Review on Alex Koppelman's "Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton controversy" (Salon, 6/3/08)

Alex Koppelman of Salon provided great insight regarding the Bill Clinton controversy and Vanity Fair piece. He's right that Fowler's ethics are questionable. She didn't identify herself as a reporter, and she also slammed the Vanity Fair writer as having done a "hatchet" job. I agree though, that if she had identified herself as a blogger for OffTheBus, Clinton probably wouldn't have answered. And I don't think that would have worked anyway with the way she went about getting Clinton's attention. In the heat of the moment, I don't know if either Fowler or Clinton realized Fowler was a reporter, let alone a blogger. Fowler was just a normal citizen, making a statement.

Any other journalist would never bash another reporter's work to preface a question. Well, hopefully. But Fowler isn't a traditional journalist; she continues to push the boundaries with Huffington Post as a "citizen journalist." Can she be trusted? Well, I suppose we'll have to hear her tape recorder to know for sure.

Review on Mayhill Fowler's "Bill Clinton: Purdum a "Sleazy" "Slimy" "Scumbag" (The Huffington Post, 6/2/08)

I'm glad I read the LA Times articles about Mayhill Fowler before I read Mayhill Fowler's article. While the audio of Bill Clinton has since been removed, the text is largely still there.

Fowler provides great narrative imagery, but her article lacks substance. More than 50 percent of the text are quotes from Clinton. While I suppose that's the point, and not much more necessarily needs to be said, the quotes are too lengthy. She may has well have just provided the transcript of her audio and given a brief background paragraph.

The other thing is, reading this article many years later, I had no idea why the Vanity Fair article was such a big deal. That information should have been provided closer to the top.

I don't want to totally bash this article, because even though I'm a senior Journalism major, I still have a lot of work to do in the writing department. Fowler did a good job at getting the facts out she thought were important, and the public were informed. Job complete.

Review on James Rainey's "How Mayhill Fowler got online scoops on Obama and Bill Clinton" (LA Times, 6/7/08)

It baffles me; yet again, Mayhill Fowler got a great scoop, though she is "a self-described 'failed writer' and amateur Web journalist."Indeed, "an unpublished novelist 'with absolutely no journalism training' can alter the national debate."

Fowler attributes her successful scoops to dropping the 'journalist' from citizen journalist. I have to say, Fowler is bold. She doesn't care about thousands of angry emails, because she has nothing to lose. And while Fowler definitely acted as an ordinary, American citizen when talking to candidates like Bill Clinton, the way in which she made the effort to break the story and let the public know what candidates like Clinton are really like, is what makes her a journalist. 

Review on James Rainey's "'Citizen journalist' broke Obama story" (LA Times, 4/15/08)

The Huffington Post, and other websites alike, are a great outlet for bloggers and citizen journalists with big stories to get noticed. Mayhill Fowler did exactly that. While her ethics are shaky, she found a great story and did what she thought she had to do as a journalist.

Since The Huffington Post is one of the most visited websites, Fowler's story got picked up, and support for President Obama went down (to some extent). However, Fowler didn't gain that much support either. She was challenged as a real journalist, and her ethics in reporting were put into question. Was it ok that she went to Obama's event that was deemed "closed" to mainstream journalists, but then wrote about it as a "citizen journalist?" Maybe if she had posted it to her own blog, and then it was picked up, but even I am questioning if what she did is right or wrong.

Either way, Fowler uncovered an important story that mainstream journalists would not have otherwise covered. And maybe that's why her ethics don't matter, because she technically was not employed as a journalist, anyway.

Review on Jeff Cohen's "Snowden Coverage: If U.S. Mass Media Were State-Controlled, Would They Look Any Different?" (Huffington Post, 6/26/13)

This article is absolutely right that mainstream news coverage is taking the government's side, rather than discussing the issue itself. The NSA 'scandal' is a good example. By calling it a scandal, that's already taking the side of the US government. The public should have the right to know this is happening, but has any coverage expressed that what Snowden did was a  good thing? I'm not sure, but I'd guess probably not, or not as much as they should be. And if they did, that would be a good start at trying to be 'objective.'

However, older reporters may not have the same views as younger ones. And "adversarial journalists" are not something that more traditional journalists may understand. When Andrew Ross Sorkin said he thought blogger, Glen Greenwald should be arrested on live TV, wasn't that advocating as well?

I'll say that the line between advocacy and journalism is a thin one, but as long as you're reporting the facts, I think it's acceptable.

Review on Paul Harris's "Arianna Huffington's AOL deal sparks accusations of a political sell-out" (The Observer, 2/27/11)

I just don't get why Arianna Huffington would sell out to AOL, of all the companies, and lose control over The Huffington Post. As a result, she's been called a "political sellout and someone who made a personal fortune from the labour of thousands of bloggers who write for no pay." She's already rich enough! Why does she need more from the AOL deal? If anything, I would assume her reasoning for doing the deal would be to pay contributors, but since that hasn't happened, she's just collecting profit after profit. One blogger's comment, "Arianna not only sold her soul as well as her ship of slaves, but sowed the seeds of her demise with this act of greed and exploitation." Ok, a bit dramatic, but I get their point. Freelance writers or bloggers like this one hold the most anger, but for a very good reason. Many of them are trying to do exactly what she has (before selling out to AOL), but since they don't have the name or status, simply can't do it, or at least as easily as she has.