The tragic event that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech on the morning of Apr. 16, 2007 has opened my eyes to several things. First, I am again reminded of the importance of living each day to the fullest, as we never know what tomorrow will bring. Second, I understood that one person can effect the mindset of an entire nation, Finally, I realized first-hand that current technology has made news from many miles away available within hours.
Though I will take the first two eye-openers very seriously and apply them to my daily life, I will further address the third one as it relates to the purpose of this blog.
In realizing the vast ability of current technology to not only get breaking news out across the world, but also be updated constantly, I am somewhat discouraged. Even though I believe that yesterday's tragedy deserves to be adequately reported, I would rather have heard the story in its entirety this morning rather than in bits and pieces yesterday afternoon. Why? I found myself alternating between one online news source and another every twenty minutes (while at work, mind you) in order to find out the latest break on the story or a different approach to reporting it.
If countless sources report the same story at different times and in different ways, how does the media serve its purpose in keeping the public as a whole informed. When a group of nine women meet for a religious small group and each has a different understanding of the same tragic event, I don't think we have been adequately done justice by the media.
For the family and friends of all those affected by this tragedy, you are in my thoughts and prayers. May God be with you in your time of need.
Disclaimer: Specific links other than that provided for Virgina Tech are inadequate for this blog, but the details of the event can be found at nearly every online news source.
4.17.2007
4.12.2007
Minor Relief (from my disgust)
As I sit here typing my required blog for the week, I am still in a sour mood from today's class session. Fifteen minutes of watching a classmate play Grand Theft Auto followed by yet another episode of South Park did not constitute an ideal setting for me to discuss libertarian philosophy. Although I will not go as far as saying the experience was intolerable, I will admit it was not enjoyable.
For this reason, I did some online research about news with respect to libertarianism. Much to my liking, I found numerous sources of individual and group blogs or websites written by people who take a libertarian perspective on issues in the news. My favorite is a blog written by Jerry Brito, a Washington, D.C. lawyer.
In reading Brito's personal blog, I was able to get a libertarian perspective on many important issues in the news without a trace of vulgar language or satirization of individuals or entire races. Brito's approach to addressing important issues achieved the same end goal as what South Park claims, and it accomplished that goal in a much more pleasing ethical manner than South Park. I applaud Jerry Brito.
Story of interest from Brito's blog: http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042233.php#comments
For this reason, I did some online research about news with respect to libertarianism. Much to my liking, I found numerous sources of individual and group blogs or websites written by people who take a libertarian perspective on issues in the news. My favorite is a blog written by Jerry Brito, a Washington, D.C. lawyer.
In reading Brito's personal blog, I was able to get a libertarian perspective on many important issues in the news without a trace of vulgar language or satirization of individuals or entire races. Brito's approach to addressing important issues achieved the same end goal as what South Park claims, and it accomplished that goal in a much more pleasing ethical manner than South Park. I applaud Jerry Brito.
Story of interest from Brito's blog: http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042233.php#comments
4.06.2007
Photoshopping
As the ethics of editing photographs came up in a discussion of the recent lottery winner from Maine, I want to put my two cents in on this ethical matter.
Peer blogger, Connor Moore, has it right in saying that it is the duty of photographers to understand what messages are taken from their photographs. Rightfully so, some circumstances would permit slight editing to ensure that the best possible message is portrayed.
In the situation discussed in a recent National Press Photographers Association article, much controversy has been raised over editing out a pair of legs from a photograph before running it in the newspaper. This detail was uncovered merely because several local papers ran the same photograph, and I think the situation has been blown extremely out of proportion.
Something as minute as editing out a pair of legs in the background of a shot cannot possibly constitute as an ethical sin of journalism. Sure, photographers tread in rough water when it comes to drawing the line in when and when not to edit photographs; however, it is acceptable to make minor alterations to improve the aesthetic quality of a photograph as long as the main subject is portrayed in a truthful light. The photographers duty is to publish the best photographs possible for the story. With or without that pair of legs, the shot of the baseball team still communicates the same message, and I would call that fine and well in my ethical standard manual.
Peer blogger, Connor Moore, has it right in saying that it is the duty of photographers to understand what messages are taken from their photographs. Rightfully so, some circumstances would permit slight editing to ensure that the best possible message is portrayed.
In the situation discussed in a recent National Press Photographers Association article, much controversy has been raised over editing out a pair of legs from a photograph before running it in the newspaper. This detail was uncovered merely because several local papers ran the same photograph, and I think the situation has been blown extremely out of proportion.
Something as minute as editing out a pair of legs in the background of a shot cannot possibly constitute as an ethical sin of journalism. Sure, photographers tread in rough water when it comes to drawing the line in when and when not to edit photographs; however, it is acceptable to make minor alterations to improve the aesthetic quality of a photograph as long as the main subject is portrayed in a truthful light. The photographers duty is to publish the best photographs possible for the story. With or without that pair of legs, the shot of the baseball team still communicates the same message, and I would call that fine and well in my ethical standard manual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)