COMM 510: Blog Post - Week #3

The story I decided to review can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/fox-news-anna-kooiman-obama-parody_n_4053994.html?ir=Media

I decided to look into this story simply because its content caught my eye as something that we all need to be aware of since, as you will see, even those in the industry overlook the reputation of their sources.

This story is about Anna Kooiman, Fox News host, taking for granted information she heard of President Obama using his own funds to re-open a Muslim museum after the government shutdown. It turns out, the story originated from National Report – a parody news site, and can be found here:

http://nationalreport.net/obama-uses-money-open-muslim-museum-amid-government-shutdown/

Long Island Newsday claims that Kooiman didn’t cite a source, but noted that National Report had posted the falsehood. The L.A. Times comments that National Report, classified as a satirical news site, “seems more about spreading misinformation than social critiques” (Blake, 2013).

The impact of this unrestricted web publishing is obvious – Kooiman took the information as fact and, as a result, compromised the credibility of herself and her news station. I was unable to find any information on where Kooiman first learned of the information, but it would be interesting to note how she heard of this information herself.

In my opinion, this website is classified as a new and journalistic site – a location where “anyone can publish his or her own ‘news’ on the Web” (Montecino, 1998). However, who is to blame in this instance? Kooiman for not checking her facts? Or the website for allowing such information to be posted? I believe it is the fault of each party.

My father always said anyone who tells you to trust him or her simply because he or she is a professional was lying. He used to say, “You can be a professional nose-picker, that doesn’t mean anything.” Crude as it may be, when it comes to web content, I believe him. It is our job as readers and consumers of media to research "any evidence that the author of the Web information has some authority in the field...[his or her] qualifications, credentials, and connections to the subject" (Montecino, 1998). 

Blake, M. (2013). Fox News host sorry for false report of Obama funding Muslim

museum. L.A. Times.

            http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-fox-news-

anna-kooiman-obama-muslim-museum-funding-shutdown-20131007,0,2852302.story

Montecino, V. (1998). Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources.

George Mason University.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm

COMM 510: Blog Post - Week #2

A lot of what I know stems from listening to what other people are talking about or, in other terms, what’s “trending.” I retrieve a lot of such information from family and friends. Depending on the person, the content, or where they claim they heard the information, I do my own type of research and follow-up.

As I was reading through my Twitter feed today, I saw an article from The Economist that talked about why Brazil is such an expensive country. You can view the article here: http://tinyurl.com/luo2n2z

I believe the information to be true based on other reports I’ve read regarding the currency appreciation and taxes in Brazil. However, for the purposes of this assignment, I did choose to log onto the “About Us” section of The Economist website and learned much more about the organization as a whole that made me believe even more in their reporting. What I discovered is that The Economist does not include authors or their work because they believe that what is written is more important than who wrote it. I also learned that, since 1928, half the shares of The Economist have been owned by the Financial Times (a subsidiary of Pearson) and by independent shareholders. The board of trustees appoints the editor. (The Economist, About Us)

I believe, as the example mentioned above, social media sites are definitely reliable for obtaining credible information. However, like anything else, you must go to the source and determine the validity of the information. If a friend of mine had posted this same information I would have asked her to cite her sources or give me evidence of why we should take this as fact.

The Economist. (2013). Abous Us.

http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom

COMM 510: Blog Post - Week #1

I’m not sure what qualifies as new media any more, but on a daily basis I engage in e-mail, the internet, texting, apps on my smartphone, listening to music on my iPod, instant messaging, etc. The interesting part is that I do all of those things personally AND professionally as my company provides an iPhone for my professional use. Another app I was recently introduced to was Klout. If you haven’t heard of this tool, I encourage you to research it. As Communication students, I believe it is valuable for us to take a pulse on capability of influencing others. I’ve been told that a Klout score between 50-60 is considered good while anything above 65 is excellent. A colleague of mine has a Klout score of 91, which is practically unheard of!

For a long time I was against many social media sites, mostly Facebook. My reasoning behind this was due to the fact that many times Facebook is a breeding ground for negative consequences regarding long-term health, happiness, and the general well-being of individuals, families, and communities. For example, in 2011 Facebook was cited in a third of all divorce filings. In addition, more than 80 percent of divorce attorneys in the United States say, “social networking in divorce proceedings is on the rise” (Lupkin, 2012).

However, I have come to recognize that along with anything good also comes anything bad. Of course we can examine the negative influences and aspects of social media platforms such as Facebook, but what about the benefits? I love being able to keep in touch with friends and colleagues from many years past or family I haven’t seen in years.

I am very intrigued to read the rest of our textbook as I feel this will be a vital tool in enabling us to decipher legitimate and reliable content. The author sums up chapter two adequately when he says, “in the twenty-first century, access to information has reached a new high. The question we now face is how to proceed: how do we identify, with our new tools and options, what information is reliable?” (Kovach & Rosentiel, 2011, p. 25). 

Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2011). Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload. Bloomsbury, USA