Answers to my questions and other insights

1. Based on the story of Ivanna and her phone, it seems that the growing world population is making it increasingly harder to get justice on small crimes.  Should the law come up with some way to use the Internet and social media, in the way Evan did, to help with this problem?

After reading more in the book, I’m not sure if this is even needed.  It seems as though people will unite for a cause no matter if there is a regulation for it or not…especially if there isn’t any regulation.  However, it would be nice if on a police station’s (or in a bigger city, precinct’s) website had some avenue on it in which to not only file a complaint, but have that complaint available publicly if the user chooses that option.  And let other people comment on the article.  The police could have some sort of moderator who frequents the message boards and crime reports to see which ones are of interest (aka not crying wolf).

2. With so many amateur journalists, videographers, photographers, etc. coming out on the Internet, what are the professionals doing to make themselves stand out?  Or maybe even fit in?

I think we are seeing the professionals do many things.  They are blogging.  They are on social media.  They might have their own website.  I think any writer would be ignorant to avoid the Internet, if that is at even possible anymore.  They are using their names that are already established to get people to read their blogs.  And some of them are actually really good about responding to blog responders.  On Roger Ebert’s website, he responds quite frequently to posts on his reviews.  Grant it, he has always been an opion-based writer.  Journalists might not want to be so candid with their opinions, so as not to be mistaken for having journalistic bias.

3. Wouldn’t a good definition of “journalist” be some who has taken an oath to report news honestly and without bias or special interests?  Or something like that?

I think this is valid.  There should be some sort of way to recognize journalists nationally when they take some sort of oath.  The current definition of journalist is, as the book pointed out, archaic because it categorizes that person as someone who works for a publisher.  But I think if you have a certain set of credentials, enough good writing under your best, and you’ve taken an oath not to report news with a bias, you should be called a journalist.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s