War on Democracy

Authors pick and choose the best director to adapt their works into movies, directors pick producers who will follow their vision. Magazines and advertisers carefully decide who to work with in order to gain the most profit.

So why is it wrong for the White House to pick and choose who they speak to? In recent weeks the White House and Obama in particular have made it very clear that they are choosing to speak to some news outlets rather than others.

They have chosen to leave FOX News out of many press junkets and other important press events. FOX News has taken this as an all-out war.

But what is the problem? Why not let the president choose who he wants to hear his speeches? Why not decide that some news stations will not be able to spin his word?

As a journalism student at an openly liberal school, I can see both sides of this issue. On one side, FOX News spins Obama's words and turns him into the bad guy every chance they get. I have an ingrained bias with FOX News and tend to shun then as many other liberal democrats do, but what about the journalistic consequences?

If the White House blocks this one station, who's to say they can't block others? Isn't the job of a news organization to be a watchdog? They are supposed to report and question all that comes from the White House and put the facts in the faces of the public.

From the beginning of my education we have been taught to get the facts, get to the bottom of complicated politics and decisions in order to educate the public. How is the public expected to be completely informed if all sides of the issue cannot be displayed?

Letting the government decide who will disseminate their policies and ideas gives the government all the power. Without the negative press, there is in effect no "watchdog". It gives the man in charge even more power.

As a journalism student, this is a scary time. If the White House succeeds in quieting one of the major news organizations, he succeeds in breaking the 1st Amendment. Free press.

This "war" could change the relationship between the press and the government for generations to come.

Regardless of my political leanings and my personal preferences, a threat of this kind to the journalistic process is a threat to the entire country and its democratic process.

Education of the Future?

The Missouri School of Journalism recently made news when it announced it is requiring all incoming students to the journalism program to purchase an iPhone or iPod Touch.

Schools across the nation have been encouraging students to purchase the newest and best technology for years, but this is one school that has made the recommendation a requirement.


As a journalism student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I have mixed feelings about the Missouri school's decision. I myself am an iPod Touch owner and user and absolutely love having the Internet and video at my fingertips, but I have rarely used my iPod for anything remotely journalistic.


I check my email, check social networks, play games and watch episodes of my favorite shows, but when I want my daily news fix I find a computer.


Checking news websites is still much easier on a full sized computer screen rather than on a handheld device. This is mostly due to the journalism industry's slow transition into the hand-held age.


There are few news organizations that have specific apps set up for the iPod (one notable exception being the New York Times) so users are stuck viewing pages meant for full-screen on a their 3-inch mini-screens.


I can honestly say that this is a less than desirable way to view the days headlines.


If the school is planning to use the iPods primarily for class purposes such as transmitting Podcasts or posting the syllabus, then perhaps this is a good idea, but yet again a computer would be sufficient.


In my own opinion, until the journalistic industry as a whole catches up to technology, iPods will be yet another distraction for students as they sit in their desks.