In reading the article about the struggles of being a freelance journalist in this time, Meena Thiruvengadom gives tips on how to keep an income going and where you can get help. This is a great article for both experienced freelance journalists or even aspiring freelancers looking to get their foot in the door. During these times, uncertainty is the topic on everyone’s minds regarding their careers and how they are going to sustain themselves. For Thiruvengadom, she thought it was going to be difficult with freelance journalism to sustain herself in this work drought but it turned out easier than she thought. She says as a freelancer healthcare expenses are expensive without a steady income and she doesn’t qualify for the normal unemployment benefits that have been sustaining many employees in America. She learned that there is a pandemic unemployment avenue offered to self-employed people that made it managable to pay for living expenses.
For her work, changing her angle has been easier than she expected and produced new gigs that have kept some sort of income flowing in. Having focused on travel before the Coronavirus pandemic, she has had to focus more on business and economic stories since people’s travel plans have been forcefully put on hold. She has been able to acquire some gigs that pertain more toward economic stability instead of spending money. Thiruvengadom says the way that she has kept the stress monster of not having enough money to sustain her is trying to keep projects lined up and reaching out to potential opportunities using social media outlets. This has kept somewhat of a sustainable income coming in to keep life going. Just like Thiruvengadom, the times that we live in call for extensive action. For journalists, changing angles to fit what readers want to know about or what they are allowed to do at the time is vital to staying current and accommodating. The situation in the world at this moment is unpredictable and this means that journalists may have to change their angles to meet what the readers want to see. Thiruvengadom says from experience that it is a necessity and the task is simpler than it looks.
0 Comments
In reading the article dealing with how news media outlets should handle the uncertainty of these times, journalists as well as the world are at a loss when handling new information. The Coronavirus has literally put life on hold for several people around the world. It is a new situation for everyone meaning finding an alternative avenue to live life for the moment. This goes for the journalism industry. New facts come out every day to fight the virus that has changed the world. This is particularly tricky for a career that relies on the facts and timeliness when getting information out to the public. The way that the Los Angeles Times handled the uncertainty of new information regarding COVID-19 is the best way to explain to readers that we also don’t have the factual answers. This is not a bad thing despite having it ingrained in a journalist’s brain that a false story could lead to serious problems. The only people that have a slight clue about the pandemic and how to stop it are the professionals at the Center for Disease Control. Even they have to back track and revise their facts when they have a new discovery because the disease is new to everyone. Cutting slack for everyone at this time is essential.
The way journalists can make sure that they don’t let their readers run with a wild goose chase is by stating up front that the situation is still developing. By saying that the information in the following article could change within days or maybe even hours lets the readers know that they can prepare themselves that what they read now may be different in the future. It could be explained like a breaking news story. The police do not let the press have information until they know what they are saying cannot be taken back. They eventually let piece after piece about the investigation out until finally the puzzle fits and the public knows who, what, where, why, and how. Same goes for the Coronavirus. More information is being extracted from the situation until finally the professionals will have a completed puzzle to present a permanent solution to the problem. It will definitely take longer than people hope but for now media outlets should present information with a prefaces of caution. In the article, “The coronavirus crisis has made it clear: The future of journalism must be collaborative,” the recent outbreak has caused a look into combining media outlets. Combining news organizations would add revenue to a station’s budget, provide better coverage with more staff, and diversify a newsroom. The world makes updates and changes every day that provide new and more efficient ways to run a newsroom. News media outlets need to be fluid in changes of society otherwise they will drown from competing newsrooms that have kept with the change.
The recent outbreak of the coronavirus has raised the idea of combining news outlets and working together instead of working independently. This would be a new wave of change for local news stations that could potentially boost issue coverage and give stations a better financial foot to stand on. I think this would change the way local news operates for the better and make it a stronger, more efficient news outlet. In the article, “Why Newsrooms Are Unionizing Now,” journalists are creating unions to fight back against low wages, terrible benefits, and layoffs. After reading the countless stories about journalists being taken advantage of or being let go by news outlets, I think that unions are a necessary precaution to protect the rights of journalists that can be overpowered by large media corporations. The low wages and large layoffs are happening all over the world. Contracts have small print clauses that are often downplayed at first and then ruin careers down the line. American workers have a basic right to protest unfit work conditions. Not just journalists but all workers that are under a contract of any kind need a way to protect themselves from corrupt and undermining contracts.
For new journalists especially, being taken advantage can be a reoccurring occupational hazard. It is easy to get caught up in the fresh new start of your first newsroom and will often overlook areas that could cause concern down the road. Unions make sure that nobody is wrongfully taken advantage of and workers voices are heard. In the article, “Empathetic Journalism for the Right,” it talks about making journalism about mending fences and reporting facts rather than reporting to make entertainment. Jeff Jarvis, the writer, is absolutely right. Journalism should be listening to the people that feel like they have been unheard and educate the public based on the needs of each side. Lately, journalism has taken a serious hit with the concept of fake news. This is outrageous for the industry because the core of journalism is broadcasting factual news whether it be in print, broadcast, or online form. To be untrustworthy to the public is because we are not in line with the meaning of what the job of a journalist is to do.
The sad truth is journalism has become about entertaining and getting a controversial rise out both sides of an argument. Getting ratings and making money are the things that matter more than telling a story. Jarvis thinks that if we were to sit and listen to what each side needs and let them tell their story, we would be able to better educate the public on seeing the empathy for each side. Journalism no longer listens to what people need but what people want. It has turned into a consumer market that has made the entire industry untrustworthy to everyone. When you find the empathy in what you are writing, I believe you will be able to tell an honest story. In the article, “How to leak to The Center for Investigative Reporting,” it shows how tips can be sent in by whistleblowers without revealing their true identity. People that can reveal information of wrongdoing or illegal activity have several ways to relay that information to journalists without revealing their identity. This is a win-win for both the whistleblower and the journalist. The tipper stays anonymous and the journalist exposes the illegal actions that need to be stopped.
I believe whistleblowers hold a lot of power if the information is true. It is up to the journalist who receives the tip to make sure that the information can be backed up with solid evidence that it is plausible. Whistleblowers can be a great asset to journalists and ultimately the American people in keeping criminals and the government in check from doing things they shouldn’t be. In the article, the investigation that uncovered the story on Jehovah’s witnesses sexual abuse was because a whistleblower sent an anonymous tip that started the interest in the subject. Because of this, it probably saved several people from life-altering trauma. In this case, the investigation may have never started and then ultimately would have never been uncovered if it wasn’t for the whistleblower who sent the anonymous tip. For a journalist, whistleblowers can be almost essential in their line of work and in the public's interest for keeping things out in the open. In the article, “The Technology That Could Free America From Quarantine,” the concept of what is considered too much tracking or not enough surveillance with the war on keeping the Coronavirus at bay is the topic. Different countries around the world have tried to figure out a happy medium of surveillance to track the whereabouts of where a newest COVID-19 patient had previously been and who could be in danger of getting the virus next. Skeptics have said monitoring people’s phones is a violation of privacy rights while others believe it is a necessary precaution to keep the spread of COVID-19 from rising. I think that both are true but in these particular times, people’s safety outweighs the privacy of your location. I would not advise going as extreme as South Korea had but I think that the way Germany handled the surveillance would keep people’s private lives from being completely exposed while keeping the world safe. If the government had temporary access to bluetooth and GPS locations from a patient who tested positive without letting the entire world know the identity of the patient would save lives and keep someone’s personal information protected.
In America, getting this to be an acceptable protocol to fight the Coronavirus is going to be difficult if not impossible. Some areas of the country have lashed out already for the stay-at-home orders. They argue that it is a violation to their basic rights to leave their house and feel it is the next step toward totalitarianism. Adding the fact that the government could legally watch their every move and who they come in contact with would only heighten the aggression. Even though this would be the best way to keep the spread at a minimum, getting people to give up their privacy is going to be a challenge that may not be achieved. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |