an entrepreneurial mindset
A journalist must find a niche and keep it local. I hesitate in using the word journalist. Traditional news mediums are beyond civil disobedience... the digital age is here, and here to stay. Journalists of the past were forced to work with middlemen... or basically just the man to get the message out. With online news... the site creator is the boss... and the boss could be me. Perhaps we can leave 'breaking' 'hard' news to the big guys who have dealt with that news for decades (it would be a nice gesture to corporate America -- who appears to be squirming like a four-year-old who hopes not to shit themselves).... specialty, topic specific online publications is the key... and lucky for the class of 2010 their are more keys left than what dangles on the janitors lanyard. Know your reader. That isn't new. Considering the logarithmic technology embedded in google... it makes it easier to know your reader. We can know what they read and the readers clicking patterns... we can use this information to highlight new stories that the reader feels were written just for them. I'd rather know personally who my readers are and communicate directly with them. The main point I stress is to know your topic and not stray too far away.
Secondly, break it down. Provide within your site your own wiki'esque encyclopedia. Terms, events, people, ect. should be explained. This may seem to contradict my above statement of straying too far away... but time lines, event descriptions and explanations do not need to be presented within the story... provide the reader an opportunity within your site to research the background. I want the facts and news fast... but aslo, an easily accessible and easy to understand destination to fill me in on how we got to today's news.
How do we make money when web ads are pennies to a click... I'll have to think more about that.
I prefer a gonzo approach to writing... gonzo is not blogging, however. I don' t mind a subjective article.. as HST said, objective journalism is a contradiction of terms. There are so many staff reporters in a newsroom that I have no relationship with the writer. We want loyalty to the site as a whole.. but I think this can be obtained by creating a following for an individual writer. I want to know exactly what Laura saw, where she was, who she was surrounded by... what was her perspective... not necessarily her opinion. I remember Hunter writing once about sports writers picking up a collection of morning papers and compiling a story based off of everyone else's work. I'd prefer a mild subjective view to a makeshift view.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, December 10, 2007
The 'P' Word
Too bad Joe Merrill. I can understand the mentality to justify lifting quotes without proper attribution. Harmless. You would expect that the source you are using upholds journalism ethics much better than yourself. However, in the end the gossip'esque evolution of news should deter the most apathetic journalist. We are living in a time surrounded by hidden truths. Writers must remember that the public deserves at least one reliable source of news.
I thought it was really typical that Merrill became the topic of internet blogging. When policy is broken consequences should result. However, is Merrill's life open to public forum? I suppose, considering Merrill writes about others as a profession.
In the end, the public deserves to know where information comes from.
Jeo Merrill's Response
The fact that Merrill is an 83-year-old man kinda makes me sympathize. By now Merrill has a devoted audience, whose credibility judgment may not be swayed. He should not have been canned, in my opinion. His response was eloquent, avoiding squabble. I empathize with Merrill's intent, confident he did not believe he was doing anything wrong.
However, who knows anyone's true intent? There is not way to prove Merrill did not mean harm.. did not deliberately withhold information to cover up his now old and lethargic reporting skills.
Public Information
I constantly find myself musing scandalous investigative pieces, however do not know where to start. The list of places to start really fascinated me. I did not like how a majority of the websites required some sort of registration fee or credit card number. By requiring a fee, public information becomes selective, advantageous, restrictive. I was a bit intimidated by the website regarding US Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that people are organizing such information makes me realize the gravity of the Contractor situation. I also enjoyed playing around with one database that organizes candidate donors based on zip code. Obama seems to be collecting the majority of donations from my hometown.
interesting tidbit, related or unrelated to journalism, that I picked up in a speech path class today:
studies suggest that 77% of Americans, at any given time, are unhappy
Journalistic Coverage of Politics
The Media and Its Infatuation With Polls
Straw poll, Iowa caucus polls, New Hampshire primary polls... I do not know what any relevance polls have on the presidential nomination election, however I do know that the media loves to discuss polls and show statistics. Polls generally question voters who regurgitate what they see in the news, which is typically personal news and campaign financing. Voters questioned base their answers on information nearly irrelevant to the campaign itself.
The Nation analyzed the 2007 media campaign coverage, and 63 percent covered polls and finances and 17 percent of coverage was personal issues. Only 12 percent of coverage followed how voters would be affected by the election.
Why does the media continue to fuel the epidemic of ill informed voters?
On December 10, 2007 the top story on the NYTimes politics section was: Poll Finds G.O.P. Field Isn’t Touching Voters
As the media prints the 'opinion' of American voters, the media influences any fickle person who is in search of what they should think. Without having the NYTimes print on the front page that Republicans are not happy with the candidate options, I could have told you Republicans are disgruntled. As the media prints who is leading in polls, those who are not leading become lost in the brouhaha that is Hillary's and Obama's social life.
Maybe the media prints political nonsense to remain objective, if that is the case then I denounce objectivity. There needs to be coverage on how politicians plan to solve the problems plaguing this world. There needs to be coverage on Congress so the public can come together to push ahead towards progress.
I've been writing this response over the course of several days and realize the coverage of political figures is not the problem with political media coverage. The problem is that local politics are forever diminished by the shadow cast by federal media sensationalism. Federal level Bipartison turmoil polarizes and desensitizes the public... Nothing can be changed at the federal level. If a greater media emphasis was placed on the workings of local politics, the public will be able to organize a grassroots movement. The problem is that the public regards these representatives and senators as demigods. Yes sometimes local politics can be quiet... or is that because no one is reporting the deceptive under workings of the town councilmen that just cemented his new driveway??
My point is, as the media conglomerate grew, it inevitably grew away from the local public.
I'm not sure how to find a website to emphasis my last point, however, just compare the size of political content in The Buffalo News vs The New York Times
Too bad Joe Merrill. I can understand the mentality to justify lifting quotes without proper attribution. Harmless. You would expect that the source you are using upholds journalism ethics much better than yourself. However, in the end the gossip'esque evolution of news should deter the most apathetic journalist. We are living in a time surrounded by hidden truths. Writers must remember that the public deserves at least one reliable source of news.
I thought it was really typical that Merrill became the topic of internet blogging. When policy is broken consequences should result. However, is Merrill's life open to public forum? I suppose, considering Merrill writes about others as a profession.
In the end, the public deserves to know where information comes from.
Jeo Merrill's Response
The fact that Merrill is an 83-year-old man kinda makes me sympathize. By now Merrill has a devoted audience, whose credibility judgment may not be swayed. He should not have been canned, in my opinion. His response was eloquent, avoiding squabble. I empathize with Merrill's intent, confident he did not believe he was doing anything wrong.
However, who knows anyone's true intent? There is not way to prove Merrill did not mean harm.. did not deliberately withhold information to cover up his now old and lethargic reporting skills.
Public Information
I constantly find myself musing scandalous investigative pieces, however do not know where to start. The list of places to start really fascinated me. I did not like how a majority of the websites required some sort of registration fee or credit card number. By requiring a fee, public information becomes selective, advantageous, restrictive. I was a bit intimidated by the website regarding US Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that people are organizing such information makes me realize the gravity of the Contractor situation. I also enjoyed playing around with one database that organizes candidate donors based on zip code. Obama seems to be collecting the majority of donations from my hometown.
interesting tidbit, related or unrelated to journalism, that I picked up in a speech path class today:
studies suggest that 77% of Americans, at any given time, are unhappy
Journalistic Coverage of Politics
The Media and Its Infatuation With Polls
Straw poll, Iowa caucus polls, New Hampshire primary polls... I do not know what any relevance polls have on the presidential nomination election, however I do know that the media loves to discuss polls and show statistics. Polls generally question voters who regurgitate what they see in the news, which is typically personal news and campaign financing. Voters questioned base their answers on information nearly irrelevant to the campaign itself.
The Nation analyzed the 2007 media campaign coverage, and 63 percent covered polls and finances and 17 percent of coverage was personal issues. Only 12 percent of coverage followed how voters would be affected by the election.
Why does the media continue to fuel the epidemic of ill informed voters?
On December 10, 2007 the top story on the NYTimes politics section was: Poll Finds G.O.P. Field Isn’t Touching Voters
As the media prints the 'opinion' of American voters, the media influences any fickle person who is in search of what they should think. Without having the NYTimes print on the front page that Republicans are not happy with the candidate options, I could have told you Republicans are disgruntled. As the media prints who is leading in polls, those who are not leading become lost in the brouhaha that is Hillary's and Obama's social life.
Maybe the media prints political nonsense to remain objective, if that is the case then I denounce objectivity. There needs to be coverage on how politicians plan to solve the problems plaguing this world. There needs to be coverage on Congress so the public can come together to push ahead towards progress.
I've been writing this response over the course of several days and realize the coverage of political figures is not the problem with political media coverage. The problem is that local politics are forever diminished by the shadow cast by federal media sensationalism. Federal level Bipartison turmoil polarizes and desensitizes the public... Nothing can be changed at the federal level. If a greater media emphasis was placed on the workings of local politics, the public will be able to organize a grassroots movement. The problem is that the public regards these representatives and senators as demigods. Yes sometimes local politics can be quiet... or is that because no one is reporting the deceptive under workings of the town councilmen that just cemented his new driveway??
My point is, as the media conglomerate grew, it inevitably grew away from the local public.
I'm not sure how to find a website to emphasis my last point, however, just compare the size of political content in The Buffalo News vs The New York Times
Monday, December 3, 2007
I agree with Joe Weiss when he says that still photos have a rememberance quality. Some stories can easily be shown via audio slideshow or video, and either medium equally affect viewers. However, sometimes still photos are able to consume a viewer better than video. We are living in a video world. When a viewer is asked to slow down and really focus on a visual and accompanying audio a deeper message can be conveyed.
Weiss almost makes the point that some audio slideshows are just too long. He says that photojournalists produce portfolios with only 30 photographs, how can a 3 min slideshow have 30 effective and efficient photos?
When making my soundslideshow I will make sure to focus on my audio storytelling and accompany my audio with photos that work with and also move with story along.
Mitt Romney and Faith in America
Well Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has decided to address his Mormon faith on Thursday in Texas. Whenever I hear religion mentioned in politics I cringe. There is no absolutely NO reason to bring up religion or clarify religion or justify religion. You believe what you believe, and I will be believe what I want to believe. The Evangelical Christian movement frightens me more than elected a Mormon into office. I do not really understand the strength of the Mormon Church in politics, however the evangelicals could potentially take over America and eventually the world. I am scared that if the evangelicals get a jump start in the early primaries and caucus' the separation of church and state will no longer exist... that rights I should be guarenteed as a women will be denied... that some faith I do not share will bombard my life.
Weiss almost makes the point that some audio slideshows are just too long. He says that photojournalists produce portfolios with only 30 photographs, how can a 3 min slideshow have 30 effective and efficient photos?
When making my soundslideshow I will make sure to focus on my audio storytelling and accompany my audio with photos that work with and also move with story along.
Mitt Romney and Faith in America
Well Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has decided to address his Mormon faith on Thursday in Texas. Whenever I hear religion mentioned in politics I cringe. There is no absolutely NO reason to bring up religion or clarify religion or justify religion. You believe what you believe, and I will be believe what I want to believe. The Evangelical Christian movement frightens me more than elected a Mormon into office. I do not really understand the strength of the Mormon Church in politics, however the evangelicals could potentially take over America and eventually the world. I am scared that if the evangelicals get a jump start in the early primaries and caucus' the separation of church and state will no longer exist... that rights I should be guarenteed as a women will be denied... that some faith I do not share will bombard my life.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Text:
"Poytn(me)r in the right direction"
Ethics of Journalism.. a topic I have problems with.
Most issues involving ethics are focused on how the readers and financial investors are affected. When it comes to media junkets and freebes I personally would have no problem accepting gifts. Just because a company treated me to a nice island vacation to report on the tourist economy in the Virgin Islands does not mean that I will not write a bad report. If journalists allow gifts and opportunities to alter their objectivity, then yes credibility becomes an issue. I follow a more teleological approach to ethics. If the story is factual, accurate and objective... what does it matter how you went about obtaining the story? Conversations with journalists regarding ethics makes me cringe. In my mind I see a bunch of scholars, too lazy to make it in the reporting world, chastising real writers over unobtainable dimensions of objectivity.
Since the present media takes form as a corporate conglomerate, how can a journalist be criticized for buying and interview or receiving a free cup of joe?
I have studied several approaches to resolving ethical problems that arise in journalism. Most methods require involved analysis and other feather in your cap macaroni type of processes... When a journalist is on the job working on deadline.. issues arise and the journalist does not have time to puff on a cuban and discuss over a brandy.
As my mother often says, "We all shit in the same pot, and in the end it all smells the same." Journalism ethicists can toil over the guidelines of credibility.. I choose the right to accept vacations and dinners.
Website reading:
Basically what I took away from the additional reading was optimism. Journalism is not just print anymore. Journalism does not require words. In my mind, journalism isn't even 'new' news. Journalism is spreading the word, telling others what they have the right to know. All this professionalism yadda yadda makes me cringe. Spread the word spread the knowledge.
I like the idea of online news competing with television. The Anna Nicole Smith 24-7 coverage last year on most major news networks justifies the rise of online news.
I checked out some of the animated news links. I really wish I knew flash or some other animation program to work with that realm of journalism. I feel that jumping on the news junkie bandwagon is difficult these days and ill-informed. Online news provides readers with an opportunity to understand the history of the war in Iraq or even a visual of how a hurricane forms.
Although there will always be critics of journalist practices.. I feel that at the rate journalism is changing, those old bourbon swirling farts won't be able to keep up.
Election:
GOP and the Media
Well new polls are in and Ron Paul looks to be in fourth place in the New Hampshire primary. The Nation suggests that if Paul received equal media representation then he might become a serious national contender for the GOP candidacy. I recognize the name Ron Paul and associate him with libertarian values, however I do not know much about his policy beyond that. I went to check out NYTimes politics page on the candidates, and in the right corner there are faces of GOP and Democrat candidates. I understand that the Times cannot put every candidate on the opening page, and I assumed the candidates were chosen based on alphabetical order. Not the case, Thompson's name appeared but not Paul. Although my quick net surfing is a large generalization, but it proves my point. The media is doing a horrible job reporting on the candidates. Guiliani appears in countless headlines from New Hampshire, even though he has basically said that he is not focusing much of his campaign on the early primaries.
Consider even the coverage between Thompson and Paul. Thompson is not contending well in NH and his only claim to fame is Law and Order. I also know that Thompson has a fairly young wife and lost a daughter some years ago. Why do I know these things, yet know nothing about Paul? I think the answer is that Paul does not care to play these personal issues during the campaign.
"Poytn(me)r in the right direction"
Ethics of Journalism.. a topic I have problems with.
Most issues involving ethics are focused on how the readers and financial investors are affected. When it comes to media junkets and freebes I personally would have no problem accepting gifts. Just because a company treated me to a nice island vacation to report on the tourist economy in the Virgin Islands does not mean that I will not write a bad report. If journalists allow gifts and opportunities to alter their objectivity, then yes credibility becomes an issue. I follow a more teleological approach to ethics. If the story is factual, accurate and objective... what does it matter how you went about obtaining the story? Conversations with journalists regarding ethics makes me cringe. In my mind I see a bunch of scholars, too lazy to make it in the reporting world, chastising real writers over unobtainable dimensions of objectivity.
Since the present media takes form as a corporate conglomerate, how can a journalist be criticized for buying and interview or receiving a free cup of joe?
I have studied several approaches to resolving ethical problems that arise in journalism. Most methods require involved analysis and other feather in your cap macaroni type of processes... When a journalist is on the job working on deadline.. issues arise and the journalist does not have time to puff on a cuban and discuss over a brandy.
As my mother often says, "We all shit in the same pot, and in the end it all smells the same." Journalism ethicists can toil over the guidelines of credibility.. I choose the right to accept vacations and dinners.
Website reading:
Basically what I took away from the additional reading was optimism. Journalism is not just print anymore. Journalism does not require words. In my mind, journalism isn't even 'new' news. Journalism is spreading the word, telling others what they have the right to know. All this professionalism yadda yadda makes me cringe. Spread the word spread the knowledge.
I like the idea of online news competing with television. The Anna Nicole Smith 24-7 coverage last year on most major news networks justifies the rise of online news.
I checked out some of the animated news links. I really wish I knew flash or some other animation program to work with that realm of journalism. I feel that jumping on the news junkie bandwagon is difficult these days and ill-informed. Online news provides readers with an opportunity to understand the history of the war in Iraq or even a visual of how a hurricane forms.
Although there will always be critics of journalist practices.. I feel that at the rate journalism is changing, those old bourbon swirling farts won't be able to keep up.
Election:
GOP and the Media
Well new polls are in and Ron Paul looks to be in fourth place in the New Hampshire primary. The Nation suggests that if Paul received equal media representation then he might become a serious national contender for the GOP candidacy. I recognize the name Ron Paul and associate him with libertarian values, however I do not know much about his policy beyond that. I went to check out NYTimes politics page on the candidates, and in the right corner there are faces of GOP and Democrat candidates. I understand that the Times cannot put every candidate on the opening page, and I assumed the candidates were chosen based on alphabetical order. Not the case, Thompson's name appeared but not Paul. Although my quick net surfing is a large generalization, but it proves my point. The media is doing a horrible job reporting on the candidates. Guiliani appears in countless headlines from New Hampshire, even though he has basically said that he is not focusing much of his campaign on the early primaries.
Consider even the coverage between Thompson and Paul. Thompson is not contending well in NH and his only claim to fame is Law and Order. I also know that Thompson has a fairly young wife and lost a daughter some years ago. Why do I know these things, yet know nothing about Paul? I think the answer is that Paul does not care to play these personal issues during the campaign.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Ch. 19 Radio and Television
Radio and television news needs to be straight forward. Writing must be clear and concise.
I don't have much to say about radio and tv writing/stories, but I can comment on the industry.
The text said that a half hour news cast contains only 22 minutes of news, roughly only half of the front page of print news. I feel a large population of the American people get most of their news from national television broadcasts. If broadcasts are only have time for a small hand full of stories, the public is ill informed. I don't think the people that get their news from tv are inclined to follow up on stories via newspapers.
The topic of agenda setting comes to mind as well. I always have a problem with the idea of top stories. Who says the 4 or 5 stories covered on tv are the most relevant? TV and radio confine the viewer to, in my mind, censored news. Who is to blame, the news station.. the financial supports... the public?
I think that radio is the most objective news source, solely because the radio usually only provides for short updates... making it difficult to find space/time for opinionated interjections.
I think radio script writing should be studied early on in journalism curriculum, because radio stresses the idea of getting to the facts. I have a difficult time determining what is relevant to a story when writing for print. Radio writing would help discern the facts from fillers.
Clinton Gets an Instant Chance to Wield a New Weapon
The NY Times reported that Hillary Clinton launched a website for the sole purpose of disputing news reports her campaign finds offensive. The story cites how Hillary reportedly did not tip a waitress after dining in Iowa.
WHO CARES!?!?!?!
Why are papers even printing that Hillary did not leave a tip (although it was later proven that Hillary did leave a $100 tip for a $157 meal)? Why does the media fuel empty politics?
Politicians need to attack policy not personality.
It is ridiculous that Hillary needs to create a site to disprove news allegations. This might be one of the only times I sympathize with Hillary. However, Hillary should be the better woman and ignore these cheap attacks at her campaign.
Radio and television news needs to be straight forward. Writing must be clear and concise.
I don't have much to say about radio and tv writing/stories, but I can comment on the industry.
The text said that a half hour news cast contains only 22 minutes of news, roughly only half of the front page of print news. I feel a large population of the American people get most of their news from national television broadcasts. If broadcasts are only have time for a small hand full of stories, the public is ill informed. I don't think the people that get their news from tv are inclined to follow up on stories via newspapers.
The topic of agenda setting comes to mind as well. I always have a problem with the idea of top stories. Who says the 4 or 5 stories covered on tv are the most relevant? TV and radio confine the viewer to, in my mind, censored news. Who is to blame, the news station.. the financial supports... the public?
I think that radio is the most objective news source, solely because the radio usually only provides for short updates... making it difficult to find space/time for opinionated interjections.
I think radio script writing should be studied early on in journalism curriculum, because radio stresses the idea of getting to the facts. I have a difficult time determining what is relevant to a story when writing for print. Radio writing would help discern the facts from fillers.
Clinton Gets an Instant Chance to Wield a New Weapon
The NY Times reported that Hillary Clinton launched a website for the sole purpose of disputing news reports her campaign finds offensive. The story cites how Hillary reportedly did not tip a waitress after dining in Iowa.
WHO CARES!?!?!?!
Why are papers even printing that Hillary did not leave a tip (although it was later proven that Hillary did leave a $100 tip for a $157 meal)? Why does the media fuel empty politics?
Politicians need to attack policy not personality.
It is ridiculous that Hillary needs to create a site to disprove news allegations. This might be one of the only times I sympathize with Hillary. However, Hillary should be the better woman and ignore these cheap attacks at her campaign.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Ch. 18
Investigative reporting, now thats what I call journalism. I think its phenomenal the number of social injustices that can be exposed just through a bit of attention and research. I realize there are just as many stories that need more than research to develop into a story.
The one thing that upsets me is that investigative reporting is necessary. Why are people so corrupt? Who are these people that are so willing to exploit the innocent? I've always wanted to help people. I knew that I would only find completion in my life by finding some sort of truth. Investigative reporting provides me with the ability to do just that.
I understand that accuracy is key.. but as the text describes not everyone will tell a report the whole truth. I don't think loyal journalist should be scrutinized so much by frivolous inaccuracies. I think even if facts can't be double checked they can still be printed. As long as it is stated that what you are writing is what someone else said. Yes that may seem like adding to the continuum of rumors.. but I think it provides with the idea to question information for themselves.
Databases. Well I think I am pretty capable of extracting the information I need from the Internet. However I know there are countless websites designed for journalists that I am unfamiliar with.
Accessing public records is something I need to explore.
After looking at the IRE abstracts, I was pleased to see that some reporting actually served as a catalyst to action in the government.
Different Rules When a Rival Is a Woman?
Evidently Hillary Clinton is pulling the gender card, but according to Hillary she isn't. The Clinton campaign thinks that Hillary has been center of Democratic attack because she is a woman. What? People are attacking you Hillary, because people don't like you. It also makes sense that Hillary would be the Democrats number one target, because she is leading the polls. You are topic of discussion Mrs. Hillary Clinton because you say one thing and vote another.
The article also suggested that in America sexism is okay but racism is not, therefore the reason why number two man, Obama, has not been grilled with questions and criticism. Bah. Hillary, you are an easy target, just look at the last weekend's SNL opening skit.
I want to see more political platforms in the news, not petty fights.
Investigative reporting, now thats what I call journalism. I think its phenomenal the number of social injustices that can be exposed just through a bit of attention and research. I realize there are just as many stories that need more than research to develop into a story.
The one thing that upsets me is that investigative reporting is necessary. Why are people so corrupt? Who are these people that are so willing to exploit the innocent? I've always wanted to help people. I knew that I would only find completion in my life by finding some sort of truth. Investigative reporting provides me with the ability to do just that.
I understand that accuracy is key.. but as the text describes not everyone will tell a report the whole truth. I don't think loyal journalist should be scrutinized so much by frivolous inaccuracies. I think even if facts can't be double checked they can still be printed. As long as it is stated that what you are writing is what someone else said. Yes that may seem like adding to the continuum of rumors.. but I think it provides with the idea to question information for themselves.
Databases. Well I think I am pretty capable of extracting the information I need from the Internet. However I know there are countless websites designed for journalists that I am unfamiliar with.
Accessing public records is something I need to explore.
After looking at the IRE abstracts, I was pleased to see that some reporting actually served as a catalyst to action in the government.
Different Rules When a Rival Is a Woman?
Evidently Hillary Clinton is pulling the gender card, but according to Hillary she isn't. The Clinton campaign thinks that Hillary has been center of Democratic attack because she is a woman. What? People are attacking you Hillary, because people don't like you. It also makes sense that Hillary would be the Democrats number one target, because she is leading the polls. You are topic of discussion Mrs. Hillary Clinton because you say one thing and vote another.
The article also suggested that in America sexism is okay but racism is not, therefore the reason why number two man, Obama, has not been grilled with questions and criticism. Bah. Hillary, you are an easy target, just look at the last weekend's SNL opening skit.
I want to see more political platforms in the news, not petty fights.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Beats Me.
Ch. 14
The topic of 'Be Persistent' really consumed me in the text. I must have some undiagnosed social anxiety. I've written before that I just have an overwhelming problem with, basically in my mind, nagging sources for information. As I read on in the chapter about how beat writing is really built upon the fundamentals of source relationships.. it got me thinking.
I started thinking about why I chose to be in the journalism program to begin with. I enjoy writing, although news writing may not be my forte. Secondly I have this nagging conflict with 'the man' and the seemingly willingness of the exploitation of the American people. The people need to know.
So.. I am beginning to convince myself that persistence and meddling is necessary, in the name of the people. I should not wary of calling a political figure, in fear of burdening. My readers desire to know what is going on. I should be relentless until a source finally agrees to talk.
.. I need to remember to be persistent.
The chapter in a nutshell basically stresses doing your research and knowing your sources.
I was apprehensive while reading the section on the religious beat. I didn't feel like the paper should devote a page to religious news. But then as I continued reading I decided that the religion beat might be the most exciting. Personally, organized religion is as corrupt as any level of government.
Ch. 8 and ch. 9
"(Note that the Associated Press stylebook requires its reporters to use the word “innocent, rather than not guilty…to guard against the word ‘not’ being dropped inadvertently.”)"
I do not know how to strive for accuracy, when the news is not reflecting real life because of some poor editing or printing. The concept that the American legal system is designed around determining guilt rather than innocence should be expressed in the news. Who decides such exemptions from accuracy?
I have to admit I do not like pondering whether or not the legal system is democratic. I can vaguely understand why the media can be refused access to trials... and I can vaguely understand the press' right to report fully. Ultimately I am a pessimist and feel that someones rights must be jeopardized. If the legal system wasn't so shady, why leave the public in the dark.
If primetime television can produce so many hit crime-court series, court reporting must be interesting.
Court reporters should be allowed to freely analyze a court stories. More than words can express a defendants guilt. Courts are dramatic scenes, deserving of conservation of such dramatic elements.
Besides reporting on the actions taken place in court, post trial jury interviews seem to be the most exciting. I can imagine that it is difficult to gain interviews to some jurors, I would be scared of death threats if I was a juror for a high profile case. A group of the defendants peers labeled him guilty, that is an interesting story to understand from the personal level.
I feel that if reason for divorce is public information, settlement should be public as well. How can the press make sure the courts are working legally, if climax is withheld?
Hit Me With Your Best Shot
"Added Huckabee, warning of the coming entitlement crisis in Medicare and Social Security: "I just want to remind everybody when all the old hippies find out that they get free drugs, just wait until what that's going to cost out there."" - FOX REPUBLICAN DEBATE
Who says that? Who says that on national television? Who says that when running for president?
I stumbled upon the Republican debate Oct. 21 and decided to tune in. I've been putting off my candidate research and was pleasantly surprised to see Mr. Giuliani on my television screen. However once the candidates opened their mouths I was so embaressed for them I had to change the channel. I did not learn anything about what the candidates platforms are. All I heard was Hillary Clinton bashes. Huckabee's earlier statement makes me cringe even now. I can understand not being in favor of socialized health care.. however talk like an intelligent leader.. don't try and win the yokles votes by saying rubbish like that.
I salute McCain for a comment he made about Hillary supported the building of a Woodstock museum. McCain said he was to busy fight a war to know what was going on in Woodstock. Cheap topic to bring up.. but an A+ for handling the question and response.
My problem is that no one seems to be questioning the integrity of the party candidates. Stop bashing one another and tell me what you represent. Tell me what you believe. Let me decide!
The topic of 'Be Persistent' really consumed me in the text. I must have some undiagnosed social anxiety. I've written before that I just have an overwhelming problem with, basically in my mind, nagging sources for information. As I read on in the chapter about how beat writing is really built upon the fundamentals of source relationships.. it got me thinking.
I started thinking about why I chose to be in the journalism program to begin with. I enjoy writing, although news writing may not be my forte. Secondly I have this nagging conflict with 'the man' and the seemingly willingness of the exploitation of the American people. The people need to know.
So.. I am beginning to convince myself that persistence and meddling is necessary, in the name of the people. I should not wary of calling a political figure, in fear of burdening. My readers desire to know what is going on. I should be relentless until a source finally agrees to talk.
.. I need to remember to be persistent.
The chapter in a nutshell basically stresses doing your research and knowing your sources.
I was apprehensive while reading the section on the religious beat. I didn't feel like the paper should devote a page to religious news. But then as I continued reading I decided that the religion beat might be the most exciting. Personally, organized religion is as corrupt as any level of government.
Ch. 8 and ch. 9
"(Note that the Associated Press stylebook requires its reporters to use the word “innocent, rather than not guilty…to guard against the word ‘not’ being dropped inadvertently.”)"
I do not know how to strive for accuracy, when the news is not reflecting real life because of some poor editing or printing. The concept that the American legal system is designed around determining guilt rather than innocence should be expressed in the news. Who decides such exemptions from accuracy?
I have to admit I do not like pondering whether or not the legal system is democratic. I can vaguely understand why the media can be refused access to trials... and I can vaguely understand the press' right to report fully. Ultimately I am a pessimist and feel that someones rights must be jeopardized. If the legal system wasn't so shady, why leave the public in the dark.
If primetime television can produce so many hit crime-court series, court reporting must be interesting.
Court reporters should be allowed to freely analyze a court stories. More than words can express a defendants guilt. Courts are dramatic scenes, deserving of conservation of such dramatic elements.
Besides reporting on the actions taken place in court, post trial jury interviews seem to be the most exciting. I can imagine that it is difficult to gain interviews to some jurors, I would be scared of death threats if I was a juror for a high profile case. A group of the defendants peers labeled him guilty, that is an interesting story to understand from the personal level.
I feel that if reason for divorce is public information, settlement should be public as well. How can the press make sure the courts are working legally, if climax is withheld?
Hit Me With Your Best Shot
"Added Huckabee, warning of the coming entitlement crisis in Medicare and Social Security: "I just want to remind everybody when all the old hippies find out that they get free drugs, just wait until what that's going to cost out there."" - FOX REPUBLICAN DEBATE
Who says that? Who says that on national television? Who says that when running for president?
I stumbled upon the Republican debate Oct. 21 and decided to tune in. I've been putting off my candidate research and was pleasantly surprised to see Mr. Giuliani on my television screen. However once the candidates opened their mouths I was so embaressed for them I had to change the channel. I did not learn anything about what the candidates platforms are. All I heard was Hillary Clinton bashes. Huckabee's earlier statement makes me cringe even now. I can understand not being in favor of socialized health care.. however talk like an intelligent leader.. don't try and win the yokles votes by saying rubbish like that.
I salute McCain for a comment he made about Hillary supported the building of a Woodstock museum. McCain said he was to busy fight a war to know what was going on in Woodstock. Cheap topic to bring up.. but an A+ for handling the question and response.
My problem is that no one seems to be questioning the integrity of the party candidates. Stop bashing one another and tell me what you represent. Tell me what you believe. Let me decide!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)