• Overview: Why Sound Matters
• Planning: Choose the Right Story; Research and Pre-Interviews
• In the Field: Ask the Right Questions; Know Your Environment; Record Sound Sources; Collect More Audio
• You can skip the In the Studio chapter and the Sound Mixer activity.
• Submit a course report at the end to jill.vanwyke@drake.edu so I know you completed the course.

In “The Reporter’s Guide to Multimedia Proficiency,” read Section 3, pages 5-7,  “Buy an Audio Recorder and Learn to Use It.”  This link is to a PDF.

TASCAM DR-07_Manual

Manual for Zoom recorder, available for checkout from DTC

Zoom settings cheatsheet (PDF). (Zooms are in the blue bags, available for checkout in the basement.)

Manual for Olympus recorder, available for checkout from DTC but use only as a last resort

• Foreword
• Introduction
• chapter 7, “Making Audio Journalism Visible”
• Be prepared for a quick quiz to prove you did the reading.

Take this digital skills survey

Read the syllabus carefully

Bring ear buds or headphones

Look for Des Moines-area events that you might cover for your first audio slideshow. Bring a list of some ideas, options.

The recent leak of a video of two journalist being shot down in Afghanistan sparked a lot of controversy and a new focus responsible warfare. At first watching it you see a lot; you see individuals running around with weapons, you hear appropriate and hostile communication between the pilots, but you also see two men who could or could not be carrying weapons. These men are carrying camera’s but this is a detail you do not get until after the shots are fired. This is tough to watch, and frustrating for many reasons; soldiers are doing their jobs, and these journalists took a risks by being where they are.

Following this video, there was a an interview done on NPR with the journalists who was embedded with these soldiers during their mission. He gives details that would enlighten any viewer. He talks about how bloody of a month is was, the moral of the soldiers, the tension, the realities of war. While it takes no solid stance on the war, or the actions, his side gives a fair and insightful perspective to this situation.

The risks journalists take to tell their story allow people to connect to issues and experiences they would normally live without. But what happens when the informations is mishandled, misunderstood, or misrepresented? There is a need to know about what is going on, but this video has been leaked with choppy editing and a slanted message. Listening to the American journalists interview, it is easy to see that wartime coverage is far more complicated that it seems. You have the cultural divides, political divides, and many other details to consider when telling this story.

Since the glory of war died with World War II, I think wartime coverage is something that needs to be considered differently. You have politically charged people who buy into over hyped videos like this and then miss more accurate compelling coverage that follows like the NPR interview. Who is responsible for changing this, the journalist or the people who read it, watch it, act off of it?  Do we even have a need for it when videos like this counter act all accurate coverage and people are taking on the role as a “journalist”?

Producers of the film are taking down YouTube videos

After reading several stories on this it truly is interesting how fair use and copyright work can clash. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that works by the original owners can be used by other people, third party individuals who are not the copyright owners, and parody the original and call it fair use. Normally that is fine and dandy, but the caveat here is that YouTube allows original copyright owners to take down material under YouTube’s “Content ID” filter wherein an owner can take everything down, most things down or some things down to his/her liking or satisfaction.

If most of these cases hit courts here in the US there wouldn’t be much of a problem. The trick here is walking the line between users adapting that famous scene of Hitler in the bunker and dubbing it with subtitles of Hitler not liking Myspace or Hitler being upset that Twitter is down. YouTube isn’t budging on its stance that for now, users can use that “Content ID” filter to manage videos with their works. Most people would try going the DMCA route, but not Constantin Production. They found the loop that allows them to manage content using YouTube as a proxy DMCA such that they effectively win by keeping out what they want kept out. In order to ensure true fair use, one man, Brad Templeton, who is a board member of Electronic Frontier Foundation, decided to do a parody of the film but with DMCA by his side so it couldn’t get taken down.

What do you think are some good examples of past fair use cases? If the director of the film likes the parodies, why should the production company even bother taking material down? Is there a point when YouTube needs to step in and tighten the “Content ID” filter requirements? All of these are very good questions as YouTube grows into a ubiquitous site where the lines will start to become even more blurred between material third party individuals fairly use and plain old copyright infringement.

I have a Facebook account that I check every couple days and I have yet to add to my repertoire a twitter account as I feel both of those are the most popular amongst my peers.

I enjoy how having a voice heard by so many people is much easier now, but doesn’t it kind of dilute the important information you are trying to inform people about if 90% of your tweets or Facebook statuses are “this guy sitting behind me smells bad” or “I can’t believe Sarah is wearing that outfit today! OMG!!!!”

I completely agree that social networks help spread the word, but is it too hard to separate the professional information from the pointless social information?

However, this can have a downside. How many times have different doctors told you different solutions about the problem you have, or have even been wrong about what condition your body was in. If a doctor has no idea on how to cure a patient, and can get ten options within a few moments, does this necessarily mean that all advice will be correct?

How do you feel, knowing that doctors now have a safety net of sorts? Something to fall back on when they’re unsure of how to deal with a situation. An unqualified doctor may be in the room with me, but could be getting advice from the top in the nation. I see this as potential, both good and evil; what about you?

Courtesty of The New York Times

As we all know, social media helps people stay in touch with high school friends, can bring avid sports fans together in one place, and can break news before traditional media outlets. Studies and surveys show now that tweeting, blogging, and other social media efforts are helping people deal with difficult life issues, such as disease.

In her article in The New York Times, Claire Cain Miller writes about how people with certain medical conditions have come to rely on social media to work through their conditions. One quadriplegic man uses the internet to get and share tips on places with the best wheelchair access, another uses it to connect with other multiple sclerosis patients for support.

According to a Pew report, that while people who have chronic illnesses are less likely to have access to the internet, once they do they are more likely to discuss health issues online than others. There are now entire sites, such as PatientLikeMe and HealthCentral, devoted to helping patients connect with other patients. Indeed, the social aspect of the internet, in addition to its information purposes, is what has become so crucial for these people, especially the homebound. Some compared signing onto social media sites to stopping at a neighborhood café for coffee and conversation.

I ran into similar findings last semester while writing a piece on social media’s use in the religious world. People, especially gays and lesbians, who could not locally find a church they connected with or which accepted them were able to connect with a church via social networking tools online. Those who were unable to leave their homes or had a tough time getting around because of a medical condition were also able to get a religious message and fellowship with those of similar beliefs online. However, all religious leaders and psychologists that I talked to agreed: in-person contact is better. A similar conclusion was found for this study. Although the information found on these sites can be useful, it is still better for patients to make regular contact with their doctor and not trust everything they find on these sites.

This article shows the Craig Walker’s photos from his American Solider story. The photos are quite moving. There is also a link in the story that gives more information on Chind.