What are the advantages and risks of journalists actively working to "market" their content to audiences?

The advantages are simple. Profit. A journalist usually isn't in the business to make lots of money, but they do need to make some sort of income in order to be able to continue working in that profession. If they market their content, they are doing exactly what anyone else does when they have a business.

On the other hand, the risks of "marketing" their content to audiences will cause the audience to go somewhere else where it is free. We live in a digital age, and almost anything you want is free. It may be illegal, but you can get it for free. With social media, especially twitter, it is so easy to find news. One person will break a story, then within seconds, the entirety of the world will know what a journalist may be trying to keep quiet until they get paid.

It must be tough to be in either position, but both sides of the coin have a good point. Journalists require a salary, but consumers demand free media coverage. Back in the day, the newspaper was a quarter, but now i get all the news I want straight from my smartphone. Maybe journalists need to start hunting down mobile phone companies and charge them for destroying their product!

What do you think are the biggest challenges facing journalism today

I think the biggest problem is that there are so many different places to look for journalists. If you have this opinion, then you follow that one person. The problem may be that this person twists facts in their favor just to get their point across. For example, Fox News and CNN report the same events happening, yet you get a completely different view of the event from each person. It is almost a joke to me at this point how people argue about political issues. I think what needs to happen is that the news needs to come from one source to make sure all the facts are correct, then these other organizations can eat them up all they want.  I just want to go to the source, I do not want anyone's agenda mixed into my news intake.

Another way to fix it would be to require people to try to report on both sides of the story. that will never happen because people have to get paid and sponsor pay to be behind one side of the issue and not the other. Why do you think so many advertisers left Rush?!

How would you describe the role of journalism in a democracy?

Journalism is the 4th branch of government, in a way. It watches over everyone to report all that is going on. People need to know the truth about what is going on with our government at all times. Corruption is something that needs to not happen in our government, and journalism has been the cause of one corrupt president resigning from his role as president!

In more modern times, I think of the SOPA/PIPA acts about coming down a lot harder on the internet. From what I have read, people in the government tried to pass these laws quiet in the night so that little publicity would come to them. the fact is that people started to hear about them, and HUGE movements were made online to try to get rid of these things. People have the right to know what is going on in the government, and I think the best way we learn what they are doing in through the media.

One final thought that I have about journalism and democracy, is I feel like it is hard for a single politician to be a favorite with the media. Everyone is always going to not like you, so there is always going to be two sides to every story. People will always see candidates transparently, and will see people for both good or evil.  

Religious....Freedom?

A journalist is expected to be one who is independent and one who is objective. Many people, especially us at BYU, are religious and have beliefs that affect everything we do from our home life to our work life. What happens when that religious belief is in conflict with the independence of a journalist? I personally believe that a person shouldn't be judged by what they believe, but in terms of writing a story about it, religion may get in the way. I mentioned my personal opinion in class a while ago that I think if anything that you as a journalist are assigned to report on is in direct contention to what you believe, that you should ask to be off the story. I feel that the work of the journalist in a position where his entire heart is not into the reporting, then the end result is not going to be up to the standard the journalist may previously set. I know if I were to report on a group of anti Mormon's, then I would put them in a light of negativity and hatred, whereas maybe they are just fighting for equal rights when the Mormon church is against gay rights. I don't want to have that story, I would rather have someone else who isnt emotionally involved work on the story.