Would you have revealed the source? Why?

I can understand not revealing a source due to principle.  I can understand not revealing a source to protect integrity.  I can understand not revealing a source to protect a person.  I think that my opinion would waiver on a case to case basis.

In the given circumstances of this movie, I think I would have revealed the source.  I think the first 1 on 1 conversation I had with the special prosecutor, I would have explained that my first source was a child that made an honest…childhood mistake.  Knowing that he could not/would not pursue any charges, I would have asked him to keep this a secret.

If the movie was different, and a legitimate source within the government told me, then I would hold out.  Then I would be defending a real source that was helping expose government mistakes.  That is a principle and purpose worth fighting for.

I understand and appreciate how difficult it must be to protect a source.  I think it takes a stronger person that me to do this type of job.

Why is New York Times v. Sullivan such a precedent setting case for the American media?

The New York Times v. Sullivan set the standard for libel cases in the United States.  This case made it where libel can only exist if the publisher knowingly publishes false information with intent to harm or negligently publishes information.

This supports the first amendment.  This meant that simple mistakes or misguided statements wouldn’t bankrupt newspapers.  This protected the newspapers from publishing verified information that later might prove differently.

This landmark decision only makes common sense.  If a person makes a statement against a public entity and it isn’t meant to be negative, then why should they be able to sue?  They shouldn’t.  No harm was done.  No harm was meant to be done.  Had this decision not happened, then essentially a person can sue another person just for talking about them.

What does the future of mass communication hold?

Mass communication will continue to utilize handheld devices with internet access and eventually become very reliant on the internet.  I think that published content will slowly fade away in the next 20 years.  Communication will continue to expand wirelessly and reach us through medium similar to our telephones now.

I think billboards will slowly change and become giant LCD screens.  The billboards can be set up on a computer and uploaded.  I’ve already seen some LCD billboards that alternate between 3-4 advertisers.  This is the future.

Mass communication will continue to grow and adapt.  The messages intended to reach us will do so through the new social connections we have through media.  The way we watch TV will be differently with small pop ups similar to internet advertising.  Demographic information will make these advertisements more pertinent to each household.

Mass communication is changing with technology.

Which communication theory is most intriguing to you and why?

In the lesson regarding audiences the topic of reception theory was discussed.  This was my favorite theory.

Reception theory really dealt with the importance of how information is interpreted once it is received.  This is the part of mass communications that can be easily dismissed.  Mass communications isn’t just about sending information.  The information sent should be interpreted as closely as possible to the intended message originally sent.

Messages must be tailored to reach the most people possible.  That means that the communicator must take into consideration his or her audience.  This is something subconsciously we all think about, but not to the level that mass communicators really should.

What is the role of the creative artist in mass media?

It is the creative artist that develops the message for the public.

The artist has a very difficult task.  They must write a message that will be received by the audience.  This message will also have to be authorized by the producers who can make changes to it.  The network censors will also look at the tone of the message.

The creative work of the writer, the imagination of the writer will be attacked by the producer.  The writer is trying to deliver a masterpiece while the producer is simply trying to generate a profit.

The creative artist has the most challenging portion, developing the message.  They are also subjected to ridicule and constant changes made my producers.

Why do journalists embrace the belief that confidential sources should be protected? Do you agree?

Journalists argue that a federal shield law should exist to protect them, their sources, and the information they report.  I agree that this protection should exist.

The public doesn’t always cooperate with reporters.  Let’s face it, not everybody is eager to be in the public eye.  People don’t want to be implicated in, or associated with something scandalous.  In order to avoid this unwanted attention, they keep quiet.

Sometimes instead of staying quiet, somebody will speak out.  Those who choose to speak out like the option of being able to stay anonymous.  It’s difficult enough for reporters to uncover stories now and find cooperating individuals.  Strip them of the ability to shield sources and they have the difficulty level reaches near impossible levels.

Think of Bernstien and Woodward during the Watergate Scandal.  Without the cooperation and information from deep throat they wouldn’t have been as successful.  Would deep throat have helped if he couldn’t stay anonymous?

This single reason for protecting sources is good enough.  As long as reporters are ethical and do research to substantiate claims by anonymous sources, then I don’t see a problem.