Review on Zachary Tomanelli's "Sherrod Hoax Exposed, but Breitbart's ACORN Fraud Lives On" (FAIR, 7/23/10)

Ah, the wonders of video editing. After reading this blog post and watching Rachel Maddow's explanation of the whole hoax, it's crazy people can get away with stuff like this so easily.

Maddow did a great job showing viewers the subtle details in the video that proved it was a hoax, in addition to revealing the entire unedited version.

However, other media persons were not so quick to doubt the truthfulness of this video. As Tomanelli points out, Associated Press and Slate believed and praised Andrew Breitbart's big scoop on ACORN.  (The Associated Press link is no longer available.)

It's not to say journalists should be skeptical of every story they read, video they watch or audio clip they hear, but at the same time, always be skeptical, because if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

Review on Sarah Lazare's "Senator's Attempt to Define 'Real Journalism' Blasted By Journalists" (Common Dreams, 8/2/13)

Real journalists? Yikes! When Senator Diane Feinstein said that Wikileaks employees and nonsalaried reporters "don't count" under a bill protecting reporters and their sources, it really hit journalists hard.

"The 'shield law' under debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee would protect journalists and their confidential sources from court orders and subpoenas."

Language is very tricky, and Senator Charles Schumer was sure to explain:

"The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that," said Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y). "But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill."

In an age where journalism jobs, or paid jobs in general are harder to find, journalists nationwide are angry at this new bill, and for very good reason. Unpaid reporters, or independent journalism is more popular than ever, and sometimes break major stories before mainstream news does, and as Lazare says, "plays a key role in exposing the truth and holding power accountable."

Review on "1,000 True Fans"

"A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce."

Having 1,000 true fans would prove to be quite successful as an upcoming journalists. And more than just 1,000 likes, follows or 'friends,' but actually people who are genuinely interested in seeing something I produce. However, converting those "lesser fans," into the 1,000 true seems almost more difficult than finding the 1,000 in the first place. 

When I read the section about those younger artists like me, though, I was more at ease. "You make a living instead of a fortune. You are surrounded not by fad and fashionable infatuation, but by True Fans. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there."

As one person, I would think maintaining 1,000 true fans would be difficult, but as a larger corporation, it seems much more easy. Either way, it's good to know that the "there is a place in the middle, that is not very far away from the tail, where you can at least make a living. That mid-way haven is called 1,000 True Fans. It is an alternate destination for an artist to aim for."

But then I saw that it actually is easier to get these fans as one person... There's lots to think about when you start producing a product that people are interested in and want to purchase, or want to follow. Now, with social media, there's no excuse not to have a hardcore fan base. 

I think that as an independent journalist, it's definitely something to consider if you're selling a product like your documentary on DVD and need to make up for production costs. But if you're simply just a journalist to help inform people, does it really matter? 

Review on Josh Marshall's talk "The Growth of Talking Points Memo" (Sept. 2008)

Talking Points Memo was something quite successful to come out of the Florida recount situation in 2000. Josh Marshall's discussion about how TPM started brought up three good points.

The first point being that TPM relied heavily on the community in order to be successful. People donated money, which was obviously helpful, but more importantly, people contributed their own research to help TPM in what Marshall described as "collaborative journalism."

Second, Marshall pointed out that TPM raised $100,000 from fundraising, but not in large chunks of donations. These donations were small; $50 were maybe the largest amounts people were donating. This only goes to show that TPM received many donations in order to hire new, young journalists. In the age of pay walls on websites like The New York Times or Newsday, less and less people want to pay for news, but rather for the hiring of new journalists to report it. People want free news, but they don't believe in it enough.

Lastly, Marshall says, "The point at which we succeed, we also lose the story," meaning that when the independent journalists have gotten the mainstream media outlets to notice and the story gets too big, it's not their story anymore. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means it's harder for Marshall's two investigative reporters "to make much headway."

Review: "Press Critic George Seldes Leaves a Legacy of Courage" by Jeff Cohen, Norman Solomon (7/12/95)

George Seldes is probably one of the coolest journalists to have ever lived, and not just because he lived for more than a century! He truly did leave a legacy of courage; his resume boasts impressive scoops, stories and coverage of things far beyond what any reporter in his day was doing. The fact that he so boldly wrote about historic figures like Lenin and Mussolini and "pulled no punches," is something that deserves a lot of recognition. If I were a journalist in that day (forgetting that I'm a woman), it would take a lot of guts to risk my life for reporting on such historic figures as Seldes did. I haven't received a death threat yet, but I suppose if I do, I know my journalism must be pretty good! (Jokes.) Seldes' blatant disregard for what people think is something that few journalists have these days. His way of reporting may not be the best way to go about it these days, but to some extent, would be refreshing. I think every journalist should bear Seldes' words in mind, that "uphill battles" are "intrinsic to doing good journalistic work." The average journalist may not face nearly as many as Seldes did, but it makes me think we should definitely complain a lot less about the minor setbacks that do come along.