Sunday, October 14, 2007
Frank Sesno
When I first stepped into the auditorium to hear Frank Sesno speak, I thought I would be pretty bored the whole time. But leaving, I felt differently. He wasn't what I expected at all! He was very laid back, and had a great sense of humor (unlike most speakers I've seen). He definitely helped me understand how important ethics are in journalism today. I mean, I understood the impact of ethics, but hearing specific stories about where it could've gotten him a better story helped me see clearer.
I particularly liked learning about how CNN decides what war stories to air, depending on the level of danger they could create. I had never thought of that being an issue. It made me respect journalists who consider that as a factor more. It was interesting to learn that CNN had a meeting to come up with rules rather recently on what shouldn't be aired because it could "jeopardize lives or situations". Honestly, it surprised me that they would even need to have a meeting. It seems like after all the wars they have covered in the past, that they would've already had a system or a rule in place. But as long as they do now is all that matters.
This is a bit random, but I definitely enjoyed his statement about newspapers not disappearing. Every journalism class that I have been in at SMU has told me opposite, that they are slowly being trimmed down. Since print is my interest, this is not something that I want to hear! Finally hearing a different take on it was refreshing. I agree with him, not because I don't want to believe they are going away but his reasoning is valid. He said that newspapers simply need to learn to keep up. It's really that simple! With the ever-changing technology, newspapers are lagging.
The main point that I read into his speech was accountability. He seemed to show that having and practicing ethics in journalism leads back to accountability. It's definitely true. Because a person wouldn't do something ethically wrong knowing in the end they would have to be accountable for it. If everyone went by that philosophy, things would start to look up in the news world. The hardest part is getting everyone to work together though. Just because one channel or newspaper is practicing it, doesn't mean everyone will follow right away. That is definitely something I will take with me into the "real world". ¶ posted by Brenna at 9:43 PM •
I particularly liked learning about how CNN decides what war stories to air, depending on the level of danger they could create. I had never thought of that being an issue. It made me respect journalists who consider that as a factor more. It was interesting to learn that CNN had a meeting to come up with rules rather recently on what shouldn't be aired because it could "jeopardize lives or situations". Honestly, it surprised me that they would even need to have a meeting. It seems like after all the wars they have covered in the past, that they would've already had a system or a rule in place. But as long as they do now is all that matters.
This is a bit random, but I definitely enjoyed his statement about newspapers not disappearing. Every journalism class that I have been in at SMU has told me opposite, that they are slowly being trimmed down. Since print is my interest, this is not something that I want to hear! Finally hearing a different take on it was refreshing. I agree with him, not because I don't want to believe they are going away but his reasoning is valid. He said that newspapers simply need to learn to keep up. It's really that simple! With the ever-changing technology, newspapers are lagging.
The main point that I read into his speech was accountability. He seemed to show that having and practicing ethics in journalism leads back to accountability. It's definitely true. Because a person wouldn't do something ethically wrong knowing in the end they would have to be accountable for it. If everyone went by that philosophy, things would start to look up in the news world. The hardest part is getting everyone to work together though. Just because one channel or newspaper is practicing it, doesn't mean everyone will follow right away. That is definitely something I will take with me into the "real world". ¶ posted by Brenna at 9:43 PM •
Comments:
<< Home
Every war generates its own press rules. And every administration has a different relationship with the press. So rules are never eternally binding.
What are the limits of White Hours influence? The Bush administration has argued many times that coverage of military failures in the middle east compromise national security. They've outlawed the photographs of American coffins being shipped back home. In fact, they seem to want there to be no independent coverage of any of these conflicts.
Which is normal. The government wants to control how its policies are expressed, particularly in times of war.
Should we let them? Which stories should be pursued against the interests of the government? Which stories should be legitimately held back?
Sesno talked about the Somalia treatment specifically. The press also failed to cover the early parts of that conflict, when America troops massacred tribal leaders in an attempt to gain control of the populace's support for the American presence in Somalia. They missed a few of the key warlords (most notably General Aidid), who used the assassination attempt to rally their culture against America.
THAT's why the Blackhawk Down incident occurred as it did, and the media didn't cover ANY of these events in real time. The media simply showed the results of the attacks against America's troops without any context. Knee-jerk reactions.
If we had told the whole story (even against the White House's wishes) could we have prevented more loss of life? THAT's a question for media effects research.
You also raise the question of press accountability. Who could hold journalists accountable? The government? How would we cover the government? Who sets the rules?
This is a great topic for discussion. Think about how we could apply accountability and what the implications might be.
Post a Comment
What are the limits of White Hours influence? The Bush administration has argued many times that coverage of military failures in the middle east compromise national security. They've outlawed the photographs of American coffins being shipped back home. In fact, they seem to want there to be no independent coverage of any of these conflicts.
Which is normal. The government wants to control how its policies are expressed, particularly in times of war.
Should we let them? Which stories should be pursued against the interests of the government? Which stories should be legitimately held back?
Sesno talked about the Somalia treatment specifically. The press also failed to cover the early parts of that conflict, when America troops massacred tribal leaders in an attempt to gain control of the populace's support for the American presence in Somalia. They missed a few of the key warlords (most notably General Aidid), who used the assassination attempt to rally their culture against America.
THAT's why the Blackhawk Down incident occurred as it did, and the media didn't cover ANY of these events in real time. The media simply showed the results of the attacks against America's troops without any context. Knee-jerk reactions.
If we had told the whole story (even against the White House's wishes) could we have prevented more loss of life? THAT's a question for media effects research.
You also raise the question of press accountability. Who could hold journalists accountable? The government? How would we cover the government? Who sets the rules?
This is a great topic for discussion. Think about how we could apply accountability and what the implications might be.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home