Digital media has been part of my life since childhood. As a millennial, I am more accustomed to digital modes of communication than traditional ones. Moreover, I get almost all my news through digital-based sources. Knowing that my experience is similar to that of many other millennials, and also being aware of the debate about the legitimacy of digital media, I found this research area very interesting. Digital Journalism has been the go-to research topics for many journalism and writing academics since the rise of the internet and digital modes of communication in the 1980’s and 1990’s. There is always controversy surrounding the legitimacy of digital journalism and whether it will be the demise of traditional media and newspapers. …show more content…
Coverage of environmental issues is extremely significant to study nowadays. In the Trump era where there are “alternative facts” regarding many issues, including climate change, we need to remain vigilant of what news are hidden from us or are falsely accused of being “fake news.” Moreover, because of Buzzfeed’s fluid, wide-encompassing, and hybrid nature as a site of reporting, entertainment, aggregation, and social media, it is potentially a great medium through which to deliver under-reported stories in mainstream news. To conduct my research, I will examine Buzzfeed articles that contain the words “environmental,” “ecology,” “environmental,” “ecological,” “eco-friendly” or “climate change.” I will create categories to sort the articles into, to see which approach the journalists take when reporting on environmental issues. This will be crafted similar to Hackett et al.’s criteria for newsworthiness such as “political significance” or celebrity involvement or “shock.” I will also create more categories that Hackett et al. overlooked such as economic significance (Hackett et al. 2000). Two scholarly sources that I will consult and cite are Tandoc & Foo’s “Here’s What BuzzFeed Journalists Think of Their Journalism” and Picone et al.’s “Who Shares What with Whom and Why?” Tandoc & Foo’s article discusses through personal accounts from Buzzfeed journalists how they do their work and the values they believe in (Tandoc et al. 2017). It will help me compare their
News organizations that report on stories in a fair, balanced and ethical manner are essential to the functionality of this nation. A citizen’s ability to make well-informed decisions hinges on a news organization’s ability to relay the most accurate information regarding the state of the nation, the changing condition of communities, and adjustments in the government. Journalism is no longer a one-sided conversation. Journalism is an interactive process that allows for readers and viewers to create a dialogue with journalists by utilizing mediums such as social networking sites and comment sections. Audiences have a say in what stories get reported and how news stories are presented to the masses. When news organizations fail to cover all
In the upcoming 2016 election, there are many political topics that voters may see as more important than another. Voters are normally inclined to elect someone with the same look on immigration or economic problems, so that they can influence the world the way they would like. The author of “One political issue matters more than the rest, and it’s climate change,” Courtney Butterworth, argues that the topic that should be a priority and influence our decision making the most is that of climate change. In her article Courtney argues that by focusing on the issue of climate change we can help the economy. She gives the fact that “coral reefs alone generate about $375 billion per year.” This statistic may be true be true but is this the most important matter of the campaigns? Courtney also states that in 2000 “more than 150,000 people died due to the effects of climate change” but is this the only way people are dying in our country? This essay will not only show how climate change has affected our world, but also how other debates are more beneficial to the campaigns.
In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.
With the well-being of future generations in mind, environmental concerns have begun to establish a permanent residence atop the priority ladder for a vast array of Americans. Consequently, writers and political pundits alike are seizing this opportunity to capitalize on advocating their stance on the issue. Information, representing all positions, pours in at an unrelenting and unfathomable rate. For the average American it can be an arduous process sifting through all the rhetoric in attempt to find the real truth regarding our impact as humans on the environment; one such example is Susan Brown’s article The EPA’s Mercury Problem. In this article Brown attempts to expose hypocrisy among progressives by paralleling the Environmental Protection
Media coverage of climate change has effects on public attitude on the issue, as it mediates scientific opinion on climate change. The media uses interactions between climate science, policy, statistical scientific texts, data, scientific language and the appearances of scientific personalities. Such as work and stories from scientists that are personally known. It is clear that science and policy shape media reporting and public understanding. Whether people believe in it or not is their
Journalists are infamous for their motivation to produce hard hitting editorials, twisting the truth for their own selfish benefit. Steve Chapman strays away from this stereotype by ensuring integrity in every article. Continuously, Chapman strives to present the public with his analytical opinions. Douglas Adams describes the drive of Steve Chapman; “To give real service, you must add something which cannot be bought of measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity”. Steven Chapman, who writes weekly op-eds for the Chicago Tribune, delivers insight into national headlines using suggestive rhetoric appeals to address the reader’s fears of uncertainty followed by accredited reasoning, a condescending tone targeted at the written subject, calling the reader for reformation within society, and dashes to separate general statements from definitive fact, shifting from a mission-based point of view to thought-provoking opinionated writing in order to spark motivation within his readers using his opinions so that they can take action to better their communities in hopes of improving future national development.
The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more
Richard A. Epstein is a frequent contributor to the Hoover Institution, and his piece, “Scott Pruitt And The Environment”, hopes to ease hysteria over President Donald Trump’s selection of Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt denies the importance of climate change, he is a pro-industry former attorney general of Oklahoma. Epstein dances around rhetoric on both sides of the polarized climate change debate, creating a discourse which seems unbiased to the casual reader. This rhetorical analysis will strive to keep its proverbial ear to the ground and listen to the elephants hustling in the distance. References leading to right-wing contributors, language that evokes a sense of loss, and taking
The election of 2000 took place during a time that was mostly peaceful, unemployment rates were historically low, but however, there were a record number of terrorist threats (Muhlhausen). Despite all of these headlining topics presidential candidate Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman were far more concerned about global climate change (“Al”). Gore was, and still, is very passionate about this topic (“Al”, 9). He has challenged the two biggest polluters in the world, China and The United States to, “Make the boldest move in climate change.” Figure 5
The case is important because it belongs in a very new category of journalism. Online journalism, which has been established with vast technological advancements, poses many different advantages and disadvantages
97% of climate scientists agree that such increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are man-made (Global Climate Change: Consensus). Why then is it that the news media treats such widely held views by experts as debate rather than consensus? The answer may lie in the media’s current and skewed standards of what constitutes “objectivity” and “balance”.
This research has been conducted due to the fact that some researchers have claimed that “journalism is dying” whilst others have argued that “journalism is not dying but is simply evolving” (Blatchford: 2014). This has been a much contested debate triggered by the decline of news circulation from traditional news sources i.e. newspapers, television and radio together with the technological advances of the internet and social media (Cub Reporters: 2010). This has raised many questions and firstly, this dissertation will assess whether the rise of social media has led to the decline of news circulation from traditional news sources. Secondly, this paper will look at what the advantages and disadvantages of using social media as a news distributor are for professional journalists and the general public. Lastly, this study aims to investigate
Information and entertainment today are usually spread through the development of technology. Due to this, various medias enable us to give and receive information. Media can be divided into traditional media and new media (Christian, 2014). While it is easy to pinpoint the differences of the two medias, there are also some similarities that tie both medias together.
The overview of the subject matter is that the big worry is that quality will decline Journalists are employed to check their facts and they get checked in turn by editors who question the reliability of their sources; we trust the paper’s brand not the individual journalist. Social media could be reliable, but how would we know? This is equally true then it comes to bias. But the fact of the matter is journalism is more credible and if we lose credibility in the information we get everything could fall for speculation. The authors’ thesis is we should not stand for the decline of journalism as a profession but support our right to have valuable information
To wholly have a grasp on how this new founded approach to journalism has changed alongside technology—as well as understanding the dangers such openness brings forth—one has to understand what exactly those changes are. Primarily, those that are writing for the sake of offering information have, whether willingly or not, fed into the usage of social media as it has become a centralized method of distribution that is relatively inescapable with the current times. As such those framing the news for the masses find an authentic avenue to stay in contact via social media that has benefits ranging from, “its extraordinary newsgathering potential; its potential as a new tool to engage the audience; and as a way of distributing our news” (Eltringham, 2012), all of which are deeply different from the presentation of reporting that occurred during earlier eras. Days of strongly structured instances of journalism that could not travel with such speed have been replaced as, “social media has trashed many of the foundations on