Reading Images

In the article "Reading Images" by Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen, the authors break down the composition of photographs, in order to depict the meaning behind the images.

Most notably among the various compositions, in my opinion, was Kress and van Leeuwen's explanation of why compositions matter.  The authors state that composition as it is selected by photographers and layout editors, develops the way that readers view the image (and often its corresponding article).

The type of photograph that I personally find the most striking is the "fly on the wall" photograph.  The authors explain this type of image as one that the subjects are unaware that someone is photographing them, unaware that this event or experience or time in their life is being recorded.  One example that immediately came to my mind was the following:

This photograph was taken by a "fly on the wall" and yet it had a tremendous impact result from it.  The photograph was taken by Wayne Tilcock of The Enterprise and was captioned, "University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike uses pepper spray Friday to move peacefully Occupy UC Davis protesters while blocking their exit from the school's quad in Davis, CA.  Pike is a retired US Marine sergeant twice honored for his police work on campus."

The image's photographer may not have known exactly what the media audience's reaction would be to it, but he still had a purpose in mind when he took the photo.  It was to very clearly make a statement about the almost "assailant" role the police officer played for the "victims" or students.

My questions for discussion are though, do all photographs have this same power?  Who decides the impact that a photograph will have?  Is this another case of the infamous "CNN Effect"?  How is the CNN Effect determined with regard to photographs?  Do all photographs have credibility if we know that photographers take certain pictures to represent certain perspectives?

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Are bloggers journalists?

It is a question I have taken on before, but after reading Rettberg’s article, “Citizen Journalists” and Rosenstiel’s “Journalism of Verification,” I feel more qualified to take a stab at the question.

This entire debate began with the start of the Internet.  As Internet use progressed, the “blogosphere,” as it is called, opened up.  There has always been freedom of the press, but, as Rettberg puts it, “The Internet changed one of the greatest obstacles to true freedom of the press . . . . by the end of the century, bloggers could, in effect, own a press” (85). 

Suddenly, there is no longer a need to be published in a magazine or newspaper to spread news.  Someone with the details about an event doesn’t have to phone tip the local news station.  Instead, anyone with news, or anything to say for that matter, can with the click of a mouse.

So the question is again, is this journalism?

My answer remains that no, it is not.  Bloggers can be journalists, in some instances, but all bloggers are not journalists because they blog, and similarly, blogging is not necessarily journalism.  Here is what Rettberg identifies as the main difference: “You call yourself a journalist if you work as a journalist” (89). 

Rosensteil takes this concept to an even deeper, but very simplified level.  He says, “the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification” (71). 

In my opinion, that is a fantastic way to explain the difference between journalism and blogging.  Rosensteil elaborates by explaining, “in the end, the discipline of verification is what separates journalism from entertainment, propaganda, fiction, or art” (79).

Journalists are professional writes.  They adhere to their professions code of ethics.  They answer to superiors in the publishing industry, regardless of the medium.  Journalists have accountability.  They must always, verify their information, their sources, their facts.  They must be transparent.

My questions for discussion are, aside from the reasons listed above, are there any other ways to separate bloggers from journalists?  And additionally, when exactly does a blogger become a journalist?

Headlines, Hyperlinks, and the Hot Debate: Are Bloggers Journalists?

We’ve all heard it before: Don’t judge a book by its cover.  But do we?  Of course.

In the same way, we all judge news stories by their headlines.  And why shouldn’t we?  The purpose of the headline is, after all, to draw readers in, to encourage them to take the time to read the full text story.

A great headline can combat a “scanner,” drawing him or her in to begin a story.  If the heading and headers are strong as well, the scanner might even read an entire story, which is what journalists hope for.

The job of a headline may seem almost too simple - it is, first and foremost, the title of an article.  It seeks to inform, not to entertain.  It doesn’t need to be cute and catchy; it needs to be striking and interesting.  It also needs to properly summarize the article it precedes.

Additionally, headlines also serve the important job of helping readers to figure out what not read – a job of huge importance within the wealth of information available online and in newspapers and magazines.  Headlines help readers to determine what to invest their time in.

Another hugely important aspect of articles is hyperlinking.  I confess, hyperlinking is not an aspect of online journalism that I had ever thought twice about.  But in thinking about it now, it is a huge opportunity for writers to inform our readers.  Even more so, it is an opportunity to gain reader credibility, by establishing with the click of a mouse, a chance for readers to make even more sense of what an article is trying to tell them.  

However, I am still curious as to when exactly it is appropriate to use hyperlinking as a resource?  Is it acceptable to use in the middle of an article?

Vastly different from simply online journalism or print news sources websites, lies the “blogosphere,” which provides another opportunity for readers to be educated, persuaded, and informed.  Blogs are at their very core, another form of journalism.  They offer perspective.  They are a trend that is catching on more and more as time progresses because at the very heart of blogs is opportunity – anyone can blog. 

However, the content and information varies enormously from blog to blog.  Some are simply personal blogs – think Julie Powell’s blog in the Meryl Streep and Amy Adams movie Julie and Julia.  Other blogs, like the editorials for The New York Times and The Washington Post are based out of classic, reputable print news sources.

In my heart of hearts though, I question whether or not bloggers are true journalists.  As someone who hopes to become a print journalist, I have a distinctly particular view of bloggers.  Bloggers are writers, I certainly agree, but are they journalists?  I have to say no.  The job of a journalist, in my opinion, is an ethical, moral obligation to an audience – to inform them.  To produce the facts.  To conduct interviews.  To present the truth in an unbiased way.  Journalists are required to adhere to a code of ethics – bloggers can write whatever they want.  I see the two as inherently unequal.

I pose the above question for discussion – do you think bloggers are journalists as well?  Why or why not?