Saturday, May 3, 2008

Question 1: Civic Journalism definitely needs to be practiced more in the US. According to the Pew Center for Civic Journalism their definition of Civic Journalism is: "Civic Journalism is both philosophy and a set of values supported by some evolving techniques to reflect both of these in your journalism. At it's heart is a belief that journalism has an obligation to public life- an obligation that goes beyond just telling the news or unloading lots of facts. The way we do our journalism affects the way public life. Journalism can help empower a community or it can help disable it." I believe that Civic Journalism helps the people in the communities we live in because the main purpose of Civic Journalism is to inform the people around us with what's going on where they live.

Question 2: I kinda do agree with the article in regard to what journalists stand for. I especially agree with this statement "They uphold the publics right to know, a spirit of openness and honestly in the conduct of public business, the free flow of information and ideas, along with truthfulness, accuracy, balance and fair play in the news." I feel like civic journalism is suppose to do exactly that. I think over time journalism in the United States has changed. Everything from news to the way it's reported has changed. As technology expands so does the way we report the news. It use to be where we turned on the news or read the paper to see what's going on in the world but, now today we can go online and read the news in our state and across the world. I think the journalist today need to stop focusing on news like Britney Spears having a break down and Miley Cyrus posing in a bed sheet for Vanity Fair and focus more on the war and other things that are happening around the US. When I want my entertainment news I will go to Perez Hilton, TMZ, or but, I don't want to turn on the Fox 5 10pm news and have the main story be the controversy of Miley Cyrus being 15 years old and taking pictures topless and in a bed sheet. Recently I was watching the view and they had the actor Johnny Galecki (David from Rosanne, and currently on the show CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory) was asked about his opinion of Miley Cyrus he said "With all this talk I thought the war was over. We don't need to focus on this when there is a war going on." I couldn't agree with him more! Each day we have soldiers dying overseas but, the media won't cover it because it's too morbid. It's our duty as journalists to cover all the important news and I think that the war and how many soldiers die each day should be something they cover and not just a small beat in the New York Times each day.

Question 3: I agree with the article about what is journalism suppose to be. I probably have experienced community journalism and just didn't realize that's what it was called. I would defintely take place in a community journalism. I actually applied for a job that needs someone for community based journalism. I forgot the exact title but, I think it's interesting to see how different communities do things especially on Long Island because there are so many towns but, places like Queens it's harder to find a strong community. For example when I grew up and lived in Queens till I was in high school. In Middle Village and Fresh Meadows (the two parts I lived in) there was hardly any community involvement. The neighbors stayed to themselves and no one really knew anyone. But, when I moved to Malverne I found the community extreamly tight. Everyone seems to know everyone. When walking down the street people say hi, and the cops who know me say hi in the morning and when I'm out late at night on my block walking or just talking on the phone they make sure I'm safe and always are checking up. Even though I loved growing up in Queens the community in Long Island is a million times better.


Hello CEI,

Over the course of the semester, all of you have been engaged in some form of civic engagement. You may have done so at your placement, in class, on-air, or in everyday life. In addition, each of you acquires information from multiple sources such as the internet, television, print, or some form of technology. As students here at SUNY, there are many outlets where one may report on nearly any topic, informing the masses. Students should participate in some form civic journalism. Here, the practice of civic journalism continues to be a work in progress, in other regions this form of dissemination of information is more popular.

Below is an article relative to civic journalism in Singapore. Please read the following article, and conduct your research from other sources to answer the following THREE questions, and site those as needed:

1. Do you feel that Civic Journalism should be practiced more the United States? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree with this article with regards ‘to what journalists stand for’? Why or why not? What do you feel journalists stand for here in the United States? What topics should journalists cover of, and why?

3. As we continue to get most of our information electronically, newspapers in the United States have witnessed a decrease in readers. Radio listenership has decreased. The fate of the future in the journalism and broadcast environments are constantly evolving in its pursuit of redefinition. As you become a part of that pursuit, and play a role in this arenas evolution, do you agree with this article that journalists should ‘connect with readers… and blog… and create community projects’? Why or why not? Have you ever witnessed or participated in any form of community journalism, and would you personally in the future? Why or why not?

Ensure you answer these questions in there entirety. Please take some time and invest some critical thinking skills in your answers.

One, or two lined answers will not be accepted.

Good luck and take care.

~ JM


STATE OF SINGApore journalisM

What we need to do so as not to become irrelevant, ineffective
Weekend • April 19, 2008
Loh Chee Kong

MAKE no mistake, Singapore journalism is at a crossroads — and it is still searching for the way forward.Lack of reader excitement for its best works. A rising cynicism with politics and journalism. A growing feeling that the craft needs a reinvention as it tries to interest people in the news of the day.These would not look out of place as descriptions of the journalism scene in Singapore, except that this was exactly what had happened in the United States in the 1990s.But the difference was that the Americans decided to do something about it. Community newspapers polled the residents and held townhall meetings, and they realized what they perhaps suspected all along: Newspapers are viewed as arrogant, negative and detached from the community. The end product was a growing consciousness of public or civic journalism, where the work of the press is restyled to re-engage the public.In Singapore, the industry's response so far appears to be an attempt to make itself look good by window-dressing.Cue marketing efforts going into overdrive with revamps and makeovers without giving the same amount of attention to content.These changes should be extended to address fundamental questions, such as what Singapore journalists are for. Why do we need journalists? What do we stand for? What could we be doing if we wanted to do more?Singapore society has evolved since 1959, when then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew restructured The Straits Times and designated the press' role as a "nation-building partner".But some might say, journalism is still playing catch-up, with newspapers trying to cling to the promised land of financial viability that a stable and prosperous country would bring.What do journalists stand for? To quote Associate Professor Jay Rosen, a journalism academic who wrote the 1999 book What are Journalists For?, they "uphold the public's right to know, a spirit of openness and honesty in the conduct of public business, the free flow of information and ideas, along with truthfulness, accuracy, balance and fair play in the news".Before any cynic proclaims that these tenets of journalism are unworkable in Singapore, let us be clear that a self-defeatist attitude would get the journalism industry nowhere.Indeed, for a country that prides itself on its honest governance and transparency, there is no reason journalism should accept anything less.It is clear that the press in Singapore has limited powers and expressedly so. Laws such as the Internal Security Act and the Official Secrets Act keep journalists and editors in check while the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act empowers the Government to determine the composition of a newspaper company's board of directors.But why should that stop Singapore journalists from practicing meaningful journalism?In fact, journalists must be at the forefront of asking the critical questions — simply because of their privileged position, which allows them to go to places or see things few people do.For one, the press should try to help reconnect politics and government and make sure that the public's right to hear its concerns is discussed.One school of thought, echoed by Assoc Prof Rosen, is that "if politics and public affairs become a distant scene with sordid characters unable to earn our respect, a closed loop in which the usual suspects talk only to each other, an empty spectacle that sheds no light on what matters most, then, the watchdog would have failed in its custodial duty".Yet, there is another school of thought that firmly believes journalism is just about reporting the facts. Even in the US, critics of public journalism fell back on "tradition": The traditional separation between news and opinion, the traditional caution against getting too involved, the traditional imperatives of independence and detachment.Former top civil servant and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) director Ngiam Tong Dow belongs to that school. Recalling his days as a cub reporter at The Straits Times in the '50s, he said at an SPH lecture last month that journalists should be reporters of facts and nothing else.Ironically, Mr Ngiam, a frequent critic of the Government and who stresses that he merely offers an alternative viewpoint, reiterated that a free press "is not a tower of Babel" and the power to censor "has to be used wisely and sparingly".Mr Ngiam had said: "If you feel irked by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts' guidelines, let me tell you of the unremitting routine of North Korean diplomats. Every presentation began with a litany of praise for their Great Leader."With all due respect, we have moved out of the '50s. While fundamental journalistic values must stand the test of time, it is precisely these traditions that have caused the press to lose its audience and public trust. And Singapore is not North Korea, thankfully.It is a modern economy and cosmopolitan city. But no financial hub in the world should have its press scrambling to play catch up with the international media on news of its own financial institutions.Just count the number of times the international media have set the pace in terms of coverage on controversies involving Temasek Holdings. It was also foreign news agency Dow Jones that exposed the potential conflict of interest involving Singapore Exchange chief executive officer Hsieh Fu Hua.For Singapore to propel itself into the league of top cities, the press cannot be a passive mirror of society. With every story, newspapers tell the reader where to look and how to look at a particular issue.Newspapers are run by businessmen who should stick to their job and leave the journalists to do theirs. And the journalists have a big task on their hands: Get out there and connect with the readers, through dialogue sessions, blogs, community projects and partnerships.It's far from being the Fourth Estate, a role the Government believes the media should not play; still, Singapore journalism has some way to go.The way forward? Instead of an imagined public who sees civic affairs as everyone's business, create one. Instead of documenting events and explaining policies, ignite readers' interest in them. Build a community and balance sceptism with hope that everyone can contribute to our society.Only then would Singapore journalism truly live up to its tag as a "nation-building partner".

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Answers to 3.31.08

If I were the programming director of OWWR I would provide different music and topics of discussion that best suits the listeners’ ears. There is but so much we can do but since we are a college radio station we do have an image to withhold so I believe having fun and giving the listeners what they want to hear ( in a respectful way) at the same time is key.

I would definitely give this campus just a tad bit more of life. I can certainly say during this second semester there have been more activities and programs to attend. But the entire campus should have SOMETHING to do when there is NOTHING to do all year long. I would have concerts or some type of promotional fund raisers every weekend to keep students here on campus and as well as off campus.

I wouldn’t say that the current programs are inappropriate for airing, I just believe they don’t fulfill the needs and interests of the students. if we were ever to become a FM station. I can definitely say that the campus provides good quality programming but again it just lacks in interest in regards to what we want to listen to. The FCC practices are fine because they still give structure especially to those who are interested in making this a career.


I would never deliervery a message like so in public because there are many others who would be affected and I'm the type of person that would feel wrong if others feeelings or concerns were hurt.


I feel this is not a volitation of freedom of speech because I feel that she only put use to what was her given birth right.


I personally feel the actions that were taking are ridiculious because there have been many other serious things that have been said that should have had serious actions should have been taking. So I feel they shouldn't have fired her for what she stated about the senotor.