Chapters 7 and 8
I understand the logic of the inverted pyramid. People read the news for the news. However, I feel that the inverted pyramid retards the news, writers, and readers. What is storytelling when the audience is not required to read past the wanton lead.
Perhaps my discontent for the inverted pyramid is really discontent towards the news audience. The audience wants to know the facts, and they want to know them now -- a comparable image to consumer America. The "so what" aspect discussed through out the chapter is one that deserves attention. I write to inform others, and to stir emotion. The human nature is striped from the news if I am confined to single paragraph leads -- packaged and filled with impersonal facts.
In the end however the lead needs to sell the rest of the article. The lead must draw the reader in. The inverted lead is a paragraph or two with such importance it should be held up high on a mighty pedistool when mastered.
My agitation, that was chapter 7 and the inverted pyramid, was quickly relieved by columnist James Kilpatrick's quote, "... if we write upon the sand, let us write as well as we can upon the sand before the waves come in."
Those words give me hope. We, as journalists, are historians. Although the history we write today may be replaced by morning -- write it well.
Words are mystical, hypocritical, emotional, dangerous, and above all powerful. The first element of good writing discussed in chapter 8 is: Be Precise. I find that statement filled with a lot of wisdom. According to Don Miguel Ruiz, author of "The Four Agreements" precision with your language is monumental to your happiness. The four agreements are the only four agreements a human need to make with themselves and comply to be a happy person. Writing what you mean exactly is an element of good writing and one of good living that I am more than happy to embrace.
The concept of asking interviewees to restate quotes or to translate into easier terms is one that I need to remember.
My writing tends to be made up of long complex sentences. When I write news I need to remember short sentences help with clarity. I find it difficult to know when to write short more concise sentences and when to allow myself to create concrete images. I suppose my problem is that I feel all articles should be written like feature literary articles. Short and simple -- short simple and sweet.
"The State of the News Media":
Such a massive evaluation on the state of web based journalism is overwhelming. Web journalism is a readers venue that I am just becoming acquainted with. As of last year I added bbc.com as my browsers homepage. I don't expect much from my web news, most likely because I also obtain my news from newspapers and tv. I find web news as just a quicker means of finding out what is important right now in the world.
The large critique on user customization of web news is one that goes far over my head. I do not think I would be turned off of a news site because I was not able to pick and choose what news I received. The ability to customize my news intake is a luxury I overlook.
Multimedia and site depth are the two components that really influence my opinion of web news. The possibilities of the internet are beyond my comprehension. The ability to be more than just simple text is something I feel web news should take advantage of. Show me the news in writing -- upload a video to help me better understand the devastation in Darfur. I am not as big of a news junkie as I should be, so when a news site offers depth it makes my life a lot easier. One aspect of bbc.com that I enjoy is the ability to view archived articles relating to the same topic. It does not surprise my that Google was ranked the highest in site depth. The algorithms involved in a Google search alone is huge -- applying those algorithms to Google news just seems natural.
I was glad to see that bbc ranked high within the judging. This semester I am required to read daily the New York Times. I find myself poking around nytimes.com rather than the print newspaper. Times online does not lose its distinct Times print style. However I approach my online news reading differently than my print. The Times articles online are the same longer coverage stories like the print. I enjoy bbc.com over nytimes.com because when I read online I'm on the go. I scan. BBC offers shorter quicker to read content that fits me needs.
In the end I find it a phenominal feat to rate all the site profiles as Project for Excellence in Journalism did. I don't think I really appreciated the critiquing of the sites. I am attracted to certain web bases news for my own reasons. I have my own scale to judge by and thus far it has sufficed.
Democratic Bundler oooops....
The Norman Hsu situation is one that I feel is bigger than the media is reporting. How could the leading Democrat candidates not know that they were receiving donations in the $100,000 range from a fugitive??? Another question is how did this man reenter the political scene after a 15 hiatus?
An editorial in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301082.html
brings to light big campaign donors should be revealed to the media and public. In my opinion the Democratic candidates that received money from Hsu knew of his criminal background. They knew he was wanted in California for fraud. I also believe that presidential candidates receive donations from drug lords and the mafia. Where does it end? How can someone with an entourage like Hillary's not do the research on the people that are propelling your campaign? I don't care so much about the fate of Hsu. I do care about how this situation exemplifies how corrupt and misleading the game of politics is. It is all about money and no one cares if it is dirty money or not. The Democrats were caught -- and oh aren't they wonderful for donating that dirty money to charity. The Post editorial also includes that in the Senate right now is a bill waiting for approval that will force nominees to disclose who their bundlers are. The investigation into the fleeing Hsu should continue, however I feel the attention should be placed on all the other bundlers donating to the party nominees. Hsu was caught, now lets see hsu else will the press will catch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I know what you mean about the "so what" question, and if you're saying you prefer to write feature ledes, I know what you mean. Presumably the facts we include in nutgrafs are important enough to speak for themselves. But perhaps that's a presumption journalists should take a second look at.
You point out the importance of precision. It cannot be emphasized enough, is my point of view.
On the state of the news: I agree with you about the ability to customize news being a luxury! Where it gets interesting to me is when the user can filter the news: Should the user be able to only read positive news about one political figure, for example? (And who am I to ask that question.)
bbc.com is awesome.
The case of Norman Hsu is indeed fascinating. Reminds me of Deep Throat's advice to Woodward and Bernstein: Follow the money.
Post a Comment