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!

Blog URLs

http://bryannews1.blogspot.com/2007/10/mccains-old.html -- McCain's Old

http://newsreporting1.blogspot.com/2007/09/obama-and-oprah.html --- Obama and Oprah

http://flongit.blogspot.com/2007/09/expect-expectorating.html -- Expect Expectorating/Patraeus

http://pierulesyou.blogspot.com/2007/09/yahoo-message-boards.html -- Yahoo! message boards

http://lauraswanson.blogspot.com/2007/09/obamania.html -- Obamania

http://devonhaley.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-just-read-article-on-caucus-new-york.html -- Republican No Show

http://brianaword.blogspot.com/2007/09/those-newfangled-webcast-thingies.html -- Newfangled Webcast Thingies

http://6078287.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-got-momentarily-and-unnecessarily.html -- Romney 'one of us'

Covering Crime and Justice

One:


Post-traumatic stress disorder, death threats, homicide, and crooked cops.. Boy oh Boy Dave Krajicek certainly sold me to crime beat reporting. In all honesty covering the crime beat actually seems fulfilling to me. Change starts somewhere, why not through covering corruption? Crime exists, crime is real.. it needs to be reported. Krajicek mentions something about how critics feel that a couple sentences debriefing on how typically the reported crime is in general should be included in a report. I can understand objections. However approaching crime reporting on a holistic level makes sense. Instead of reporting on the bad depressing aspects of the crime news, (isn't that all news not just crime beats?) investigate on trends and how crime effects the public at large.

Crime beat reporters don't appear to have many friends. If editors even clash with reporters, what is the problem. Who wants to read just the hard facts of a sexual assault? I can understand summarizing lead crimes, however the big picture should not be ignored. Maybe I my image of journalism is to involved. I want to write stories that mean something to people. I want people to be informed. I want people to know how to change their world and why it needs to be changed. I don't just want to write about a homicide.. I want to write about why homocides continue to occur in certain areas and how to prevent further homicides. But then again we are just talking about crime beats not feature stories. I surprise myself in saying that I might like crime beats. Mix in a little investigative reporting and crime beats... well I might just be prepared to tackle the organized crime that fronts as garbage collection.

Five:

note to self: "Never forget it's not our job to judge, only to tell the truth through reporting and writing."

A problem I have is that I don't like to be obtrusive. I've never been placed in the situation.. but I can guarentee that I will have a difficult time calling a victim or family member of a victim.. and then calling again and again. I am a good judge of emotion and when I sense someones irritation with me.. I back off. I have a backbone.. but no one like to be pestered during the grieving process.

I will take the suggestion of being the reporter that does not fall to the wolfpack mentality. I feel that if people want to talk I need to let them know I am here to listen and tell their story, but until they are ready I won't force them. Subjects are human. Reporters should be human too.

Names of rape victims should only be reported if given consent from the victim. I don't understand how anyone can argue that names of rape victims constitutes as the publics right to know. I can't even imagine the emotion psychological and physical issues that arise from becoming a rape victim.. having the media exploit a sexual crime is unacceptable. The public has a right to know who is doing the raping and where the rapes are happening but they do not need to know the name of an individual who has gone through, in my mind, the worst crime there is.

I think a lot o ethica questions that arise for journalist are a result of lack of compassion. Maybe the media would be able to rid it's evil image if the press stopped acting like men and starting thinking with their brains and their hearts.

Seven:

Courts courts courts. Well I don't know really what to say about covering courts. I feel bad for anyone that is thrown into the court beat. I believe it is necessary to have a competent reporter who understands the legal system. I think the most compelling necessity of court reporting is to make sure everyone is playing the game fair. In general journalist duty is to make sure everyone is acting legit.

The legal system is intense.. laywers and judges wouldn't be paid as much as they are if i wasn't. I can try to understand the structure of the system and I think that that is the best heads up a court reporter can have.

Access to documents seems to be one of the larger challenges of court reporting. It is important to find necessary documents, because as the article says, printed documents are the best defense against libel.

side note: although this weeks reading was long, the website was really intriguing. I felt that the website was legit and speeching from experience. Much better than the text. so ++ for the reading selection.

Fires and accidents and court reporting, oh my.

Well the reoccuring theme that great stories are rooted in a foundation of good reporting surfaces again. Although the text offers a long chapter on fire/accident/court stories, I feel the only way to master such writing is from practice. Until you are on a 20 min deadline of a devastation fire at a senior citizen community, you won't truly know how to deal with the situation.

It is pretty straight forward, figure out the WWWWH, and if time permits delve deeper. As long as you have the facts together you have a story. The text seems to condradict itself regarding one source stories. I feel that if all you have time for is to consult a police report, then state that the information comes from the police report. I do not think journalists should be required to know more than the police during early unravelings of a story. Court reporting is something I am not really familiar with. The text recommondation to ask as many questions as you need to to get the facts straight is helpful.

The only thing that really intersted me in the chapter was the section on ethics. The story on negligance of releasing the home address and name of an intended assult victim is just stupid. I understand the public has a right to know whats going on, however I feel that the present state of the media just views people and devastation accidents as stories. What editor would allow a story to print the name of a victim who's attacker is still on the lose? The press is too caught up with printing a story that is breaking news rather than understanding the victim.

Controversy over the rights of the press during court proceedings is also pretty stupid to me. Again I understand the journalists function is to inform the public, but come on man, don't interfere with someones life. Victims of crimes are already going through a horrific time, stop sticking your nose too deep into places it doesn't belong. The press does have to stay on its toes and make sure the freedom of the press remains free. If the press is to remain free, I feel that such freedom is often at the expense of someone else.

Overall I wouldn't mind writing accident or fire stories. As long as you have the basic facts you are in good shape.

"How do you like it, how do you like it, M(g)ore M(g)ore M(g)ore"

Well Al Gore won the nobel peace prize. hm. And some group of democrat looneys are trying to get Gore to the presidency without his approval. I don't understand why these people are wasting their time money on pushing Gore '08. Why would the man who is gaining celebrity status jump back into the political race? With Gores political track history, I would be afraid of what this election embarressement of would. Gore has different interests now that aren't completely political. Let Gore have fun with his emmy and noble peace prize, but give the guy a break, he doesn't want to wear the many hats of Mr. President anymore. If Hillary won the democrat ticket and Gore ran as vice, well I would certainly call that entertainment... but I really hope to never see the day. Anyways why would Gore take second chair to not only Bill Clinton, but is wife too? ehh. Forget about Gore poltics people. Democracts have a smorgusboard of interesting candidates this year. Gore would just cause trouble... hmm but maybe Democrat trouble isn't such a bad thing.

The public should be protected from becoming pawns to the press. On the reverse, shouldn't the press be protected from becoming the pawns of the public? Modern journalism's economic survive rests in the hands of meeting the needs, rather demands of the public. Libel cases, especially the ones ruled in favor of the press, becomes a deterrent for the press to continue our industries duty of 'social responsibiity'.

I can understand suing a news organization for publishing untrue defamatory information when infact the organization was well aware that the 'news' was false. As much as I believe the press should be able to roam free in a libertarian utopia, the press should not be able to knowingly print false information.

I do not understand how monetary reward justifies libel. Damage to a reputation can be bandaged by a dollar bill? Why would the public/public figures take money from an industry that works for the public and works hard to gain any profit? In my world, the accused would be forced to write an article apoligizing for publishing false information or damaging a reputation.

The actual malice test is a fair way to establish responsibility. Journalists, or atleast I, am not omniscient. We are not psychic. We know how to do our research, we know how to obtain facts and we know how to report those facts. As long as a journalists did the best she could to acquire the facts, and she had no doubt that her information was misleading, she should not have to fear the courts. We act as Lois Lowry's 'Giver'. We hold onto the memories and history of this world only to be shit on when not living up to some superficial ideology of professionalism created by some guild of heartless emotionless men. bah.

For all the journalists who hold true to morals and refuse to become servants to the judicial system, I salute you!


Politics And The English Language/Scholarly Prose :
"And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity."

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."

George Orwell's article actually made me think, I believe this proving his point about lack of emotion and meaning to modern language. The article highlighted linquistic tendencies I find myself adopting. In my mind scholarly and/or politcal writings pride themselves in being masters of bull shit, composed by men who write what they do simply to reread their work and marvel with a vain grin at the large load of bull shit they were able to produce.

As individuals slowly remove themselves from the meaning conveyed within their work, they do become faceless drones. Politicians dispense word vomit, and journalists regurgiate this word vomit only to pass it along to the public which then reregurtigates the mess of meaningless words.

What I took away from Orwell's article is: say what you feel, and who am I trying to impress?

Journalists should detach themselves from over stated phrases and supply the readers with meaning.

Orwell's gripe with language reminds me of an article I recently read on the Ethics of Care (something I think would be really interesting to look into in class because it really motivates me). Ethics of care requires the journalists to feel compassion and understanding for those they write about. Forgetting the objective rules of professional journalism, care ethics allows humanity to grace the pages of the paper.

I guess I am beginning to understand, by reading Orwell and the piece on scholarly prose, that news writing works best when eliminating the BS. By being precise and writing directly really is the best way to convey meaning. Back to the ethics care, direct writing does not mean that is must lack humanity. By writing what you know with direct language really shows that you know what you are writing. There is not need to confuse and be abstract. I do enjoy scholarly writing, but I need to recognize that there is a time and place for such language and it must adhere to meaning rather than eloquance.

TMI:

I guess it is a good thing that the media coverage can undergo such intense analysis. However, the fact that media coverage needs such an analysis is not so good. Problems do arise when general staff reporters are assigned to a story that needs specialized reports to cover nuclear energy situations. I feel that the large national news organizations did overplay TMI. However, when mixed information is being release from TMI sources it is hard not to create a craze. The news feeding frenzy does not help evaluate stories that involve a 'general state of emergency'.

I do not like that the small local news organization around TMI were pushed aside by national publications. If anything the local news will bare a greater significance to the community.

It is important to know the facts, and know that the facts are facts.

Hillary Clinton, no joke.

So Hillary Clinton is not the cold hearted witch the press makes her out to be. Why do I say that, because Hillary is beginning to show her 'humane' side and can laugh. It was reported that on all the the 5 major sunday news talk shows, Hillary showed off her new peronsable laugh. Often laughing for not reason, or during some not so funny questions. I view this as a poor publicity stunt by Hillary. If I were Hillary I would fire my PR people for advising me to look like a totaly schmuck . Hillary is not warm, she does not like puppies or babies. This whole funny Hillary is not laughing matter. I don't want a president that will laugh off the state of universal health insurance when she botches the whole system up. Remember Hillary, when the people aren't laughing with you, they are laughing at you!