Tag Archives: CNN

Poligraft

13 Mar

By: Gabriela Gonzalez

Analysis of tool: This tool is very interesting. I like how it highlights keywords and names. On the side it gives a breakdown of the items highlighted, and if you click on the link, it takes you to more detailed information. It is interactive in that you can hover the mouse over a pie graph and it gives even more information than what is simply on the page. For example, hovering over a pie graph may not only reveal percentages but also, more specifically, dollar amounts.  It is interesting to think of who is giving to whom as far as contributions are concerned. This impacts how contributors and influential organizations present information, and knowing this information can help the readers take the information with the skepticism they need to achieve a “mental balance” of the information, so they can form their own opinion.

Link:  http://poligraft.com/GH4c

The article I submitted through Poligraft was from Washington D.C. It is about the “shift” of emphasis for the GOP campaigning in the South. Key points are that Mitt Romney, 458, has double the delegates of that of Rick Santorum, 203. To secure a nomination against Barak Obama, the GOP candidate needs 1,144 delegates. The piece also mentions that southern comedian Jeff Foxworthy will be campaigning for Romney.

Newt Gingrich, who currently has 66 delegates, is hoping to win Alabama and Mississippi.

According to CNN: “An American Research Group survey last week of likely Republican primary voters in Mississippi showed Gingrich with 35 percent support to 31 percent for Romney, 20 percent for Santorum and 7 percent for Paul. The poll’s four percentage-point sampling error meant Gingrich and Romney were in a statistical tie.”

The Poligraft report was interesting in that it showed what certain groups who contributed to the article have donated to PACs. For example,  according to Poligraft, NBC Universal donated $5,500 to the Rick Santorum campaign. CBS Corp. donated $83,344 to Barak Obama’s campaign. Through this list of information we can see the political leanings of the quoted sources and have a more in-depth look at why they asked certain questions or gave certain quotes.

For example, Gingrich sounds less sure about his Alabama-Mississippi victory on CBS than he did on Fox. CBS Corp., as stated above, was a major donator to the Obama campaign and it aggregated $501 to Ron Paul’s campaign. If you click on the link, it shows the top recipients for CBS Corp. and those lobbying on the company’s behalf.

Poligraft also gives “Points of Influence,” and it shows the party of the candidates that received what percent of contributions. Through this, the reader can see that Obama receives more contributions from individuals, while Gingrich receives a quarter of his contributions from PACs. Also, one can see what the types of people are the ones that most frequently contribute to certain campaigns. For Obama it’s lawyers and lobbyists, for Paul it’s people involved in finance, business and real estate.

Poligraft is a tool that helps reveal underlying influences in articles and news. In the end, it serves to prove what we already know: What is truly objective?

Journalism’s new balance: Tradition and participation

7 Feb

By: Gabriela Gonzalez

The challenges to journalism are paradoxes. They range from corrupt bonuses for those at the top of the industry who do little that is positive and fire people, to the media being transformed by what used to be “the audience.”

It is amusing to think of journalism as a suffering industry while Craig Dubow received $37.1 million in severance, according to The New York Times’ David Carr.

In many publishing companies, thousands of people are fired and millions of dollars are available for bonuses and retirement. The millions of dollars go to those who are not helping the papers gain revenue, and they are not helping their employees keep their jobs.

What if instead of the bonus, they used the money available for the salaries of those who otherwise would have been fired? By paying journalists, perhaps better content and reporting would be produced for the readers, and stocks and revenue would see growth.

Carr said: “No one, least of all me, is suggesting that running a newspaper company is a piece of cake. But the people in the industry who are content to slide people out of the back of the truck until it runs out of gas not only don’t deserve tens of millions in bonuses, they don’t deserve jobs.”

I agree. People who are greedy enough to take millions and watch others with families go out into the streets jobless don’t deserve jobs. Maybe Carr is right, Instead of Occupy Wall Street, they should occupy the newsrooms.

According to Newsroom American Staff, though some top executives are taking the money, other companies, though not in journalism, are trying to pay bonuses to their employees to encourage them to stay with struggling companies. A solar panel company is trying to get bonuses approved for engineers and information technology workers to lure them into staying with the company. Journalism should do the same in using available money for employees and rewarding hard work.

Though the field of journalism is suffering in some aspects, and those who have jobs are fortunate, others are making money in journalism through content-farms.

Content-farms are websites that generate a lot of content that is search-engine friendly on a diversity of topics, Janet Spavlik said.

Unfortunately, content-farms lead to a mechanical delivery of articles that are often not high-quality or fact-checked. Ironically, many writers are paid for their “churning” out of shallow articles.

Of course, some content-farms are more respected than others. Janet Spavlik features the Examiner as a cutting-edge content-farm that is doing big things. It has 70,000 contributers and 3,000 articles published a day.

Content-farms present the new idea that we “the audience” can become a part of the media. We deliver.

Jay Rosen of Press Think asks, if everyone speaks who is left to listen? As our technology advances, anyone can edit a video, Photoshop a photo and make themselves look like a celebrity, write a blog and publish it, and the list can go on.

The common citizen is being called a journalist. Rupert Murdoch said the people want control over the media. They no longer want to be controlled by it. We are publishing and forming our view of the world and putting it out there for all to see. Take a blog for example, or even cooler yet: CNN iReport where people can upload videos, and they may be chosen to be aired on national television. Some videos have gone as far as to received awards.

The CNN spokesperson called it “the most developed and active citizen journalism platform of any news organization worldwide.”

I really like the way CNN’s iReport verifies and fact-checks. CNN has eight full-time producers checking videos. They moderate and make sure there is no copyrighted material in the submissions. If the video has not been seen by a moderator, the reader is warned and it is labled as such.

So far, its fact-checking is working because CNN has not aired something false that it has had to retract.

Journalism is not dying, it is changing. There is now a delicate balance between participation and reception. Publishing corporations should do their best to keep employees that will continue a standard of excellence, accuracy and bring in revenue. Companies should also take advantage of what technological advances allow us to do and contribute as ordinary citizens. Through blogs and platforms like CNN iReport, stories that wouldn’t have been heard before, were given a voice and power.