twelve. (this ones for you matt good)

As we sit here with our laptops, clothes, food, healthcare and surrounded by loved ones, we take for granted how lucky we are to be living here.  Travel far south, and it’s a whole different story for the people of Africa. “The extent of the AIDS crisis is only now becoming clear in many African countries, as increasing numbers of people with HIV are becoming ill. In the absence of massively expanded prevention, treatment and care efforts, it is expected that the AIDS death toll in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rise.” This means that within the next ten years Africa will feel the impact the most. And will also affect the way people there live.  Not just their health is affected, but so is their education, agriculture and so on.  The effect will hit because resources are scarce in Africa.  So how come we have so many resources, but Africa can’t seem to get a break.  I don’t understand how such resources can be sustained in one country, but not in another.   Just because they aren’t wealthy doesn’t mean that they should be overlooked, and die, from such diseases that could be treatable.  The resources are available.  In Africa a lot of children are left as orphans, and are cared for by their grandmothers.  It isn’t fair that mother’s have to bury their daughters from such a horrible disease.  It seems like people don’t realize the seriousness of this issue, even though everyone knows about it.   So here are just a few more facts to get people thinking:   “HIV comes in different strains. A person who is infected with the strain most common in North America will take about 10 years to progress to full-blown AIDS. With anti-retroviral drugs, a person with HIV can suppress the level of the virus in his or her system and live healthily for at least another decade. But less than 10 per cent of the people in developing countries with AIDS have access to this treatment. And many people in Africa are infected with a strain of the virus that progresses much more quickly from HIV to AIDS: they may die in as little as two or three years after being infected with HIV.”  Makes you think doesn’t it?  Think about being able to live another ten years, compared to dying two years after you receive the diagnosis : you are HIV positive.  Think, how we can get treatment for a less serious case, while people in Africa are infected with the most serious one less than ten percent of them are treated. 

People can talk about it all they want, but we all know the facts, and they just seem to disappear with the more “important” issues in the world; issues happening in Canada and the USA. 

 

This post is also being written at the same time Johnson Aziga is finally scheduled to go on trial for infecting thirteen unknowing women with HIV.  Two of whom have died.  Now, as much of a tragedy as this is, that he didn’t disclose to the women he was HIV, at least the women (the ones that didn’t die) will be able to receive treatment.  And so will Aziga.  They will all receive the treatment needed, because here we have the medical attention and resources.  But think about it, thirteen women here are getting attention due to the extent of this case, but then there are millions in Africa who aren’t. Every country in Africa has a national treatment plan, although many lack the resources to get the drugs out.  The funds just aren’t there, but many countries are trying to make the drugs free.  Something that is easier said than done.  We need to look at the bigger picture here.  We need to stop just reading about it then putting it aside, because it doesn’t affect us.  I read Stephen Lewis’ Race Against Time, and learned some important facts I never would have known about, and found it interesting to read about the impact HIV/AIDS has had.  But reading a book, and learning the facts isn’t enough, and until people find out what to do that will help, people will continue to die.  And yes it’s horrible, but hey, it’s reality.

eleven.

As journalists we are taught to not tell both sides of a story, but to tell all sides of a story.  We are told to check and recheck our facts, and not assume anything is true.  We should not take anything to air until we receive the cold hard facts, and know that what we are airing is reliable information.  So if we are taught all of this in college, why would a well known station such as CBS air documents that they knew nothing about? Why would they go so far as to use documents, when they didn’t know the credibility of them?  Dan Rathers was a very trusted man in the industry, but right in the midst of a Presidential Race, he aired documents on 60 Minutes, that ruined all that in a mere hour.  Rathergate was a huge issue, which saw the downfall of Dan Rathers career, along with many others at CBS.  They ran with a story, because they were told the Killian documents they used were authentic.  Only to find out later that they weren’t and they aired false documents to the public.

After the catastrophe that happened on CBS bloggers started posts on Rathergate.com,  a site where people are able to “keep an eye on the media.”  Bloggers came forward with their opinions about the way 60 Minutes ran with a story, how a trusted man lost it all in one night, and a network lost credibility because they trusted one man who gave them the documents, which were never proved to be authentic.  Bloggers came together on Rathergate.com and let their opinions be known.

Journalism reaches the whole world.  People turn to journalists to get the news, and journalists are expected to report it fairly.  So if anything is to be taken from such an event, it is to make sure that all the information that is received is checked and double checked.  As a journalist I want to know that I am reporting everything correctly and without bias.  It can take a while for trust to be built with an audience, but in one moment it can all be gone.

ten.

As we come into the age of technology I feel as though the future of journalism is going to follow right along.  More and more people are getting information off the Internet and their blackberry’s and phones.  People are always connected and can get any news information they want no matter where they are thanks to technological advancements.

Even though I am in journalism right now and am learning the basic facts of print, radio and television, I have a feeling that we are going to need training on writing and posting information on the Internet.

Although the Internet and new pieces of technology are making it easier for people to stay connected and in touch with the world I feel as though it is going to change the world journalism in the future. 

People are going to be going on the Internet to get their information instead of picking up a paper, turning on the television or tuning into the radio.  The fact that people can get news at any point in the day from the technological advancements is going to phase out the other medias.  People want convince in their lives these days, and want the world to work around them.  People don’t wait as so much happens in life, and it’s only going to get busier.

In the future, journalism will be around in all forms.  Journalists keep the world informed, and journalism jobs are always going to be around.  People are always going to watch the news and read a newspaper.  In the future newspaper readership may decrease, but will probably never be eliminated.  And television is always a good source of entertainment and a visual way to receive news.

Even though technology may be coming ever popular, the news that people receive off the Internet is the news that makes up the content of the newspaper and television and radio shows.

As the world advances though who really knows where the future of journalism is going to go.  But for now the Internet is where I feel it is headed.

nine.

I think we, as humans, feel as though we can go through life at such a fast pace and not a miss a thing.  The truth is, we miss a whole lot.  As a society now we have all the information we want right at our fingertips, but I feel that even though all the information is there it does come as a disadvantage to us, with so much information at our disposal does anyone really comprehend and process what they are reading/listening to?  Or do we just scan over the information, never really understanding it?

The internet, newspaper, television, and radio encompass our lives in a web of information.  No matter where people are they can normally get the information hey want.  Sure it is a convenience for us, but I feel that we are not able to process so much at information at one time.  So is such an abundance of information really convenient for our generation?  Or is it just tying us down in our lives?

I feel that so much information and that fact we live our live are such a fast pace people do not process information because they don’t have the time.  There is so much to do in a day that no one ever takes the time anymore to just sit and comprehend what is going on around them.  Everyone has to be doing on or two things at every moment of the day.  People these days try to multitask to get everything done that they need to do, and that is why they don’t take the time to really read and understand all the information at our fingertips.

It’s like you always say Darryl, people these days are always present yet otherwise engaged.  It’s just the way this generation goes through life.  If they want the information they will go find it and retain it, but if it is just not that interesting to them they will forget it and move along.

eight.

“We know there is a vast morass of information out there that our audiences want us to try to make sense of.  The danger consists in trying to leap above it, not by getting more dramatic or salient or verifiable facts, but by analyzing, speculating, predicting, interpreting – by drawing definitive conclusions while the bodies are still warm.”

    Paul Knox, The Globe and Mail

 

People want to know what is happening in their world, and it is our job as journalists to give them the information needed. To tell all sides of the story fairly and accurately. As journalists we need to decipher what information is important to the public, and what is just nonsense.  The public wants to information right away, but is it more important to get the information out first, or to get the information out accurately?

When the public reads a story or listens to it on the news they want it delivered to them in the easiest way possible; all the facts should be there, but they shouldn’t be left wondering- What happened? That is the question we have to answer for them.  We don’t want to amp up the story so people will want to read our story first, because that is damaging our own credibility.  As journalists we need to look at all the information that is given to us and analyze the situation, and interpret what happened, but in our own words.  We need to make sure that the facts of the story are delivered out while it is still relevant.  That is why it says to draw definitive conclusions while the bodies are still warm.  People don’t want yesterday’s news.  They want what is happening right then and there. 

Credibility of journalists can be damaged quite easily.  One wrong name etc, could damage the reporters credibility just like that.  So how as journalists do we get the best story first?  How do we make sense of every event that happens in the world? 

We need to take all the information of a story and put it into its simplest form, leaving out details that are of no importance.   We need to make the story interesting, yet true, and informative.  As long as well tell all sides of the story, we know that we can reach the audiences that we need to.  

 

and here we go again. seven.

The library@mohawkcollege…does it really beat google, yahoo and other search engines?  Or is just another way to find more information that really has nothing to do with the subject we are searching? 

 

Peggy came in today to do a presentation on the Brain, a website in which we can use search engines to find information for research papers and other class related information.  The search engines on the Brain narrow down the searches for us, so we don’t have to sift through pages and pages of different websites that aren’t relevant.  The Brain gives you options for newspaper articles, magazines & journals, and e-books.  From there you can narrow down you search for certain days, full text documents and more.  I feel that the Brain gives you a lot more options to find accurate information on what you are looking for.    It narrows down your searches to give you educational information.  And gives you an overview on what the articles are about so you don’t have to waste your time reading an article that, in the end, has no information in it what so ever. The Brain may be harder to find information on than regular search engines, but in the end, if you find the information you need it is a lot better.  The fact that you can type in a word, but then add a * or $ to the end it so it gives you a longer version of a word, means you are getting more information than what you are looking for.  That information can, in the end, help you out a lot more though, when you weren’t even looking for it. Although I get somewhat annoyed looking for resources on the Brain, in the end I think the information you find on there helps you out better than google.  I just like google better, because it’s faster to find information, and it never tells you that there is no information found.  In the world we live in today, faster always seems better for us, because we don’t take the time to really do anything anymore. 

 

As a journalist I’m sure I will use these search engines a lot to find valuable information.  In the end the way the Brain sets up the sites, it would save me time, because of the way the research is presented to us.  Newspaper articles, journals, magazines, and books gives real information.  People can’t just paste whatever they want on the site.  You never know with google if the information you are reading is real, or something someone posted just for the hell of it.As a journalist you need background information on different pieces you are writing, and search engines can help you find that information, plus you can find just articles from the day you are looking to seven days before.  I also like how they broke down the sites into courses, so we can just click on journalism and go to sites in which will give us information directed right towards us. 

 

So google?  Or go to the Brain?  Well I am always going to google, but maybe, just maybe, for school related info I will try something different.   We shall see what happens. 

six. and final.

 This is the last blog for online journalism.  We had to do it about a certain experience that happened in life.  While watching this video you will be able to experience  the Spice Girls reunion tour.Enjoy, and Spice Up Your Life.  

five.

This is the first video blog I have ever done.Enjoy (although I don’t see how you couldn’t).   

four.

Airbrushing celebrities in magazines gets done all the time, yet people don’t see any problem with it, because it happens so often.  People change photographs for their own intense and purposes, so where do the ethical lines fall when it comes to changing a photograph? 

As we looked at the picture of the flower in class, we thought about why some people think it’s okay to change the one little dot that was on the flower, but for some reason changing the look of a person is wrong.   

So what do I think about changing the look of a photo and following ethics?  Well here it is.I feel that changing a picture, to take out a blemish, red eye, or to change a small thing is fine as long as you are not completely changing the look of the whole picture.  A flower is a flower.  If you go to change it, to take out one small imperfection, it’s not going to matter.  A flower may be a living object, but it isn’t going to know the difference.  It isn’t going to see the picture of itself changed and say anything about it, so I don’t see the big deal.  I don’t see it as a matter of ethics when it comes to an inadamet object that isn’t going to know the difference.  Sure you are still changing something in nature, but I figure that if it is your picture, you took it, you can do what you want with it.  

Although if you change a picture someone else took, that is another story.  Because then you are changing another persons work, and that is when ethics are going to play a part.  The fact that you are changing someone else’s picture is wrong because maybe there was a certain reason that they took the picture of the imperfect flower. Moving along to changing a picture of a person though.  

There is a whole different side of the story when people are involved.  I take a different view on making changes to a person, because they can see the picture after and turn around and wonder why it was changed.  The ethics come into play depending on how much you change a photo of a person and how much of it you change.  Airbrushing someone to make them look completely different, is different then taking out one slight blemish.  As well, if you are going to change a picture of a person, make sure they know and you have the consent of them to change one thing or another.   I think the worst thing someone can do as a photographer, or anyone is to place something from one picture into another.  That is when the ethics are thrown out the window, because you are showing something that never happened.  And that in and of itself is wrong, and leads people to believe the said event happened when it never did. 

So as I see it, there is nothing wrong with taking a dot off of a picture of a flower, because really, in the end, who is that harming?   

three.

Another week, and another thought on how technology has affected the lives we live. This has to deal with technology, new and old, but our lives are still being lived easier because of both.

These last few days have brought us quite the weather, which has led to school closings, cancellations, and delays.  Back in the day people would hear about these events on their local radio stations, but not we can learn if our school is closed without even tuning into the radio stations, or looking out the window wondering what the day is going to bring.

These days we can wake up, turn on our computers and log onto our schools webpage. Right there, at the top of the page it will tell you if our school is closed for the day. This new way to find out information is so quick and easy. It is so convenient for us to get the information we want, when we want it, that sometimes I think we take it for advantage.  It has made our daily lives so much easier, and so much more fast paced.  We can’t even take the ten or so minutes it takes to listen to the radio.  We are on and off the computer for a maximum of five minutes and then on our way.  

Another way we heard about the cancellations would be on the morning shows on television, that keep a continuing storm watch going along the crawl on the bottom of the screen.  The television is helpful to see more than just the cancellation of the school you go to.  You can see everything that is cancelled.  For example, I was watching this morning to see what was happening with Mohawk, when across the bottom it said “Hillfield Strathallan College- Closed.”  But nothing about Mohawk, that is like two more minutes down the road.  Which made me wonder, why should we risk our lives venturing up the mountain if the weather is so bad that a private school cannot stay open.  

Which I know has absolutely nothing to do with technology in our day, I just wanted to know why they can close, but we stayed open, because it bugged me.

But getting back on track,  in days when the weather gets bad, the new technology- the internet- and then older technology- the television- is always a useful resource in helping us to plan out our days.