Research Report_Chozick_O'Shasky

            Throughout her life, Amy Chozick has held many job titles within the field of Journalism. She began her career working at the Wall Street Journal where she held job titles that included being a features writer covering Hollywood, a national political correspondent and she even spent some time based in Tokyo as a foreign correspondent. She has large range and broad curiosity with her reporting. Chozick has written front-page articles on the Koch Brothers, the Assad, and Anonymous for targeting media executives.

            Chozick is currently working for the New York Times as a national political reporter. She was originally hired by the Times to cover corporate media. This included chronicling developments and intrigue among many industries power brokers. Chozick also covered stories on terminal snooping at Bloomberg and has chronicled major developments and corner office intrigue among the industry’s power brokers. Her coverage includes stories on terminal snooping at Bloomberg LP and phone hacking at the American multinational mass media corporation, News Corporation.

          During her time with the Wall Street Journal, much of Chozick’s reporting is focused on the Clinton family. This focus started in 2007 when she began to cover the presidential race in which Hillary Clinton was running. She reported on over 20 debates during the 2007 election which included debates by not only Hillary, but also debates with Barack Obama. In 2012, Chozick accompanied former president Bill Clinton to Africa where she wrote the beginning of the speech that he gave to open the Democratic National Convention.

Chozick has won multiple awards throughout her successful career as a reporter and she has written many articles that have appeared in such magazines as The Times’ Dining, Styles and Arts & Leisure. Her first article written for the New York Times was a profiling of Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia. In the article Chizock touches on the moral and ethical issues that Jimmy Wales faces as his company grows from its humble, non-profit origins. As the co-founder of one of the world’s most successful internet websites, Chizock reports that Wales has only a net worth of around $1 million. She goes on to report on where Wales intends to take his widely successful company and if he has any plans about switching to a profit generating business plan which would mainly include the introduction of advertisements to the Wikipedia website.

When she was hired by the New York Times this past July, the Political Editor wrote a memo to her staff praising Chozick for all of her talent and success that she had at the Wall Street Journal. Her distinctive ability to infiltrate institutions and report the stories from within, shows her relentlessness and passion for her work. Her extensive experience as a reporter has gained her much credibility with her fellow reporters as well as with many Americans. Chozick currently resides in the East Village of New York City with her husband Robert Ennis.

Resources

Amy Chozick to join New York Times’ political team | Poynter.. (n.d.). <i>Poynter</i>. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/217279/amy-chozick-to-join-new-york-times-political-team/

Amy Chozick-The New York Times. (n.d.). Amy Chozick-The New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.amychozick.com/

Research report_Kang_Zacharias

Jay Caspian Kang was born in South Korea and grew up in Boston and Chapel Hill. He was educated at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, where he received the 2003 Sinkinson Prize for Best Short Story and founded Ritalin, a humor magazine.

Kang is currently an editor at the sports/pop-culture blog Grantland. He has also written for the New York Times, Wired and TheAtlantic.com. In 2012, he published his debut novel The Dead Do Not Improve, which is said to be well liked by “fans of dark humor” (Huffington Post, 2012).  However, he claims that the funniest of his articles came from his writing for The Orient. 

Kang’s writing is thought by many to be refreshing and humorous; he’s a young writer with the ability to do many different types of writing. Many of his articles for Grantland are in fact sports related, the most notable of them covering Jeremy Lin. Adding to the variety of Kang’s articles, this week we read “Should Reddit Be Blamed for the Spreading of a Smear?” from the New York Times. This article is neither the humorous or sporty article that Kang is notorious for, however it replicates the hint of racial tension in America depicted in The Dead Do Not Improve.

Kang’s article explains the mistaken identity of the Boston bomber suspect number two – a Brown University Student named Sunil Tripathi. The focus of the article is where the blame for this mistake is to be placed, possibly where the rumor began on Reddit.com. Kang weighs the pros and cons of a news source like Reddit – fast and democratic, but not always reliable. It surely proved to cause a lot of problems for the Tripathi family. However the bigger picture of Kang’s concerns is this: what are the effects of democratic/anonymous new sources like Reddit and Anonymous? He points out that many of the sources we deem legitimate and trustworthy get their stories from illegitimate sources, often Reddit and twitter. This was true in the case of Sunil Tripathi. Kang claims that every mistake made by a major news organization during this time was proof that the “new order had arrived”.

Kang also highlights that organizations like Reddit and Anonymous have extremely small staffs – Anonymous with about 20 and Reddit with 28, despite their “size and influence”. A great portion of the information they publish comes not from employees, but average citizens. This is a true testament to the way that news is changing and how our views of the news need to change as well. Though one Reddit user claims that Reddit is a contrast to the “slow, bureaucratic, and filtered” news we have become accustomed to, it clearly has its faults. The Tripathi family suffered dramatically from harassment due to the mistaken identity of bomber number two and lowered the already slim chances of finding their missing son Sunil. Major news organizations should take serious precautions before spreading information they receive from anonymous sources as they are held to different standards than organizations like Anonymous and Reddit. It is our job as well to be skeptical of this information and take special note of where it came from. 

References 

The book we're talking about: 'the dead do not improve'. (2012, August 06). Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/dead-do-not-improve_n_1747545.html

Kang, J. C. (2013, July 25). Should reddit be blamed for the spreading of a smear?. New York Times

Research Report_Carey_Yadegar

In today’s world of journalism, it is hard to come by a journalist that’s main intentions are to better the publics knowledge of the world and have no other ulterior motive or outside pressures affecting their writing. We are taught to be hesitant, and question every thing we read to find the authors purpose. That’s why when reading James W. Carey’s book “A Cultural Approach to Communication” I was a bit confused. It was not really the book itself that confused me rather, what I found out about Casey and why he wrote the way he did. Casey grew up with a heart problem taking him out of school and being able to play with kids his age, so he filled his life with books and a passion for learning. He went on to graduate the University of Rhode Island; landing jobs as a professor, most notable the dean of the University of Illinois College of Communications and a professor at Columbia University. He was described as “a respected communications theorist whose intellectual acrobatics added heft to the practical education of journalists at Columbia University” (New York Times) and also portrayed as is not universal in the upper-academic realm where Jim dwelt professionally, he loved journalists, and believed that universities have something to teach us'' (Nicholas Lemann). This is what surprised me, Carey did not do what he did for any other purpose but to further the worlds knowledge on journalism, and educate the public on his views and beliefs of journalism, nothing more nothing less. He didn’t have publishers, advertisers, or media owners influencing his work, he wrote about what he thought was important, especially his theory of “the ritual view of communication”. The theory is described as wherein communication–the construction of a symbolic reality–represents, maintains, adapts, and shares the beliefs of a society in time. In short, the ritual view conceives communication as a process that enables and enacts societal transformation. In his book, Carey talks about the importance about religion in reference to communication. At first I though that this had to do with some religious bias Carey had, but that was not the case. He shared this view on how religion affected communication just to educate and bring something to light. He theorized that religion was the reason communication evolved to what it is. This can be described best by the quote with the first telegraphic message, the purpose of the invention was not to spread the price of pork but to ask the question 'What Hath God Wrought?” (Morse), famously said by the inventor of the telegraph, Samuel Morse. “A Cultural Approach to Communication” is a book critically acclaimed for its advancement in the views of journalism, it had no added pressures than what the author felt was necessary for the public to know, and it was essentially an honest piece of work done by a man that loved journalism in its purest form. 

Research Report_ Markham_ The Economist

                With the rising of social media networks like Facebook and Myspace, today’s users often are unaware of the long existence of social media. Social networks extend beyond the webspace and technological world, and include everything as simple as the word of mouth. In a December 29, 2011 edition of The Economist, an anonymous writer explains the effectiveness of even past forms of social media in the spreading of ideals, which led to historical reformations, as seen with Martin Luther.

                The most noticeable aspect of this article is the lack of an author. It was a well written piece, so why was their no credit given to the writer? It was not only this article that was written anonymously, but all of the works produced by The Economist. According to their “About Us” page, The Economist believes in collaborative pieces that show their belief in, “what is written is more important than who writes it.” The thoughts behind this process seem innocent enough, but readers should be wary of what they read from a source with nobody to take responsibility for what is written.

                Although they refer to themselves as a newspaper, The Economist acknowledges that they are opinionated and analytical. They only refer to themselves as a newspaper because, in their opinionated analysis of a topic, they cover important events in the economic and political world. Therefore, despite acquiring knowledge of a topic, a reader should only read these articles if they are prepared to be persuaded or ready to question what is written. Although many news organizations provide biased articles, The Economist intentionally does this in order to give their insights on certain topics; In this case, the power of social media in provoking necessary changes.

                 When reading The Economist, many topics and articles contain very conservative ideals. Although they claim to also back many liberal topics, the majority of subjects supported are known to be very conservative. This does not mean that the articles provided are of low quality, but that many liberal topics may not be covered unless there is a way to argue against it. As seen in “How Luther Went Viral”, the idea of freedom of speech and anti-government intervention is supported. The anonymous author uses anecdotes of how Martin Luther was able to change corruption of Catholic churches via pamphlets and oral transmissions, as well as how disliked Arabian rulers were only able to be overthrown through the help of expression by using Facebook.

                The Economist covers a vast array of stories related to economics and politics, and their articles are informative in teaching the reader. However, unless cautious when reading, the reader may be oblivious to the conservative views incorporated. The company is not shy in admitting, and sometimes even bragging, about their use of opinion and analysis, and depending on the reader, this may be beneficial. However, to many readers, biased views may distort the facts or only present one side of a topic.

Works Cited:

Economist. (2011, Dec 29). How Luther went viral. Retrieved from

      http://www.economist.com/node/21541719

About Us. The Economist. Retrieved from

      http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom

Research Report_Lemann_Sivilotti

Natalie Sivilotti

Jiun-Yi Tsai

Section 304

In the article “The Word Lab,” Nicholas Lemann dives into the world of political phrasing, and how certain words can affect the way people perceive a particular candidate.  The political world is a harsh one, where every action and word is scrutinized closely. Lemann not only investigated the deicisions a campaign makes when vetting a candidate, but also how each action will look through the public eye. This is in fact a science, or a “word lab,” that Nicholas Lemann has closely investigated.

Nicholas Lemann began his journalistic career at a young age. At the age of 17, Lemann began writing for a local newspaper in his hometown outside of New Orleans, Louisiana. After high school, Lemann attended Harvard University where he studied history and literature. At this time, Lemann was also the president of the Harvard Crimson, Harvard’s prestigious student run newspaper. After graduating with honors from Harvard, Lemann bounced from different newspapers, as a national writer or correspondent. Some of these news organizations include: The Texas Monthly, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.

One of Lemann’s most notable positions was as dean of the Columbia School of Journalism. Lemann took the position in September of 2003 and remained dean until 2013. During his tenure as dean, Lemann expanded the graduate programs, built student centers, and redesigned the curriculum to fit a more modern journalistic era.

Nicholas Lemann is a very credible source in the journalism world. Lemann has worked for some of the most prestigious national news outlets, and is a correspondent for even more news sources. Also, as the dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, arguably the country’s top journalism school, Lemann understands the importance of journalist ethics and how they need to be adapted to fit the modern world. Although, Lemann himself does not hold a journalism degree, his experience goes far beyond any notion that he is unqualified as journalist.

Besides working as a staff writer and correspondent, Lemann has also written five books, which have won numerous awards. Lemann also sits on many national boards, including the board for the Academy of Political Science. Because he holds such a prestigious position, he is definitely qualified to report on political habits and motives such as he did in the article, “The Word Lab.” Although Lemann has left his post as dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, he continues to write and lecture at different schools throughout the country.

 “The Word Lab,” gives a provocative insight into the world of politics, and makes the reader really analyze exactly what they are seeing and hearing during a political campaign. Although something you hear may seem innocent and unrehearsed, the science behind the word lab shows that every single detail has been planned and can have a major effect on public opinion and response. 

References

Lemann, Nicholas (October 16, 2000). "The Word Lab: The mad Science Behind What the Candidates Say". The New Yorker.

"Contributors: Nicholas Lemann." Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/nicholas_lemann/search?contributorName=nicholas%20lemann

"Nicholas Lemann." Retrieved from: http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/50

Research Report_Nisbet_Feichtmeier

PJ Feichtmeier

J201

Juin-Yi Tsai

November 3 2013      

Recently, it seems as though both Democrats and Republicans share only one thing in common, a mutual animosity towards one another.  This has become even more apparent over recent elections and legislation attempts.  Both Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele depict this increasing polarization through an article entitled The Polarization Paradox: Why Hyperpartisanship strengthens conservatism and undermines Liberalism.  In the article, the authors describe the polarizing trend of politics over recent years by analyzing elections and the role of politics in them and the strategic use of media.  The article shows a strong bias towards the liberal side, however it does point out numerous flaws with the liberal agenda and the ways in which liberals have handled politics in recent years.  Nonetheless, it endorses them by defending the fact that liberals would have no reason to become increasingly polarized if the GOP had not already done so.  The article cites numerous examples as to how political leaders have helped to further this polarization, however every leader mentioned participating in this process was a conservative.  Furthermore, liberals who seem to also increase the polarization by implanting similar tactics as the GOP tend to be praised, a contradicting thought. 

            To understand the bias within the article, I researched both of the authors to comprehend their point of view and why they would have written this article in such a manner.  After some digging, I found both authors to be credible sources on the topic of political science and mass communication.  Both authors are currently professors, Nisbet at the American University and Scheufele at UW-Madison, and both have received extensive education, Nisbet graduated from Cornell and Scheufele was once a Cornell faculty member before moving to UW and studied in Germany extensively, and both have written and reviewed dozens of scholarly articles.  I believe that both of these authors are credible because they use credible sources and use specific facts to support their arguments, whether they are arguing against the GOP or against the poor way in which both sides use media for their personal gain.  Furthermore, both authors study the use of media in politics, mainly on its influences within elections.  Since the article bases most of its evidence around political campaigns and how they are managed, I believe that the evidence provided in the article is reliable.  Also, it would explain how the authors were able to really dive into the way the two parties use media as a way to both further polarize their ideologies and motivate voters to show up on Election Day.

            After my research, I believe that Nisbet is mainly responsible for the biasness in the article.  I came to this conclusion by looking at some of his other work, which has to deal extensively with global warming, a crucial part of the Liberal platform.  Also, he is a professor at American University, which is located in Washington D.C., clearly a political hub within the United States.  Although Scheufele is another author of the article, I believe his influence was mainly in the area of the effects that media has had on the polarization and the ways in which it has been used to further the polarization.    

References

Nisbet, M. (2013, 11 3) Matthew C. Nisbet. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/matthewnisbet/

Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2012, Summer). The polarization paradox: Why hyperpartisanship strengthens conservatism and undermines liberalism. The Breakthrough Institute. Retrieved from http://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-3/the-polarization-paradox/

Scheufele, D. (2013, 11 3) Dietram Scheufele Short Bio. Retrieved from http://www.dietramscheufele.com

            

Research Report_Goodman_Mogck

Rachael Mogck

J201: Section 304

Jiun-Yi Tsai

October 28, 2013

            In his article on crisis management, Peter S. Goodman (2010) describes the situations Toyota, BP, and Goldman Sachs found themselves in during their extreme image crises. Goodman (2010) looks at each case individually and describes what went wrong and what the company possibly could have done better. He also, however, provides input from contributors who believe that it is possible the situations were so bad, that nothing these companies could have done would have fixed their problems. For example, " Eric Dezenhall, a communications strategist in Washington who worked in the White House for President Ronald Reagan, argues that the standard playbook is useless when the facts are sufficiently distasteful" (Goodman, 2010). Goodman (2010) ends the article on neutral ground, stating that these companies definitely made mistakes in their crisis management, the same ones in fact, but that the companies may have known that their options for management were poor from the start and there was not much they could do besides getting back to business.

            Peter Goodman is currently the executive business editor of the Huffington Post, but in the past he has worked for many different newspapers including The New York Times and The Washington Post.  Goodman specializes in writing on economics and finance and often writes about economic security and sources for quality jobs. He has also written a book titled PAST DUE: The End of Easy Money and the Renewal of the American Economy which focuses on the breakdown in American economic life and ways to stimulate the economy.  

            Goodman grew up in New York City and went to school at Reed College. Outside of the United States, he has spent time working in Japan, Southeast Asia, and China. While abroad, Goodman traveled around Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During his time overseas, Goodman studied and explored China's unique economic system in great detail.

            Goodman's article, "In Case of Emergency: What Not to Do" (2010), appeared in The New York Times during his time of employment there. The New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers around the world and is known to be reliable and credible. Because the article appears in such a highly respected news source, it is possible that it reached a broad range of audience. The article is written in an academic fashion, with many sources, which reflects the style of The New York Times. The article is also straight forward and easy to follow, which makes it understandable to many audiences. Where the article appears on The New York Times website, it would appear that commenting is not available.

            Goodman's article presents views on publicity crises situations that are easy to relate to and understand. Readers of the article are also consumers and can identify with reactions to these crises and confirm their feelings on the issues and how the companies handled them. Along with being highly relatable, the article also offers opinions of many sources including spokespeople of the companies themselves to give us a better understanding of the companies' views and tactics on the crises. On top of that, the article was published in one of the top newspapers in the world, which in itself gives the article large credibility. Overall, it would seem the article provides accurate and reliable insight into crisis management situations.   

References

Goodman, P. S. (20120, August 22). In Case of Emergency: What Not to Do. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E2DB1230F931A1575BC0A9669D8B63&ref=petersgoodman

Peter S. Goodman. (2010). Retrieved October 27, 2013 from http://www.petersgoodman.com/PSG/About.html

Research Report_ Maher, Herbst, Childs, Finn_Miller

Published in the Journal of Advertising research, the article, Racial Stereotypes in Children’s Television commercials, examined the research about ethnic actors or actresses in commercials and what, if any, effect it had on the children who watched the commercials. More specifically, the article took a look at ethnic misrepresentation in commercials—ethnic groups are underrepresented in commercials compared to Caucasians.

            The article was written in collaboration by four different professors from three universities; Jill K. Maher and Seth Finn from Robert Morris University, Kenneth C. Herbst from Wake Forest University, and Nancy M. Childs from Saint Joseph’s University.

            Jill K. Maher received her Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and Marketing from Slippery Rock University in 1990, her Master of Business Administration from Ashland University in 1994, and her Ph.D. in Marketing from Kent State University in 1999. Maher became an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Robert Morris University in 2001and is now a full professor of marketing in the school of business. Her research is primarily focused on advertising directed at children and gender and ethnic biases in children’s commercials.

            Seth Finn is a professor of Communications in the school of communication and Information systems at Robert Morris University. His research focuses on technology use by NPO’s (Non-profit organizations) and laptop and wireless innovations on college campuses. Finn Received his Ph.D. from Stanford University.

            Kenneth C. Herbst is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the school of Business at Wake Forest University. He earned his B.A. from Wake Forest and received his Masters and Ph.D. from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests include Obesity and unhealthy food consumption, supermarket retailing and merchandising, food marketing, trust effects in Advertising, and the effects of affect and cognition on decisions. Herbst also focuses on teaching the principles of marketing and marketing research.

            Nancy M. Childs is a professor of Food Marketing and International Business at Saint Joseph’s university. She received her BS from Duke University, her Masters from California Institute of Technology, and her Ph.D. from Century University. Her research focuses on food labels, and the obesity challenge of marketing to children. She is an active food policy participant for NAS (National Academy of Sciences), USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and the White House.

            Three of the four authors main research focuses are at least somewhat related to marketing towards children. Given their backgrounds of all being Ph.D. recipients and currently professors at prestigious academic universities, one can really believe what they are writing.

           

Jill K. Maher Profile. Robert Morris Faculty/Staff. Retrieved from

http://www.rmu.edu/web/cms/Pages/faculty-profile.aspx?iattr=110586

Janicki, T., Finn, S., Maher, J.,. Deciding to Give Online to Cultural Nonprofits:

Affiliation, Attitudes, and Demographics. Retrieved from

http://www.moc.edu/images/uploads/tsb_files/Deciding_to_Give_Online.pdf

Dr. Kenneth C. Herbst Profile. Wake Forest University Faculty and Research.

Retrieved from http://business.wfu.edu/apps/facprofiles.cfm?id=herbstk

Nancy M. Childs Profile. St. Joseph’s University Meet the Faculty. Retrieved from

http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-staff/nancy-m-childs-phd

Research Report_Rushkoff_Johnson

Meredith Johnson

J201: Section 304

Jiun-Yi Tsai

October 21, 2013

Research Report on Douglas Rushkoff

            In a society where media is almost entirely funded by advertising, industries are fighting for the ears and eyes of audiences, and even more for their dollars. Although today’s generation of media consumers is essentially aware of advertisers’ intentions to manipulate their purchases, advertisers still manage to stay one step ahead. In Coercion, Douglas Rushkoff analyzes this capitalistic environment built on the persuasion of audiences. He deconstructs a world where advertisers prey on the psychology of humans in order to gather what will make people buy their product. This book helps readers understand just how vulnerable they are to the power of marketing corporations. Rushkoff, an award-winning and well-respected expert on media with experience in many different fields, is a reliable source of information for today’s media society.

            Douglas Rushkoff has an extremely comprehensive background in the field of media studies. After graduating from Princeton University, he went on to gain MFAs from the California Institute of the Arts as well as the American Film Institute. He has a PhD in New Media and Digital Culture from Utrecht University. The Media Ecology Association awarded their first Neil Postman award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity to Rushkoff, but this is just one award among many. Rushkoff is the author of fifteen books, and he has written and hosted three PBS Frontline documentaries concerning viewpoints on culture, marketing, consumer resistance, and the virtual world—all award-winning productions. He has taught for schools such as New York University and The New School University, and he’s contributed to publications such as the New York Times and Time Magazine. Rushkoff frequently consults significant institutions on ethics and media, and he has served on many media advisory boards, as well as boards of media companies and non-profit organizations. With regular appearances on television shows such as Larry King, the Colbert Report, Bill Maher, and NBC Nightly News, Douglas Rushkoff is a trusted voice in media society. Among his other responsibilities are media and technology commentator for CNN, digital literacy advocate for Codecademy, and worldwide lecturer and teacher of media, technology, culture, and economics.

            In this world of influential media, Rushkoff believes that we each have certain authorities that we permit to manipulate our lives and direct our futures. We listen to what they tell us and rely on them to make decisions for us. We simply assume these authorities have our best interests in mind, but in Coercion, it’s revealed that not everyone does. These influences, specifically marketing and media executives, are always trying to find new and improved ways to manipulate our decisions. Rushkoff explains how just when we think we understand their motives, they move us into different and untried territory. The world of advertising is always one stride ahead of consumers’ struggles to comprehend them. Coercion, winner of the Marshall McLuhan Award for best media book, allows readers to understand the process by which these powerful authorities manipulate audiences. Authors, editors, and even senators alike have applauded Rushkoff for this book. Author Walter Kirn claims it responsible for the expose of the “secret war being waged for the…dollars of Americans”.  (Rushkoff, Coercion) Douglas Rushkoff is a reliable and significant source for today’s media consumers hoping to stay out of the hands of powerful, manipulative marketers.

Sources

Douglas Rushkoff, “Advertising,” in Coercion: Why we listen to what “they” say (1999), 162-192; 30 pages.

Rushkoff, D. (n.d.). All books. Retrieved from http://www.rushkoff.com/all-books/

Rushkoff, D. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.rushkoff.com/about/

Rushkoff, D. (n.d.). Coercion. Retrieved from http://www.rushkoff.com/coercion/ (What I am using when I cite (Rushkoff, Coercin) in the final paragraph.)