Frank Sesno Has a Point

Something very interesting occurred to me while listening to Frank Sesno speak last week. He brought up the Duke lacross case and broke down what happened in a journalistic manner.

The journalist covering the case where getting all of their information from officials, officials that one would have thought had correct evidence reguarding the case. The journalists took what information they were given and writing about them as though they were fact, not just suspision.

Sesno made a good point, if I were a journalist covering that case, and a police officer told me about some details that I believed were fact, then I would probably take that information and go with it. I would continue writing. However, that is what screwed up those kids lives. THe fact that the information journalists were taking was not fact. It was like one big rumor and everyone wanted to write their piece on it.

As sad as the case was it led to some good tips for journalists to take. Although the story sounded juicy the way it was portrayed, it was not true, therefore ruining people's lives. Sesno said we live in a "live" time. We must understand that journalists dont have time to check facts because of the time factor. So we need to "get over it" ( in Sesnos words) and just realize the time we live in.

The journalists should have made some changes to their stories, and some did send apologies. But this was a great lesson for journalists to take to understand the importance of what they write, where they get there facts from and if it is worth ruining people's innocent lives to get the story out first.

Mmmm against Clinton?

In an article I was reading on Foxnews.com, "Latest Iowa Poll Puts Clinton at Top of Voter Preferences" I was reading purely for bias since this is something FOX is known for. What I came across was exactly what was expected. Although the headline stated good news about Clinton, there was a slight slant in the story against her.

These little jabs aren't much, but they are noticeable to me now due to our studies in class. When Hilary got in a heated debate with Randal Rolph.

Their exchanged grew heated as he insisted the bill would authorize combat. Clinton snapped back, her voice rising, "I'm sorry, sir, it does not."

I am sure her voice was not the only voice that was rising in this debate. There were a number of other small instances that poked at Hilary somewhat. I understand that this is a right sided news organizations, but it really makes me think how unfair these stations are for being slightly to the left or slightly to the right

They are founded by conglomorates, this I understand, but it just can really make someone think. I am so thankful to be a journalism student so I know these tricks and understand these organizations and what their goals are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299977,00.html