So last week I wrote about the political endorsements of newspapers, and this week I am following in the trend of endorsements... celebrity endorsements.

I read this article, and looked at the slide show of political endorsements in the past.  Seriously look at it, it's kind of eye opening to see who endorsed who and in most cases, what little effect it had.

Celebrities have been endorsing candidates since the early 1900's, but in some cases, they had little effect.  Kerry, Gore, McCarthy... they still ALL lost.  Even with high powered people backing them, it was not enough to boost their support level and win the presidency.  

Researchers are also split on how endorsements affect the public, some saying they have a big effect, others saying very little.

Still, the article cites that "Positive or negative, the exact weight that a celebrity carries for an individual voter is difficult to ascertain"

But I still can't help but wonder what affect endorsements this election will have.  Will youth voters look past the overwhelming pop culture figures supporting Obama? Or will they be led by them, swayed to vote for a candidate not on the issues but because of who likes them?

I wrote an article this week about parents swaying their children's political beliefs and one student said something that was right on the money.

He said something like if I don't know anything about the election or the issues, I don't vote.

So.. I encourage people to become educated on the issues and not just vote for someone because they are "cooler."  

I  mean how much does Paris Hilton know anyways?

Endorsements

Nonpartisan journalism apparently is dead.. 

Earlier this week, The Chicago Tribune announced it's official endorsement of Obama, and just this morning Colin Powell offered his official endorsement as well.

It's great that these people are offering their support to a specific candidate, but I feel as if it's kind of getting out of control.

As the days tick closer and closer to the  election, what has been dubbed the most important election in our lifetime, these endorsements are coming and blinding the public.  Maybe it was because I was young and didn't really care about the 2000 race other than the project I had to do for it, but I don't remember this last election.  

I'm sure it was there, but right now I feel as if all of these endorsements are blinding the public, making them think, "Oh, the Tribune endorsed him, he must be the right candidate."  I make no judgement on which candidate is right for our country.  Right now we are in turmoil, and we need someone who is going to save us and lead us into stronger times.

But with the negative ads that are being run, the attacking of the other candidate, we are not having a fair race right now.  The endorsements for either party that keep coming are just furthering the problem.  

Like I said... nonpartisan journalism is dead.

(Side Note: I only pick on Obama because it seems as if he is getting all the endorsements, I would feel the same if it was McCain)

Oh.. Journalism.. how I loathe the sometimes.

Oh journalism.. is it true you are really dead?  are you dying? or will you come back to life with the renewed vigor some people do after they conquer the odds and beat a terrible disease?

I'm still up in the air about this.. at times I think that journalism is dead, and then I begin to question why I am wasting my time with this major.  The honest answer is I don't know.

But I read this article, and it made me realize something.

I never wanted to be a "respectable" journalist... I mean not in the sense of the word that everyone uses.  

I am not a news reporter.. I don't keep up with what is going on in the Middle East, and I have just recently started caring about the economic crisis we are in.  If I am not fully informed about these things, how can I expect a reader to care about it?

I can't.

This article hits on a few different topics, but most importantly it criticizes the state of American Journalism, and I happen to wholeheartedly agree with what it says.

We are too serious.  

I am not saying that our newspapers should turn into tabloids, unconcerned with the truth and worry about the best story, regardless of how we come about our information.  I am saying that we need to take a step back and reevaluate.

We have come to a point where we have lost touch with the public.  

The article says that, "As the profession grew more sophisticated and respected . . . top reporters, anchors and editors naturally rose in status to the point where some came to be considered the social equals of the senators, Cabinet secretaries and CEOs they reported on. Just as naturally, these same reporters sometimes came to identify with their subjects, rather than with their readers."

Think about it. 

We have lost connection with our audience, and as we struggle to gain them back, they will find new sources of information.  We spent too much time fighting it, too much time taking ourselves seriously that we forgot to have fun.

The article also cites the "terrible burden of living up to the demands of the First Amendment."  But isn't the First Amendment supposed to liberate us?

I don't know.  Sometimes I can't even remember why I am doing this, why I still write articles.

It's not fun anymore... but there is still hope for the field if we just remember how and stop worrying and fighting so much against the changing times.. 

Pictures..

The only photos I would run, with some degree of sensitivity, would be the first photo, the boy with his dog, and the boy who fell on a fence.  The rest of the photos I would not run at all.

 

All of these photos are well done.  The photographer was there at the exact moment, caught the complexity of human emotion after the loss of someone special or the intensity of mob mentality.  I am not claiming that these photos would not capture the essence of the story, but they lack a certain sense of sensitivity that is necessary in journalism.

 

That was my main criterion, sensitivity.  People do not want to see death, it is disrespectful to the person who died and those that were grieving.  The photo of the little boy is different only because it is not a human dead, but even then I would hesitate on running that photo.

 

These photos should not be run, especially if they are local.  They convey too much suffereing to be run.  It is just the same with Sept. 11, I am sure people had some very graphic photos, but they were not (or should have not) run out of respect.

 

When it all comes down to it, that is the main idea, respect.  We, as journalists, should be respectful of other people’s feelings.  It is hard to respect the line between appropriate and inappropriate, but it is there.  Running these photos would be exploiting human nature to it’s core.

 

To me, the hardest photo to look at was the photo from Mardi Gras.  It shows humans at their worst, clawing at a woman, grabbing her inappropriately, against her will.  It is obscene, and it is just inappropriate, I would not want that photo to run in my publication, nor any of these other photos to if I could help it.

 

Good journalism should speak for itself, photos accompany the story.  A photographer could get less evasive photos, even if they are not as good.  It is the right thing to do, and you avoid having the field questions from people who were offended by the photos.