Each of you should prepare a written response to the columns in which you accomplish the following:
a) indicate your general understanding of Shafer's body of work as represented by these samples. What matters to him? What characterizes his approach to writing and an understanding of media? Is there a recurring theme or themes that shoot through his work?
b) whether you find his work interesting, persuasive, misguided, etc. and why. Use specific examples to support your claims.
c) write three questions that you want to ask him after reading his work.
Please send me the response no later than 5PM ET on Tuesday, September 2. Please send it as an HTML or a rich-text email and include your full name and email at the top and the bottom. There is no specific length requirement on this, but it should be longer than three sentences and shorter than 1,000 words. Be creative but thorough and think through and outline your thoughts before you start to write (and revise). Spelling, grammar, and other details of presentation matter.
Contact me with any further questions. If it's something that might be pertinent to the class, please copy the whole list on any queries.
Required Reading for IMS 390B, September 3: A conversation Jack Shafer, editor at large, Slate.
Jack Shafer is a Slate editor at large. He edited two city weeklies, Washington City Paper and SF Weekly, before joining Slate prior to its 1996 launch. Shafer has written on new media, the press, and drug policy for publications big (New York Times Magazine) and small (Inquiry). His "Press Box" column appears several times a week in Slate.
The media monotony.
www.slate.com/id/2104777/
Media DeconcentrationRoll over Viacom and tell Bagdikian the news.
http://www.slate.com/id/2115066/
Why does drug reporting suck?
www.slate.com/id/2124298/
Michael Crichton, Vindicated
http://www.slate.com/id/2192382/
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Shield Law, Part 1 The Free Flow of Information Act would be a nightmare for journalists.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189186/
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Shield Law, Part 2 The First Amendment belongs to citizens, not the corporate press.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189279/
Eight Reasons Plagiarism Sucks
It harms readers, in its heart beats a lie, it corrupts, and five more.
http://www.slate.com/id/2186029/
"Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death"
And other tabloid headlines from CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com.
http://www.slate.com/id/2183032/
Hail to the Return of Motherland-Protecting Propaganda!
The Russians and their unintentionally hilarious Washington Post
http://www.slate.com/id/2173104/
Already Chewed News
What my beloved newspaper has been reduced to serving.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172642/
Shut Your Loophole
Add loophole to the list of words that should be banned from journalism.
http://www.slate.com/id/2170985/
Class Responses
Megan Skelton
Having no prior knowledge of Slate or Jack Shafer, I was able to gain much insight about him as a writer and even a person from reading each of the 11 provided articles. Even from the first of the articles, I immediately could tell that there was considerable credibility just in the tone of his writing. There was more than a hint of cynicism and resentment towards many of the topics he discusses. I picked up on a style of clean, organized and articulate ranting.
He cares deeply about the reputation of journalism as a career, as demonstrated in his article on why plagiarism sucks. He is skeptic about why credible sources such as cnn.com and msnbc.com are slowly taking on tabloid status. He is highly informed about the position and prominence of media in our lives. He shows a breadth of interest in talents as proven by the fact that in the same year he wrote an article about Russian Propaganda and an article about the death of newspapers.
My opinion about Jack Shafer and his writing is shaped by the order in which I read each of his articles. After reading the first article, The Media Monotony, I was worried that he would only target individuals in order to make a point, but after continuing to read, I soon realized that he also targeted groups, publications, countries, and conglomerates in order to make himself clear. He takes direction in his writing and slips in lines of sarcasm that can almost feel insulting to the reader. However, only enough to make the reader rethink his or her own views on the topics he covers…one of the many roles of a good journalist.
Three Questions for Jack Shafer:
When you write an article that requires you to take a strong stance on a topic, do you ever worry that you will later change your mind?
In your article Already Chewed News you make it known that you spend nearly every waking hour seeking the freshest news, reading the papers, surfing the web, checking
your email…does this imply that your job trumps your family and personal life?
Other than his views on the inevitable future of the media, do you agree with any of Michael Crichton’s other stances, i.e. global warming and environmentalism as a religion?
[30]
Andrea Pelose
While Shafer writes in a manner which reflects a newer, blunt, and opinionated press, he in fact exudes favoritism towards the morals of old-fashioned journalism. He wants the best form of journalism, be it a lack of plagiarism and “loophole” usage, a no-claim policy for who can call themself a journalist, or merely the feel of a fresh copy of the New York Times. While Shaker often writes about the popularity and demand of new media, he tends to criticize it, also showing his “old soul” attributes. His continued idealism for the respect of journalism shines past his quick jabs and sarcasm with the traditional backing of information by sources, despite the fact that he is often writing about something strictly stemming from opinion over issue.
Whether I agreed or disagreed with Shafer, which changed from article to article, I always saw his side of things. As in the case of his Shield Law argument, I had always been in support of a federal shield law when studying the basics of it in previous journalism classes, yet never really considered the threat of having to license and define journalists. His arguments, though they tend to ramble, are clearly presented and unexpectedly examined without a bias before he concludes his opinion. Basically, Shafer is the guy in the back of the room that listens, nods his head, and then says, “I understand what you’re saying, but…”
Though at times I found Shafer’s topics to be a bit unnecessary, other than its comedic premise, such as “Fisherman Beats Rare Dolphin to Death,” I enjoyed the nature in which his articles relate. Journalism is often compromised. It is biased, stolen, repeated, and sensationalized. This was never its original intent, nor should it be.
Questions:
1) What do you feel is the single biggest threat facing the
current state of journalism, be it new technology that seems to regurgitate news
or old ploys such as plagiarism?
2) What provokes you to write a column? What is your main source of agitation?
3) If you could choose three rules to which news corporations gathered, produced, and released the news, what would they be and why?
[30]
Jason Andrews
Following the reading of various columns from Slate’s, Jack Schafer. It appears that Schafer is an advocate of traditional news media; more specifically print mediums (newspapers and magazines). He continually writes about the impact of new media avenues such as emergent bloggers and web-based media such as RSS feeds, and their effects on more traditional news. A hodge-podge of online media, print materials, and foreign press, appear to compose Shafer’s knowledge and perspective. The themes of his columns often speak to the decline of classical news and arguments against poor reporting or bastardization of worthy editorials and news stories. However Shafer seems to tip his hat to the nuances of emerging trends and ever expanding virtual and media driven world. Shafer’s represented body of work shows a humor and whit-driven dialogue with the reader. “The newspaper is dead. Long live the newspaper,” written in Shafer’s Already Chewed News I feel exemplifies this writers program. His insidious commentary on issues discussed within his column contrast his comedic approach to most cases. I thoroughly enjoyed his material and am looking foreword to discovering this writer more on my own
Questions:
Continually your columns site the emergence of online media and news in today’s web 2.0 societies, and while you reference your own habitual use of online news sites, you defend what seems to be a more classical form of distribution for the news. Because of this transition into new media, how do you believe future generations will receive their news, and do you believe the extinction of paper media is inevitable in an ever-expanding digital society?
Along with the increasing popularity of the Internet, do you believe that the focus of America’s youth on social networking versus national and global news wills de-emphasis of the need for informed and intelligent youths?
Finally, understanding your criticism of tabloid-quality headlines focused on increasing online readership, what is your opinion on the new trend towards a comedic approach to news, such as The Onion, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report?
[30]
Jennifer Pace
Jack Shafer focuses on how media has changed and its influence on how people react to the news. He disagrees with the claim that only the major media conglomerates control people’s view. The Internet has pushed the TV, newspapers and radio stations from being the primary source of news. With the ability to access news at anytime from any source, Shafer believes there is now a lack of truth. Shafer comments that most reporting is now rooted in opinions and writers are not sourcing where they find their information. Shafer’s articles are persuasive, making you question how you perceive the media. At times he has a pessimistic view and alludes to the fact that journalists and the readers are ignorant. This is seen in his article “Why Does Drug Reporting Suck?” People are only interested in the “sensational or dramatic aspects” of news stories, even if the story is not confirmed with facts. This theory is seen again in the article “Fisherman Beat Rare Dolphin to Death.” This article lists out different dramatic headlines that can be found on top news websites such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com and Foxnews.com. The goal with these websites is to get as many clicks on the link to an article as possible. Shafer points out that these website exploit “any story featuring sex, violence, death or dismemberment.” Both the media and its viewers are too caught up in a thrilling and sensational story than caring about what truly is important.
Questions:
How do you think media is going to change in the next 10 years?
What actions should our society take to stop plagiarism? Or do you think there will always be a problem with it?
Do you think our society will always be obsessed with reading or watching the “sensational” news stories?
[30]
Chelsea Clements
a&b) From the samples that we read, I think that what matters to Shafer is honest, accurate and worthy reporting. I'm not sure I can say what characterizes his approach to writing as the samples we read are about many different topics and not a specific theme. What I can say is that I feel his writing is very critical and somewhat negative. I find that his work lacks original thought. The discussion about the media conglomerates I feel is old news, repetitive and opinion based, three characteristics that Shafer points out that he dislikes in his piece about Crichton. "Crichton criticizes much of the news fed to consumers are repetitive, simplistic, and insulting...I want a news service that tells me what no one knows but is true nonetheless." Overall, I thought his work was okay to read in small chunks, but reading ten or so pieces, it all seems to drag together.
Questions for Shafer:
1. What other social issues are not likely to be challenged and where old myths are perpetuated in the public's mind? Are there any social issues that were previously not challenged that have been challenged in recent years, resulting in more accurate and less "sucky" reporting?
2. In your piece about Michael Crichton, it is predicted that traditional media will be replaced by AI agents that roam databases, downloading information that you are interested in and creating a personalized front page. What would be on your ideal front page?
3. In your article about drug reporting, you talk about how reporters too seldom attempt to cross-check information with sources on the street and that they fail to develop alternative sourcing. What do you suggest that reporters do apart from talking to drug
dealers on the street and possibly putting themselves in harms way?
4. I agree that contemporary media has shifted from fact to opinion and speculation, enough so that I have stopped watching television news programs and have shifted to getting all my news via the internet (ABCNews.com, DrudgeReport.com, CNN.com etc) where I can choose from a wide variety of stories from any region of the world that I want. Do you believe that there is any hope for print and television news keeping any sort of power in the coming years despite my generation going to the internet for news?
[30]
Scott Turner
Through reading his columns, it is quite obvious that the professional Jack Shafer is a man who should be both feared and respected by working journalists at large. Feared because tomorrow any journalist's work could be under fire by Shafer's witty criticism, but respected because he works to make sure that the journalistic principles of integrity and honesty are upheld.
It's hard to say simply by reading him whether or not Shafer is someone of true conviction but my inclination is to the positive. His contributions to the discourse on the practices, ethics, bias, and laws that journalists confront everyday are very compelling, well-reasoned, and possibly very unpopular with some. But his words make it seem like he genuinely cares about improving the role of journalism in society. He has debunked the need for a shield law, critiqued authors such as Ben Bagdikian and Michael Crichton and their discussion of the role of media in the lives of consumers, vehemently denounced any sort of plagiarism, discovered what it means to read the newspaper in an online world and even gone so far as to expose the rampant usage of the word 'loophole' in many newspapers.
It is quite obvious through the readings that Shafer is an intelligent guy who writes from the perspective that is absolutely essential to keeping the press in check. And his opinions in this area are quite persuasive because they speak to an ideology that can be traced to the root of journalism and the first amendment themselves: the need to ruthlessly critique and scrutinize everything that we take for granted so that we all better decisions as informed citizens in a complex world.
My favorite part of the reading was the subtitle for the shield law article: "The first amendment belongs to the citizens, not the corporate press." I wish every journalist (and American citizen) thought that way, and I applaud Shafer for furthering the idea that the press can be smarter and freer so long as we work towards that goal.
Questions for Jack Shafer
1) In response to "Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death;" What do you have to say about the recent Cnn.com Bigfoot case?
2) This question is in response to "Hurricane Palin;" What do you think the major failures of the news have been when it comes to coverage of the election candidates since May?
3) In response to "Eight reasons plagiarism sucks;" What is the worst act of plagiarism in professional journalism you've ever encountered?
[30]
Mary DelGrande
The main recurring motif I noticed in Shafer’s articles was that of technological advances with regards to different mediums, particularly newspapers and magazines. Shafer enjoys the Internet as oppose to holding a paper in his hand. I perceived his personality as being impatient if he doesn’t have everything he wants directly at his fingertips, especially if it’s online. Although the Internet is a great resource for all the different kinds of mediums, multiple problems could arise and the portability factor is no longer an option.
The thread that links all these articles together is the Big Five and how they dictate what we as consumers receive in terms of news sources and information. In the past, the media had a pre-fixed menu and Americans had to sit and watch the news at night when it was being aired. Now, anyone can use different sources to get the news they want, whether it’s online or in a paper copy. The Big Five still have a hold over America though because their news channels report what they think Americans need to know, and sometimes this does not include all the correct news information.
1.) How do you think advertising will change now that the new medium of newspapers is transferred online? The eye can block out images seen online and look directly at what it wants to read, where as in newspapers and magazines the ads are flat out on the page and cannot be ignored. Therefore, do you think advertising online is more effective than in hard print?
2.) Why do you think Journalists want a shield law only to defy them in the end? Your article states that from 2001 - 2006 there were only 65 subpoenas approved, so what is the point of journalists pushing for this shield law if history states this law will work against them instead of for them?
3.) Hard copies of newspapers and magazines are portable and any one person can carry it with them regardless of where they are, move it around, and if you want to turn the page you don't have to worry about a bad reception. This portability exists today but it does not exist online. When T.V. and laptops and internet and radio will all be on one device, do you think this will be the most effective way of combining all types of mediums? Do you think it will be profitable right away and will it stay on the market or disintegrate?
[30]
Nick Engel
In Jack Shafer’s writing it is clear that he feels originality and accuracy are important qualities in journalism. His approach to writing is very contrarian and typically a response to something in popular culture beliefs or another author’s writings. He seems to have a wide understanding of media and almost takes a teacher or educator role in his writing trying to convey his message to a student.
I found Jack Shafer’s messages very persuasive, especially in the articles about media monotony. It is a popular belief in culture and politics that the media is controlled by select people with certain agendas. His argument that these entities are too complicated and that they don’t interact with each other was very persuasive. Also, his argument about loopholes was a persuasive piece also. While I don’t completely agree with his arguments, I personally see loopholes used that are unethical, after reading his article I felt like I understood and found myself agreeing with a lot of his argument. Some of his articles, for example his writings on the shield law, were on topics that I had no previous opinion formed. After reading these articles I find myself on his side of the argument on shield laws and found it interesting in class when journalism majors were switching over to his side even after being told for three years of college that shield laws are necessary.
The three questions that I have formed to ask Jack Shafer are:
Do you feel that companies like Clear Channel still have a strong say over what music is popular in the United States?
What solutions do you see coming about that will make television news focus on wider topics instead of endless arguments?
Do you feel tabloid and celebrity related articles should be completely left off the front pages of news websites like CNN.com?
[30]
Cassie Gladden
What I first noticed was Shafer’s vernacular. His titles, such as "We don’t need No Stinkin’ Shield Law," and "Eight Reason Plagiarism Sucks" are a-typical, in your face and express his true emotions.
Once I began reading his articles, these tendencies are echoed in his writing. Shafer presents each topic, expressing his point of view in an open manner. He ignores the standard practice of writing proper English and presents his ideas sometimes with slang-like sayings, "Nobody will deny that rewarding cheaters for cheating sucks" (Plagiarism 2), in a conversational, entertaining and easy-to-read style. He is contradicting, in the fact that many of his articles argue against the popular thought. If he gets categorized as always being contradicting, his arguments will become less respected. However, in my opinion, Shafer presents strong arguments complimented by examples and support.
The two articles that I found particularly interesting were, "The Media Monotony" and "Media Deconcentration." Out of all the articles these were the ones that I could most closely relate to since I spent my summer working for Disney, a "Big Five" corporation that, according to Bagdikian, "decide on what most citizens will—or will not—learn." (Media Monotony 1.) As a result of my internship experience, I found my self agreeing with many of Shafer’s points. In "Media Deconcentration," Shafer states, "Every subsidiary [of these big corporation] must stand for itself." Working for a division of Disney—ESPN—this was true.
Each department has it’s own agenda. My department was pushing a new product, ESPN360.com. However, if we wanted commercial spots on primetime television, it would be very unlikely. The national ad sales department would rather sell those spots to outside vendors. Shafer also brings up the emerging technologies such as TiVo and the Internet, how they are cutting profits of these large media corporations. Over the summer I was able to see the impact of these new media formats, specifically they were affecting revenue and forcing the company to develop new technologies. For example, In order to compete with the increase of video content online, ESPN developed a broadband network, ESPN360.com. The problem was not the creation of this new product; it was developing a profitable and competitive business model. This is particularly difficult because of the breadth and complexity of this large corporation. The broadband channel needed to find a way to make money with out hurting other entities. Overall Shafer brings up many valid points that contradict Bagdikan’s book.
To conclude, I enjoyed reading Shafer’s argument. They forced me to think about subjects with a different point of view and apply my past experiences. I found his style of writing enlightening and sometimes humorous. He spoke with an authoritative voice that portrayed validity.
[30]
