News Releases, finally something that makes my life a bit easier.

I have never rewritten a news release for a story, but I feel that it would be a less stressful story than reporting on a city councel meeting or something to that effect. Writing news releases actually intrigues me more than rewriting them to fit within a story. The bias self-image building aspect that makes up a lot of releases would be fun to write.

The book commented on how most new releases that get printed are the ones that serve a public interest. I am taking media ethics right now, and have been pondering the public interest/social responsibility vs. free press notion. Is it the responsibility of the press to rewrite releases so that they serve they serve the interest of the public? I don't know any specific examples, but I would not be surprised to learn that several news publications print stories bases on news releases about issues the news organization supports. I actually feel that news organizations have the right to select which releases to rewrite, and what focus they wish to take. As long as the story is not sensationalized, all news releases do not have to be differected to the enitre public interest -- just the interest of the selected audience of the publication or the news organizations interest.

It does not surprise me either that press agents would create quotes for boss. My questions is, is it my responsibility to exclude self rightous quotes? I know you should back up your quotes or atleast validate them, however if a PR rep, who is the voice of whoever they are representing, provides me with a quote why should I eliminate it? I feel accrediting the quote to the PR rep tells more about the person they are representing then removing it.

Writing stories based on news releases interests me, because I feel I could do much of the work right from my desk. You don't need attend the event necessarily or meet with anyone. A few phone calls, fact checking, and depending on where they story goes a bit of investigation can create a legit story. Instead of trying to figure out what the news is, the news is already given to you, you just have to read through the BS.

"And the beat goes on, ba dump da dum dum."

The book admits that speeches/news conferences/meetings can be dull and boring. The remedy for dull and boring reporting is found within how the story is written. The book says to take note of how speakers talk, how they use gestures, and their overall physical presentation. I feel it is also very important to tell your audience how the speaker uttered a response to a question. Why is it that correctly reporting a 'yell' or 'whisper' loses objectivity. When I read a story I feel these descriptions add to the story, and that the line of sensationalism is not crossed. The story often is in how the speacher talks and not necessarily what was said.

Reaction stories I feel should allow for lenient objectivity. Report more than comments. Report how the speecher reacted to the audience reaction. The text says towards the end of the chapter that it is my job to make people interested in my news story. The present journalist creed needs to adapt. The observations of the reporter deserve to be written. Descriptive words that deviate from the neutral norm can still be used to represent the medias social responsibility.

I agree in speech/news conference/meeting stories the facts come first. As long as the facts are presented, the reporter should be allowed to use language that makes the facts seem human. I feel that people want more than the facts. People want to relate on a human level.


Campaigning in 2007

Former NC senator John Edwards was the first presidential candidate to appear on MTV's real-time interactive forum. When I think of MTV's involvement with political forums I recall Bill Clinton's savy saxophone playing and boxer vs. brief questions. Students at UofNH voiced serious questions at the forum directed towards todays youth and young adults. Past elections yoing voter turn out has been to say the least embarrassing. The way the current president has conducted business the past few years, I feel college students will finally step up the plate and become involved with the 2008 election. Edwards appearence on the MTV forum was a great campaign move. It is reported that the majority of viewers felt Edwards answered questions reasonabley. I don't think it would have mattered how well Edwards responded to questions. It matters that he is placing his name into the lexicon of college students.

Using mediums that todays youth can understand is a big plus for Edwards. No other candidate has made a date as to when they will appear on the MTV forum. The youtube debates that appeared earlier this month is also only example of candidates finally understanding how to address the public. The people need to ask the questions. Instead of fearing public opinion, candidates are finally making the attempt to atleast appease the public voice.