-mean-to-the-future-of-drone-journalism/

http://www.techinasia.com/philippines-drones-news-reporting-rescue-operations/

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/246013511.html

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/237649/journalists-await-new-drone-regulations-and-wait-and-wait/

Peer to Patent crowdsourcing project aids patent reviews

Posted by sasquatch678 on 02/25/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

New York Law School’s Peer to Patent utilizes crowdsourcing to facilitate the patent application process by harnessing the power of the masses to research prior art to ensure originality in applicants’ works.

This system operates more similarly to the Next Stop Design project in that some level of expertise is required. While some architecture or engineering knowledge is greatly helpful in Next Stop Design, Peer to Patent relies on some level of legal expertise in the review of patents.

However, it is similar to Free the Files in that there is a portion of the review which nearly any person is capable of contributing to—the actual digging for past works.

The final examination is completed by an expert examiner who isn’t so much part of the “crowd” part of crowdsourcing in comparison with the base researchers. This portion differs from both projects we analyzed in that yes, an expert reviews the information, as in the selection process in Next Stop Design, but the process more closely resembles Free the Files in its review of documents.

Reviewers are motivated by the potential to be recognized by the examiner for outstanding work, which can aid in their career while being extrinsically motivating.

This project allows greater participation, and thereby democracy, in the patent reviews process. If a citizen wishes to have a voice in the legal system, this is one direct avenue to accomplish that goal. This help also quickens the trudging, burdensome patent review process, which is intrinsically motivating. For more information on Peer to Patent, click here.

Study: romantic movies could save new marriages

Posted by sasquatch678 on 02/11/2014
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

A new study led by University of Rochester Professor Ronald Rogge has uncovered an effective, alternative marriage therapy–a self-help exercise in which couples watch and discuss romantic movies.

With marriages failing at an alarming rate, researchers have discovered a successful, perhaps less scary, alternative to relationship workshops—a movie-and-talk approach.

A study led by Ronald Rogge, associate professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, concluded that watching and talking about five romantic movies was just as effective as the use of conflict management techniques or compassion and acceptance training.

Each of the three study groups mentioned above “halved the divorce-and-separation to 11 percent compared to the 24 percent rate among the couples in the control group… [which] received no training or instructions,” according to the study.

The benefit of discussing romantic movies with your partner lies in that it’s a “self-help” type of therapy.

“You might not be able to get your husband into a couples group, especially when you are happy,” said Rogge. “But watching a movie together and having a discussion, that’s not so scary.”

Why the need for an alternative?

Divorce rate estimates are hovering around 45 percent, according to Paul Amato, professor of family sociology and demography at Pennsylvania State University.

Other types of alternative marriage therapy

This study is not alone in its efforts to solve the marriage crisis via innovative approaches.

Do you want your marriage to last? Read my latest story [insert URL]. #EndDivorceNotMarriage

Recently married? Headed that way? Check this out [insert URL]. #EndDivorceNotMarriage

Posts navigation

← Older Entries
  • Follow me on Twitter

    My Tweets
  • Recent Posts

    • Making Journalism Valuable: the Final Analysis
    • RUSSIA’S TRADING PLACES GAME
    • John Seigenthaler “very proud” of eponymous bridge, calls Internet “flawed”
    • McDonald’s debuts Vietnam drive-thru, McPork
    • The rise of the age of drones
  • Recent Comments

  • Archives

    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • June 2013
  • Categories

    • Uncategorized
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.com
  • Advertisements
Blog at WordPress.com.
Soliloquy of the Sasquatch
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Cancel