sorry for not replaying your comments yet I will do it asap ok.

But the real motive of this post is to let you know that we still can see how the instruments of power are using their privileges in order of get rid of people who have another point of view.

Yes my friends, today at midday the oldest tv channel in venezuela was closed by the Hugo Chavez government. you can have a look at this video from the archi used youtube website.

The name of the channel was “Radio Caracas Television” it was the oldest tv channel in the “salto del angel” country. with this action Hugo Chavez has deleted 53 years of “free” (the word free is in brackets because you know my opinion) broadcast and the most popular tv channel of that country.

It is incredible that at this stage of the human history, we still have to see this kind of stupid acts.  I dont have more words and also dont have more time, so here you have another link and you can have a look of the new by yourself..

take care and I will replay to you soon!!!

She showed us a video clip featuring a “rapper” called TIMZ who is an American – Irakee person. The clip was broadcasted via “youtube” and it has a strong political content.

The interesting aspect of this is how this guy (or maybe organisation who knows) used this medium to share a different point of view. Point of view that wouldn’t be broadcasted by a traditional mass medium of course.

When she asked us what do you think? one of my classmates said that this guy was using the medium in order to get comercial advantages and further that it was very irresponsible because it was influencing kids in a very negative way. I have to say that I wouldnt be surprised if that happen, because that is almost part of our “global culture”. However, I think that the interesting aspect of this is to know more about thye media which broadcasts the messages that we are consuming everyday.

In this logic I would like to ask to my classmate if she casn mention one single media which does not do this? I’m a journalist and I really have to say that when you are working over ther and you open your eyes in order to see what’s REALLY going on in the halls of the newspaper or the tv channel you realise that there is a lot of good and bad things out there in the media.

So if you asked me, if I would approve a practice like this, (sharing others points of view via alternative media) I would say yes, because every day you read, listen, watch or interact with a new, you are doing so with a whole spectrum of different ideologies (sadly I have to say that actually the spectrum is very narrow and the majority of times sinester). Therefore, when you whatch a tv report on “CNN” for instance, you are also watching only what others think that it is apropiate to you to see.

Ok, ok, someone might say “the message is built by the receiver” and I agree, however we can influence a lot how the audience get our message, via multiple elements. Thus, if I show yoiu the information undr a particular point of view, probably you will talk about it from that same point of view. And, even though you go further and try to see it and analyse it critically, the way that that new was tailored also affects your logical argumentation. So you can’t escape easily from the game.

Yes, I am one of those children of information who has experienced how news are cut off before they see the public light and at the end you see how at the end the so called “social role” of the journalist finishes in the rubbish bin. Also many times I saw how making a report regarding how a company is damaging the environment, finished in nothing when the editor saw that the company was one important sponsor of the newspaper…

So my friends, at the end of the day, what can we say? who is free of sins to through the first stone? hahaha, difficult isn’t it? yes my friends, welcome to the dark realm of disinformation, it is everywhere and used by everyone. Therefore, who can say this one has more merit broadcasting this kind of contents rather than others?

I let you to answer if you can… I am a journalist and I have to say, that even though this is my job I still cannot answer to that question!!!!!

cheers

When I decided to become a journalist I was motivated by a particular book written by the italian writer Antonio Gramsci it’s name was “the role of intelectuals on the creation of culture” I thought that was extremelly interesting. This was because I always wanted to do social work. Therefore I saw myself helping rather than living a selfish life…

 However, I have to say that, over the years, I learned that there are some books that you should read when your critical skills are more developed hahaha. This is , although the intentions of the author were truly sincere, they were made for a particular period and that was a too different one.

So, after some years I became a journalist, but I have to say that I was very disappointed with the exercise of this career.

First, I think that nobody told Gramsci that there is a sort of “dark” and “sinister” entity over the journalist… this is the owner of the medium! at the end of the day, this is the one who decides what will be published and furthermore how. So I many times spent many hours of my day doing field research, looking for the so called “truth” everywhere, and when I found what I needed I gave bird to my reports… which were many times killed before they see and feel the warm touch of the ink in the printing building. Who was the assasin? take a guess… yes HE… THE DARK HAND BEHIND THE DESK (commonly a long bearded old man with a face similar to those pictures of Marx, but with the extra touch of a cuban cigarrete on their mouth) yes, the editor is like the modern jesus christ in the way that they are there representing the “big boss” (the owner) interest and those are the ones which determine what are you going to read this sunday morning.

 No need to say that many times, the news are not 100% true, because there is a high level of “disinformation” (here you have a little example) behind them. So, welcome to the dark world of news, where the children of information (journalists) are many times sacrified by their own parents!

After my experiences back in my country I decided to give a new start an perspective to my career and thas is how I become a tv documentary director… it was like open my eyes and realise that the only truth is that one that you feel and percive, so you can be right or wrong, so sorry guys!

Let’s take the exercise of journalism as an example. Traditionally, the journalist’s role has been linked to the virtual concept of “objectivity”. This is, the storyteller has a sort of divine gift to see the reality and share it with the community without exerting any kind of personal editorial over the message. I know, I know, I can see that little ironic smile rising from your lips and I agree with you. That did not, does not and will not happen because it is impossible to be objective. We can only do our best to be less subjective than we would be in a daily situation.

This reality is undergoing profound changes with the use of blogs as a new way of sharing information. Thus, today we can see that there are many websites related to this profession which are trying to accede to the whole spectrum of audiences in order to provide new social services. Accordingly, the use of blogs is permitting to ordinary people give their own opinions in a way that our old colleges would not imagine.

For instance, today if somebody did not like the way a story was presented they can replay via posts to let the community know that there is another point of view regarding that particular issue. In addition, the experts in some complex topics can give their interesting and accurate points of view and the journalist can act as a moderator of the debate breaking the rigid structures of the classic way of presenting the news to the public.

Additionally, nowadays the journalist can see how the use of blogs can make their life easier when it comes to ask for some particular information related to a topic which is being covered. This also helps to break the ice between the professional and the community through generating a strong link between them. This is important for the exercise of this profession because it means “trust” and “commitment” two concepts which are generally being negatively judged by the public opinion.

I could keep mentioning other examples but the point is already made. This medium is changing the way that we interact with the news. However, it is fair enough to wonder about the possible negative effects of this trend. For example, if in the future the news would be made by not a single journalist but a diverse group of persons, who will take responsibility for the contents broadcasted to the society? Does this tendency mean that the role of journalists will be no longer necessary? 

The questions and the easy answers are many, however it is important to see that this medium is still growing and is not yet as massive as it has to be for generating a really serious scenario. Also, there is still some degree of informality on it, and that decreases in some way the credibility associated to their contents, especially if it comes to a sphere as serious as news are.

So, what do you think? Are we the journalists getting extinct? 

This will be the first post that I write in this site, so please do not expect too much from it. I really hope to fill it with topics that you’ll like and share with me. Also I will be looking for you to know what’s going on within your blogs, so let’s begin knowing each other and playing this virtual game… the invitation is already made…

c ya around!!!!!!