Skyping with Mother Jones

The Society of Professional Journalists hosted a video chat with Mother Jones publisher Steve Katz and reporter Kate Sheppard, Monday night.

Students learned about the role Mother Jones played in releasing the controversial Mitt Romney 47 percent video released last week. They also learned about the advantages and disadvantages of working for independent media.

Katz started the discussion talking about the challenges and benefits of working for a non-profit magazine.Mother Jones is funded 40 percent by magazine subscriptions and advertising in print and online. Sixty percent of funding comes from individual donations. Katz stressed the importance for smaller publications of getting funding from multiple sources because they are not reliant on any advertisers or on the state of the economy. He said one of the most difficult aspects of being from a smaller independent media outlet is the fact they have to fight hard to gain exposure, which can give them trouble in increasing capital to attract investors in order to expand. However, Katz said the mission of the outlet over weighs any difficulties they may have along the way. Mother Jones goes after stories and reports issues that are more integrated with politics and corporations than other media outlets that do not feel comfortable following through with these controversial issues. 

 Sheppard, an ‘06 journalism graduate of IC, gave advice to students about diversifying their education. She spoke about her career path that led her to independent media (she originally was an editor for Buzzsaw Magazine on campus) and her love of investigative journalism. It was amazing to see and get suggestions from a successful alumnus.

     

The moment during this conversation that meant the most to me was the description of the atmosphere of the newsroom after the release of the Romney video. Katz described a feeling of connection and pride that you can only get in this small, more intimate newsroom. Kate was on the road at the time and said she noticed the recognition of the name Mother Jones right away. The day before in interviews, people were asking if she wrote for a parenting magazine, and the next day they stood awestruck asking many questions about the unveiled video. It is nice to see Mother Jones finally getting the recognition they deserve for solid investigative journalism.

Society of Professional Journalists and Indy Media: My Time in the Sunshine State

Here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the Society of Professional Journalists is having their annual national conference. Here, journalists of popular and independent media alike have come together to discuss the field of journalism and the ethics behind it. 

In preparation for the conference, I was so preoccupied with my campaign for student representative on the national board that I had not really given much thought to the type of media that would be represented through these programs. I am shocked at how well independent media is being represented here. 

The first program I went to, Crisis U, was about covering breaking news on a college campus. The editor for Penn State’s newspaper The Daily Collegian, Lexie Belulfine, spoke of the coverage of the Sandusky/Paterno controversy. One thing that really struck me was how she stressed being an independent paper from the university was extremely important to the coverage of this case. They had no restrictions or ties, enabling them to phenomenally cover the scandal. 

At my second program about following the money in political campaigns, we learned 5 tools and websites all reporters should know. Most of these tools were independent organizations, such as Propublica, who do in depth reporting. The question “where is your funding coming from?” is very familiar, and an important one to ask when covering politics or even when questioning media. 

The highlight of this conference for me, however, was meeting News 21 Media Editor Brandon Quester. The cantaloupe story in Guatemala? All him. It was fascinating discussing the ins and outs surrounding the interactive and in depth reporting that News 21, student reporters, produce.

Even the Society of Professional Journalists realizes the importance of independent media and its growing presence. It has been out of this world to meet and discuss these organizations with the top people in their field. Now I am off to enjoy the beach for the rest of my stay in the sunshine state!

Personification of News, Never War

After watching Amy Goodman speak in a brief documentary about mainstream media's coverage of war, I had a realization about the hypocrisy of popular news outlets. I know this is a harsh statement, especially for my first post, but let me explain.

We are in an age where story telling is key. People want to emotionally connect with a news story or identify with the person in order to stay fully engaged. But in some areas we are going too far.

Think election 2012. Popular media outlets will focus on a candidates sexual promiscuity, religious beliefs, family status and so on. What the audience is getting less and less of is actual information on policies-- the information that actually has an effect on our own lives. But that's okay because we voters are focusing on the candidates character rather than policy! No, it is not okay. Personification is dominating politics, a place it does not belong.

But is personification always bad? I don't believe so. Personification helped to end the Vietnam War. Famous pictures such as the naked girl running through the street with her flesh burning off or a monk on fire in protest are still etched in our minds as the horrors of war. It caused a uprising in the U.S. and it showed a desperate want of people to end the Vietnam war. We saw victims as people rather than numbers.

In the Iraq war, we have had no civilian victims. False. But you wouldn't know it based on the coverage by popular media. In fact, the media has done its best to keep personification out of wartime reporting, a place where it should be welcomed the most. War is not glamorous. People die, including civilians. If we are going to engage in war, U.S. citizens have a right to see the faces of war-- American or not.  A life lost is important no matter who you are or where you are from in my opinion. We see on television a bomb exploding, but we are distanced from the people the bomb just blew to pieces. We don't see their faces; we don't identify with the destruction; we see nothing wrong in our war for "freedom" and the "greater good."

If the government is supposed to represent the American people, then why hide certain aspects of war or stay in a war a growing majority do not approve? If media is supposed to act as a checks and balances system for government, is it ethical for them not to show the all sides (and victims) of war? How in the world are citizens supposed to get a full understanding of whats happening and who is dying at the hand of the U.S. all over the world?