"We're Capturing the First Drafts of History."

WHAT DID YOU THINK of our guest, Jim MacMillan?

Here are a few things that stood out for me:

- "Wherever physical casualties occur, there will be psychological injuries," Jim said, quoting from one of his former professors.

- Don't stand under power lines at fires and crash sites.

- Jim stressed that there is a possibility of retraumatizing the audience by replaying video and sound, or by showing images, or through words in print. For instance, this picture could bring back difficult memories for those involved:
Was the image of the crying victims exploitation or good, solid journalism? Is showing images of crime perpetuating violence or helping to eradicate it?

Thoughts?

Did the Media Fall For a PR Stunt?

JON STEPHENSON told us that the images transmitted around the world of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue were really a giant public relations stunt.

The event conveniently took place near the hotels where the media were staying. There were loads of American military around (look carefully at the image below ... there are numerous tanks) to ensure the safety of the media so they could cover the event.
What should the media do in this situation? Should they document the event and announce that it felt like a PR stunt? Or do they simply cover the event and trust that the viewers and readers will understand what was going on?

Please pass along your thoughts, as well as any thoughts on John's visit in general.

How Far Will You Go To Get A Story, Part II?

IN CASE YOU ZONED when Barry Levine mentioned the lengths his reporters went to track down John Edwards, this clip explains the event.

Did the reporters go too far in hounding Edwards through the Beverly Hills Hotel, chasing him into a bathroom? Or is that good dogged journalism?

Should Journalists Vote For Baseball Awards?

PHILLIES FIRST BASEMAN Ryan Howard finished second in the voting for National League Most Valuable Player.

The people who voted? Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Inquirer sports columnist Phil Sheridan declined to vote because, as he wrote, "It is ethically indefensible for the journalists who cover baseball to vote for official awards that have an impact on players' financial rewards."

Should the people covering the teams decide who gets the awards? Can the journalists remain objective? Aren't they just going to vote for their hometown stars?

How Far Will You Go To Get A Story?

THINK YOU'RE TOO good for tabloid news?

Do you think that the gossip rags exploit our thespians and musicians, invading their privacy for the sole purpose of titillating the Wal-Mart loving masses?

Well, what if they do?

In recent years, the National Enquirer has sold more than a million copies per week AND it has broken major stories that were then picked up by the mainstream press.

For instance, the Enquirer broke the story of former presidential candidate John Edwards having an affair (and baby!) while his wife was ill with cancer.

On Tuesday, Enquirer executive editor Barry Levine, a 1981 TU Journalism grad, will discuss celebrity journalism, the Edwards affair and how far he'll go to get a story.

Should be fun stuff (and lots of potential material for the Issues Facing Journalism paper).

Is Paris Hilton Newsworthy?

WHAT DID YOU THINK of the MSNBC clip that Byron showed you this morning?

Was the anchor wrong in refusing to deliver Paris Hilton news? Isn't it the job of the journalist to provide information that people want?

Or was she correct in refusing? Do you think that journalists should ignore (or downplay) celebrity news (and gossip), especially when there are arguably larger news stories happening?

What would you have done?

(By the way, Barry Levine, the executive editor of the National Enquirer, will speak during our next session, on 11/18).

Can You Hear Me Now?

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA visited the White House this week and met with current president George W. Bush.

Afterward, Obama flew back to Chicago, with a pack of media folks on the plane.

At one point, Obama was on a cell phone and reporters could hear him talking.

"I am not going to be spending too much time in Washington over the next several weeks," said Obama according to the Washington Post, adding that he did not want to "go lurching so far in one direction" and wanted to come up with "some good, solid, sensible options."

Should the Washington Post and other reporters have used that information?

It was not a private moment that was declared off the record. And the man is going to be president of the country in two months. Isn't just about everything he does newsworthy?

Or should he expect some level of privacy?

Would you have used the quotes?

Note To Future Journalists: Wait to Get Drunk Until After Filing Your Story (And Always Avoid a Dutchman With a Camera).

I HAVE NO idea what to say about this.

But I couldn't stop watching it.

Is This Offensive?

THE CHICAGO READER, an alternative weekly, ran the above image as their cover of the post-election issue. And as soon as it hit the streets, people freaked out.

"Callers told me we're assuming he'll screw up because he's black," Reader editor Alison True wrote.

Is the image going too far?

And what about the image below, which would have been their cover if John McCain won the election?

"The Next President" or "The First Black President?"

RACE HAS REMAINED an underlying issue during the presidential campaign that concluded tonight with the election of Barack Obama.

But does it diminish the achievements of president-elect Obama to label him as the "First Black President?"

On one hand, it is most certainly an historic event.

On the other hand, he wasn't elected because he is African-American. He was elected because the majority of Americans believe in him and his mission.

Should the media refrain from focusing on his race? Or should they champion the progress this election represents?

UPDATE: AN OP/ED WRITER IN the 11/9 Sunday Inquirer writes:

The ritual preface of the word black in front of every achievement or breakthrough by an African American is insulting, condescending and minimizes their achievement. It maintains and reinforces the very racial separation that much of America claims it is trying to get past.

Do you agree? Disagree?

From World Series to Two Years in Jail?

THIS IS NOT ANOTHER BASEBALL POST. This is a First Amendment situation.

Today, the Supreme Court will begin hearing a case regarding the FCC and their rules on "fleeting expletives."

Essentially, the case revolves around U2 singer (and new New York Times columnist) Bono. During the 2002 Golden Globes Award ceremony, which was broadcast live, he said, "This is really, really, fucking brilliant. Really, really great."

The FCC warned NBC, who broadcast the awards, that they could be fined in the future if something like this happened again. And they could face two years in prison.

Should Chase Utley go to prison for his "fleeting expletive" during the Phillies World Series celebration? Or is the FCC just trying to ruin the new Phillies dynasty?

Chase Utley: Role Model or Potty Mouth?

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, the media are the standard bearers of society when it comes to language. What is said regularly in print, online and over the airwaves becomes commonplace in public.

So what do you think about our World Series champion second baseman who dropped an f-bomb on live television (and live radio)?

Should someone be punished for this and if so, who?

(I promise this will be the last Phillies related post for a while)

I Was There The Day We Were Kings.

AN ESTIMATED TWO million people crowded Market and South Broad Streets to watch the 2008 World Series champion Phillies roll down to the the stadiums where they were feted like kings.

Whether you are a sports fan or not, it was an historic day.

Where were you? And do you think this will change the attitude of Philadelphians?