Sophia Lesseos

I am a multimedia journalist graduating from CSUN in May with my Broadcast Journalism degree.

[sophialesseos]

Advocacy Journalism & Visual Journalism

Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that adopting not objective point of you usually for some social or political purpose. Some advocacy journalist reject the traditional ideals of objectivity it’s possible and practice. Some journalist feel that the public interest is better served by diversity of media outlets with a variety of transparent point of use or that Advocacy journalism serves a similar role to whistleblowers. I think that Casey and Daniel did a very good presentation with a lot of different details about advocacy journalism and visual Journalism. I noticed that they both had a lot of videos playing in there presentation and it made it a lot easier to understand what they were talking about during the presentation. I think advocacy journalism really helps acknowledge the perspective upfront and drives being truthful, accurate, incredible. I don’t think advocacy Journalism tries to spread propaganda in anyway and really gives both sides of the story. To me visual journalism is a much wider concept than photo journalism, I think this is a more modern aspect of it. I visual journalism is essentially creating the overall visual appearance of a newspaper, magazine, TV channel or any type of social media aspect in a hole. Dividual parents of the outlet basically ties everything together and maps how The whole outlet runs. The visual journalism is what brings in the viewers. Yes the information is what holds the paper together, and that is really the back bone of journalism but what really brings in the viewers whether it’s on TV or on social media is the visual aspect. Many viewers look for a certain aesthetic or some thing that is so intriguing that they have to click on it and that is the visual journalism part of it. Personally for me advocacy journalism and visual journalism fall hand-in-hand because you can’t really trust a site or a corporation without having both.

[sophialesseos]

President Trump’s Photographer vs. President Obama’s Photographer

I think the difference in President Trump's White House photographer and President Obama's White House photographer is very clear. With President Trump‘s photos you could clearly tell that his photographer wasn’t extremely fond of him. President Trump is photographed most within the first couple of months and it makes him look almost dark and mysterious. The photographer also took many pictures of him from far away so it wasn’t very personal very generic in my mind. I feel that President Trump‘s photographer also didn’t really like him that much because she did it photograph him as well as President Obama‘s photographer did. The photos of President Trump don’t seem very happy they almost seem very gloomy and it almost makes it seem like he’s in an argument a lot of the time.

 I think that President Obama‘s photographer took a very different approach and photographed him in a very positive way. many of the photos we see of President Obama is very much showing his personality and big smiles. You could see in his photos that he is playing with kids a lot or smiling and laughing with Michelle Obama his wife or Joe Biden the former vice president and current president. I think that his photographer photographed him very well and try to make it seem that he was more of a relatable guy. The serious pictures that Pete Souza did take of President Obama you can tell was done very professionally and with expensive equipment. Some of the photos that President trumps photographer took easily could be taken on an iPhone rather than a professional camera. 

Overall I think that President Obama‘s photographer was a little more intriguing than President trumps photographer. I think that President Obama‘s photographer took more time and really elaborated on the images rather than President Trump's photographer looks more like she took very quick shots rather than taking her time with the images.

[sophialesseos]

The Risks of Deepfakes

A deepfake video is counterfeit innovation that's utilized to require photographs or recordings and control a video to see as in the event that it was another individual or thing doing something when it truly wasn’t. It may be a video that has been altered utilizing an calculation to replace the individual within the unique video with somebody else (particularly a public figure) in a way that produces the video look authentic. The 'deep' in 'deepfake' is likely related to a handle called 'deep learning. Creating a deepfake photo or video ordinarily includes nourishing hundreds or thousands of pictures into the artificial neural arrange, “training” it to recognize and reproduce designs, ordinarily faces. Some benefits of deepfakes is can be used in motion pictures to attain a imaginative impact or keep up a cohesive story when the performers themselves are not accessible. For example, within the most recent Star Wars motion pictures, this innovation was utilized to bring back characters who had died or to appear characters as they showed up in their youth or within the Fast and the Furious franchise after the on-screen character Paul Walker died, they utilized his brother as him and utilized CGI to put Paul Walker's face in post production. Deepfakes do also pose more of a risk than a benefit, deepfakes are more commonly utilized for abuse. A few considers have appeared that much of deepfake substance online is obscene, and deepfake obscenity excessively victimizes women. There is an additional concern about potential development within the utilize of deepfakes for disinformation. Deepfakes may be utilized to impact decisions or prompt citizens to get upset, or as a weapon of mental fighting. They may too lead to ignorance of genuine proof of wrongdoing and get involved into politics. The 2018 deepfaked video of Barack Obama synced to a sound track made by comedian Jordan Peele brought attention to people that there might be concerns around potential race obstructions or this being used in politics. Mimecast’s Head of Strategic Intelligence and Security Research, reported last year of deepfake audio being used in business email as a compromised phishing attack which resulted in a cyber fraud that conned a company out of $243,000. Deepfake explicit entertainment is another quickly developing wonder, frequently utilized as blackmail, whereas another chance comes from criminals utilizing faked biometric identifiers to carry out fraud. 

[sophialesseos]

Mobile and Social Journalism

Journalism has shifted extremely 

News is current and now 

Journalism has shifted from a Passive voice (talking at someone) to an Active voice with the public (having a conversation) 

Journalism isn’t about telling the story as a whole anymore - it's about telling the story currently as it unfolds

Social media has changed the way journalism has worked and many people now are considered “citizen journalists” 

The miracle on the hudson was the first instance of when journalists realized the power of social media (major news outlets were using one photo someone took from their phone when the journalists couldn’t get in)

The boston marathon was solved by people posting things on twitter and people were living in real time while news events were happening 

Gate keepers: determine what is most relevant and what got through to the audience (this meant journalists relied on traditional big outlets and press releases) Now the audience on social media is the gatekeepers

It is the norm to find stories for broadcast on social media 

Social media now tells news outlets what their top story is going to be

The power of the active audience 

User generated content is helpful for journalists to get information from people before they even get to the scene 

Sometimes the audience unknowingly shares news that helps spread a voice 

Social media content still needs to be held to newsrooms standards 

News is social 

Top priorities for news outlets are now on social media and websites 

18-29 year olds founds most to all the information about the election 

Mobile devices and social media are impacting journalists everyday

Worrying only about what you are doing for your story is a thing of the past - social media and mobile devices is a must 

For each story you cover you have to come up with a checklist of social media platforms you gather information, post information and communicate with the active public 

Journalists now have stories and sources at their fingertips 

Crowdsourcing is an open call to gather a range of content from the audience “a call to action” 

Journalists can’t wait for a news broadcast, a morning newspaper, or even a web story to deliver the latest information about a story

Have Viral Videos Change How We View the World? Do both sides have a point in this topic?  For this assignment, you will need to write a 500 word-blog on the Kentucky High School Students and the Native American Vietnam Veteran. How did the media (mainstream, left and right) choose to cover this story? Which side/view do you support and why?  Site examples from the articles below (or others that you find) to support your conclusion. Have You should be prepared to discuss the topic in class.

Yes I think viral videos have completely changed the world and the way we view journalism. The internet as a whole has made news media and getting news easier than ever. Most stories on the news probably wouldn't have gotten covered if it wasn’t for viral videos on the internet. I definitely believe that most news stories deserve both sides and maybe even more than two sides told, especially in this particular case. To reiterate: The student who stared and smiled at an elderly Native American protester outside the Lincoln Memorial in a videotaped confrontation says he did nothing to provoke the man. I remember when this happened and the internet went crazy over this interaction caught on camera. 

The media chose to cover the story by showing one side of the story, the boy in the MAGA hat was provoking the Native American man. This in fact was wrong. Not only did they just show one side of the story, not even the Native American’s side or the boy’s side - they showed a bystanders side that could have not known what was going on. According to the Associated Press, “The student who stared and smiled at an elderly Native American protester drumming in his face outside the Lincoln Memorial as his schoolmates chanted and laughed says he did nothing to provoke the man in the videotaped confrontation and was only trying to calm the situation.” 

I don’t think I stand on a particular side, I just would like all the facts rather than a very zoomed in misinterpreted video that was cut short. Many videos from other people around came out after the situation blew up on social media and it was clear that there was more than just one side to that story. In the original video that blew up, we couldn’t really see that there was a third religious group present kind of trying to provoke anger and violence into people. Videos show members of the religious group yelling profane insults at the students, who taunt them in return. Video also shows the Native Americans being insulted by the small religious group. The students were apparently called “racists,” ″bigots,” ″white crackers” and “incest kids” by the third group. 

At first the public was outraged and sent death threats to the school boys, especially the boy who smiled at the Native American. Many of the boys were revoked from the colleges they were originally accepted into. Once the other videos started to surface, many people issued an apology to the boys but some still did not believe that the children were not racist. Many people still had a problem with the statement the student issued after the event. 

According to ABC7, “During the incident, Phillips (Nathan Phillips, a Native American elder in Omaha) said he heard people chanting "Build that wall" or yelling, "Go back to the reservation." At one point, he said, he sought to ascend to the Lincoln statue and "pray for our country." Some students backed off, but one student wouldn't let him move, he added.” 

To me, I still don't know exactly what happened and what went down because every article I read has many different sides to the story. 

[sophialesseos]

First Amendment vs. Disinformation

I think the first amendment is probably one of the most important amendments in the constitution. I believe in the right of free speech and everyone should have their own opinion. I do not believe in censorship and having people be censored because of their words even if it is fake news. I don’t know if I agree if there should be a fairness doctrine because I think that kind of takes away the point of having the first amendment. As an American, people always talk about having free speech and freedom of the press but if we did have a fairness doctrine that doesn’t necessarily count as free-speech. I believe this is more of censorship rather than trying to Control what is fake and what is real. It is not realistic that Twitter, Facebook or any other social media site is going to catch all of the fake news. There are many conspiracy theories and exaggerated news sites out there that can be found but I don’t necessarily think that we should take all of it down because it hasn’t been proven that it is true. Yes people are going to get upset, just like the Democrats did in the article because of the fact that there is miss information being spread. Not everyone is going to have the correct information on the Internet, and not all politicians are telling the truth or know that they are spreading misinformation like Andrew Yang talking about the fairness doctrine in the FCC policy. I don’t believe that we should censor certain things and then allow other things just because we believe that is OK. If you are living in America, everyone has the right to their own opinion even if others don’t agree with it. I see things on the Internet all the time that I don’t necessarily agree with and I know that is not factually correct but I’m not gonna go out of my way to try to get it removed. If people wanna post and say things that are not necessarily true I don’t think it is necessary for us to stop them. In the article it states, “Now the issue is emerging as a potential headache for President Joe Biden’s appointees, even as left-leaning figures like Sohn dismiss fears of a Fairness Doctrine revival as a "bugaboo of the right" with limited prospects in Washington.” This to me is unnecessary for president Joe Biden to worry about and try to please both sides. I know fake news is a huge thing in this country and it was talked about a lot in President trump's presidency but freedom of expression and speech is something I believe strongly in. If we are looking at news cites, especially news on the television, I definitely believe that there should be some sort of censorship in fact checking. But I think that is a given. News stations should be checking all of the facts that they are publishing online and saying in the broadcast if they are not this is how we spread disinformation and that’s where the public gets upset. I don’t necessarily think we should hold public people accountable for their freedom of speech but we should hold credible news stations accountable for what they publish and put out there as trustworthy information.

[sophialesseos]

Are Media Outlets Biased?

When we think of cable channels such as Fox News or MSNBC we expect a particular slant on what stories are chosen and how they are framed depending on our politics. We may praise these decisions as affirming of use or criticize them as biased. Matthew Gentzkow, Richard O. Ryan Professor of Economics and Neubauer Family Faculty Fellow did an interview with the Chicago Booth talking about media biases. “ What drives a choice of slant by media outlets? so you could think of two very different narratives one is that the slant is driven by the political preferences of the owners of news outlets or maybe by the editors or reporters. the other is slant is chosen just maximize to profits and ultimately therefore is driven by whatever the readers of the newspaper want to hear.” This is very interesting to hear because to me that is not journalism it is more PR. To hear that some media outlets would lean their stories left or right based on the amount of viewers that came to their page because of politics is unbelievable to me. I had no idea that this was an agenda from some of the media outlets in our country just to gain a profit rather than trying to be unbiased with stories. Apparently there is certain phrases and slants that media outlets tend to use in order to show they are leaning towards one side or another. There was a study done showing the different media outlets throughout the world and how each one of them are catering to the different political stances based on their readers perspective. They found that the media outlets don’t necessarily have a biased because of their owners, it is based on the fact that newspapers or media outlets are trying to sell there content so they base it off of who will buy the content more. That doesn’t preclude a situation where the conservative newspapers are in fact run by conservative people and the liberal newspapers are in fact run by liberals. For example, it’s like you know that the newspaper down in Texas is going to be conservative because that’s what’s going to maximize profit. 

While doing my research I came across Vanessa Otero‘s Ad Fontes media biased chart, which rates media sources in terms of political biases and reliability. She said in 2016 she noticed that a lot of media outlets had biases and were very clear that they had biases. She wanted to show her friends what media outlets had biases and started to create the chart. “I thought it might be helpful to just kind of map it like better worse, left and right I just started piecing it together on my own. I just explained to my friends that the abundance of proliferation of online news sources is in most of it is in the area of analysis and opinion.” to me if people understood that some of the news sources they are consuming are purposely leaning towards one side or trying to make one side angry they might stop consuming that media. The chart categorized the media landscape using two different ways: facts versus editorializing and left versus right leaning views. She says The best quality stuff is at the top and the lower quality stuff is at the bottom. I think this chart is very useful not just for journalists but for the public to use as well. 

In the article “How Rush Limbaugh’s rise after the gutting of the fairness doctrine led to today’s highly partisan media” Poynter claims that Rush Limbaugh changed the way the media shows their bias. “In some ways, he invented the format in which hosts talks nonstop for hours. They pick fights with listeners and stake out political positions.” I thought that it was really interesting that one single individual took over the media and completely flipped the ball game. 

I was surprised by the rise in different media outlets taking sides because people usually turn to news as an unbiased source but now most are not. To me, It is almost deceiving to not know that each outlet I am viewing might be leaning left and right. I feel like they should blatantly put on their website stating if they lean left or right for their viewers. 

[sophialesseos]

What Do The Numbers Say About The News Media?

[sophialesseos]

Significant Images

 The first significant damage I chose was an image from January 6, 2021 where people raided the capital. I think this is significant because these were Trump supporters that rated the capital building in Washington DC which has never been done before. This was an act of terrorism from our nation citizens. This was a sad day in America to see our citizens attacking its own government. I was certainly shocked by the event that unfolded especially in the new year. This shows how divided our country is not only by politics but With leadership. The protesters first attacked the exterior security barriers and video footage showed protesters gathering in some clashing with the police near the capitol building. People saw a number of protesters trying to move up the side of the capitol building. Several loud flash bangs were even heard as well. Protesters were seen pushing against metal fences and police used the fences to push protesters back while the other officers reached over the top to club people trying to cross their lines. Trump finally called on his supporters to "go home" hours after the riot started, but spent a large amount of time in the one-minute video lying about his election loss. In one line, Trump told the mob to "go home," but added, "We love you. You are very special."

The second image is also significant because this is the day President Biden was sworn into office. 

[sophialesseos]

About Me:

My name is Sophia Lesseos and I am the CSUN Radio Television Digital News Association’s President and former Marketing Director. I am a Special Projects News Intern and Production assistant at KABC-TV News in Los Angeles working on a documentary series called “FACEism.” I go to California State University, Northridge as a Broadcast Journalism major and transferred from College of the Canyons with my AA in Journalism. I am a reporter and anchor for CSUN's "Valley View News" and I worked as a writer in the KCSN newsroom and was a reporter and anchor for CSUN's "On Point." In 2018 I interned at the American Pavilion in Cannes, France as a photographer at the Cannes Film Festival, it was an amazing experience. My last year at College of the Canyons I was a part of the Cougar/Canyon News team, learning all the different aspects of the newsroom and becoming more into the multimedia world. 

I am very interested in photography, journalism, going on adventures and bringing awareness to pressing issues in the world that aren’t usually talked about. 

In 5 years I see myself working for a news media company such as national geographic traveling around the world making documentary style series about issues going on around the world.