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'
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
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!
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!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
In death the news finally allows the shroud of insensitivty to be lifted from the business' eyes, however profit remains the focus.
Obit writing appears pretty straightforward. When dealing with death it takes a very cold heart to botch the job.
"These obituaries are not formulaic pieces. They are life stories." I was surprised to read this quote from the text. Why is it life and civility only finds itself within the obits. Stories that showcase individuals living and allow recognition for life's simple achievements should be found throughout a paper. Humanity is lost within the grey shades of print.
The idea of beat reporters writing the obits for the individuals they have covered seems like logical reasoning. To ensure these 'life stories' that obits should be, a writer that understands the deceases professional life is practical.
Overall, obits capture death and how long can you dwell on the latter.
The Petraeus Deal
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/568045,CST-NWS-sweet21.article
Barack Obama did not vote on the resolution regarding the Moveon ad in the Times. Hillary Clinton voted no. As puss of a move Obama played in not casting a vote, his justification makes sense to me:
This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.
Obama's right. Senate took a day to sit bicker over image politics instead of continuing discuss on Iraq troops and the situation in the middle east.
Obit writing appears pretty straightforward. When dealing with death it takes a very cold heart to botch the job.
"These obituaries are not formulaic pieces. They are life stories." I was surprised to read this quote from the text. Why is it life and civility only finds itself within the obits. Stories that showcase individuals living and allow recognition for life's simple achievements should be found throughout a paper. Humanity is lost within the grey shades of print.
The idea of beat reporters writing the obits for the individuals they have covered seems like logical reasoning. To ensure these 'life stories' that obits should be, a writer that understands the deceases professional life is practical.
Overall, obits capture death and how long can you dwell on the latter.
The Petraeus Deal
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/568045,CST-NWS-sweet21.article
Barack Obama did not vote on the resolution regarding the Moveon ad in the Times. Hillary Clinton voted no. As puss of a move Obama played in not casting a vote, his justification makes sense to me:
This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.
Obama's right. Senate took a day to sit bicker over image politics instead of continuing discuss on Iraq troops and the situation in the middle east.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
She said what??
Ch. 4 In Their Own Words
I'm not sure what to comment about in chapter 4. The only thing I found particularly interesting was a quote about prepublication review (ppr). Kelly McBride said, "Every day, beat reporters make deals -- explicit and implicit -- with their sources about what to print, when to print it, and what to leave out. Rarely do they tell their readers about these deals. Sometimes they don't even tell their editors."
Lately I have been apathetic about anything concerning the world of journalism, however McBride's quote was able to make me ponder (or at least rub my chin in a ponderous manner). As I study ethics and the media's obligation to serve the public, I find the 'behind the scene' activities like those mentioned above to fall within the grey area of upholding the public interest. I've had discussions about if and when it is okay to do undercover work or without that you are a journalist, and I feel that ppr is just as deceptive to the public as the former is to a source. I never really knew that writers go back to the source to review what is to be printed. I suppose it is a nice gesture, however it gives the source too much power of the media. Whose interest is ppr concerning? I can understand if you want to check out some quotes to eliminate any possible libel, but to give the source the ability to disapprove of what is to be printed? ehh, I don't know how I feel about that.
Regarding the whole, on the record off the record.. that's just too much for me. It does open my eyes to having to talk to all sides of the story. I'm a pretty not so objective person, and these little hints here and there on how to straighten out my crooked journalism halo is very helpful.
The E-Media tibits was surprisingly expremely uplifting. I'm having this quasi angel devil debate over my future with journalism, and seeing that their are other thigns to write about than hard political news is awesome. The RSS feed about environmental issues is just awesome, and seeing how people responded to the feed is even cooler. By making those environmental issues accessible to more audiences makes this whole thing seem like its worth it. My only gripe is that with the feed you can censor what information you receive. It is a little naive to think that you can go through life reading and hearing about only the good things you want to hear about.
The blog for the timetable was really interesting, I only wish it was in english. I'm not sure what magical journalism knowledge I gained from the blog, but the timetable itself was impressive. So must information is packed into that flash feature, its so modern and unconventional typically I would dismiss it as being a form of journalism. As I become a discouraged jounralism student, these modern multimedia possibilites are shining just enough light of hope.
Hillary Health Care: The Reprise
Hillary Clinton pushes so hard she would make a great drug dealer. Evidently Hillary is to make another universial health care proposal this monday. I read a figure that read something like 50 million Americans are uninsured. I agree something needs to be down about that number because it seems rather unamerican to me. I don't really remember Hillary's first health care push in the early '90s, all I know is that it didn't go through and that it was pretty complex. My friend from home told me about this kid she knows that can cough up blood on demand, but he can't get anything done about it because he isnt insured. That is what I think of when I think about the health insurance. I don't know how great univerisal health care would be in the US of A. Where there is univerisal health care isn't it true that you are placed on waiting lists for months at a time and seeing a doctor becomes near impossible? I agree with the Democrats that something needs to be done to the system. I think the big drug companies and giant insurance companies who are profitting off of sick people should be the ones interrogated. Hillary should be coming up with a clear and concise plan for Iraq before focusing on destorying the American health care system.
I'm not sure what to comment about in chapter 4. The only thing I found particularly interesting was a quote about prepublication review (ppr). Kelly McBride said, "Every day, beat reporters make deals -- explicit and implicit -- with their sources about what to print, when to print it, and what to leave out. Rarely do they tell their readers about these deals. Sometimes they don't even tell their editors."
Lately I have been apathetic about anything concerning the world of journalism, however McBride's quote was able to make me ponder (or at least rub my chin in a ponderous manner). As I study ethics and the media's obligation to serve the public, I find the 'behind the scene' activities like those mentioned above to fall within the grey area of upholding the public interest. I've had discussions about if and when it is okay to do undercover work or without that you are a journalist, and I feel that ppr is just as deceptive to the public as the former is to a source. I never really knew that writers go back to the source to review what is to be printed. I suppose it is a nice gesture, however it gives the source too much power of the media. Whose interest is ppr concerning? I can understand if you want to check out some quotes to eliminate any possible libel, but to give the source the ability to disapprove of what is to be printed? ehh, I don't know how I feel about that.
Regarding the whole, on the record off the record.. that's just too much for me. It does open my eyes to having to talk to all sides of the story. I'm a pretty not so objective person, and these little hints here and there on how to straighten out my crooked journalism halo is very helpful.
The E-Media tibits was surprisingly expremely uplifting. I'm having this quasi angel devil debate over my future with journalism, and seeing that their are other thigns to write about than hard political news is awesome. The RSS feed about environmental issues is just awesome, and seeing how people responded to the feed is even cooler. By making those environmental issues accessible to more audiences makes this whole thing seem like its worth it. My only gripe is that with the feed you can censor what information you receive. It is a little naive to think that you can go through life reading and hearing about only the good things you want to hear about.
The blog for the timetable was really interesting, I only wish it was in english. I'm not sure what magical journalism knowledge I gained from the blog, but the timetable itself was impressive. So must information is packed into that flash feature, its so modern and unconventional typically I would dismiss it as being a form of journalism. As I become a discouraged jounralism student, these modern multimedia possibilites are shining just enough light of hope.
Hillary Health Care: The Reprise
Hillary Clinton pushes so hard she would make a great drug dealer. Evidently Hillary is to make another universial health care proposal this monday. I read a figure that read something like 50 million Americans are uninsured. I agree something needs to be down about that number because it seems rather unamerican to me. I don't really remember Hillary's first health care push in the early '90s, all I know is that it didn't go through and that it was pretty complex. My friend from home told me about this kid she knows that can cough up blood on demand, but he can't get anything done about it because he isnt insured. That is what I think of when I think about the health insurance. I don't know how great univerisal health care would be in the US of A. Where there is univerisal health care isn't it true that you are placed on waiting lists for months at a time and seeing a doctor becomes near impossible? I agree with the Democrats that something needs to be done to the system. I think the big drug companies and giant insurance companies who are profitting off of sick people should be the ones interrogated. Hillary should be coming up with a clear and concise plan for Iraq before focusing on destorying the American health care system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)