What I found most beneficial about the two articles on plagiarism was the fact that the two articles offered both sides of the issue. Plagiarism is something that is drilled into our minds at a very young age as being something bad that we are to avoid at all costs. If I recall correctly, when I learned about plagiarism in middle school, and even a little high school, we not only were told that plagiarism is stealing someone else's work and is bad, but we also learned that plagiarism can be unintentional. We were taught to always double check our work, make sure it's original, make sure that not even one sentence or phrase could be considered plagiarism. To this day, I still make a very conscious effort to make sure that nothing in any of my writing, that isn't attributed, could be seen as plagiarism.
This is why the whole situation is very confusing to me. I completely understand that sometimes we can all get "careless", which can, unfortunately lead to accusations of plagiarism sometimes. However, I would expect someone, like the journalist John Merrill, who has a significant amount of journalistic experience to know to attribute quotes from whatever source he got them from. This is what struck me as being most odd when I read these articles.
My initial reaction was that both sides made valid arguments, and that Merrill made a mistake and that the punishment also may have been a little harsh. However, after reading the article by Merrill I started to think a lot about it. It is true that this incident could possibly ruin his reputation as a journalist. However, he also kept saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. While, yes, this is the implication, as was mentioned in the first article, the actual term, "plagiarism" was never even used. However, if you have been doing this for as long as he had been, then it should probably be second nature to try not to be "careless" about something as simple as citing a source.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Oprah + Obama?
So I wrote awhile earlier about Oprah's support of Barack Obama. Now, Oprah is endorsing Obama's campaign, but she is also going to hit the campaign trail with him. I guess the big question about this is, what kind of effect will Oprah's support have on voters? It's still strange to me to think that a talk show personality is making such a huge impact in politics right now.
I think that to say, Oprah could help Obama win the election is jumping the gun just a bit. However, a lot of people think that the person with the most to worry about in this situation is Hillary Clinton. I do recognize the fact that Oprah could very well help Obama gain some votes that would otherwise go to Clinton. A lot of Clinton's support has come from women voters. However, this is the same demographic of Oprah's viewers. It's very possible that she could sway their votes from Clinton to Obama.
I think that to say, Oprah could help Obama win the election is jumping the gun just a bit. However, a lot of people think that the person with the most to worry about in this situation is Hillary Clinton. I do recognize the fact that Oprah could very well help Obama gain some votes that would otherwise go to Clinton. A lot of Clinton's support has come from women voters. However, this is the same demographic of Oprah's viewers. It's very possible that she could sway their votes from Clinton to Obama.
Poynter Reading
I found the reading for this week to be really interesting. It was all about online journalism, the type of project we are about to be working on ourselves, and the creation of Soundslides. For me, personally, I think that the concept of audio slideshows as a form of journalism is extremely interesting. I actually really like the idea. I think that a story can have a greater impact when told by both words and images.
I feel like this technique could very well be the future of journalism. The internet allows quite a bit of flexibility, and slideshows provide a way to present stories in a broader way which incorporates all different types of journalism.
I also really enjoyed reading the interview with Joe Weiss. I understand that the point of the interview was to find out more about his development of Soundslides, but I think that what I got much more out of were his comments about journalism, in general. I found that I could relate to a lot of the things that he had to say. Like, for example, what drew him to journalism in the first place and about how he liked the idea of connecting people to other people. I feel like this is an aspect of journalism that can get forgotten about so quickly, that it was just refreshing to see that people do still believe that. I also like the fact that he developed Soundslides for the sole purpose of helping out fellow journalists.
Also, I won't lie, I was quite drawn to the fact that Weiss was a photojournalist. I liked reading about someone who is doing exactly what I want to be doing. I actually gained a lot of insight into photojournalism as a result of the reading. I especially enjoyed what Weiss had to say about the hope that reporters and photojournalists could eventually work together to create slideshow stories. As much as I think that an image can often speak very well by itself, I also feel that the ability to combine a good print story with a good photo could be an extremely worthwhile talent to have.
I feel like this technique could very well be the future of journalism. The internet allows quite a bit of flexibility, and slideshows provide a way to present stories in a broader way which incorporates all different types of journalism.
I also really enjoyed reading the interview with Joe Weiss. I understand that the point of the interview was to find out more about his development of Soundslides, but I think that what I got much more out of were his comments about journalism, in general. I found that I could relate to a lot of the things that he had to say. Like, for example, what drew him to journalism in the first place and about how he liked the idea of connecting people to other people. I feel like this is an aspect of journalism that can get forgotten about so quickly, that it was just refreshing to see that people do still believe that. I also like the fact that he developed Soundslides for the sole purpose of helping out fellow journalists.
Also, I won't lie, I was quite drawn to the fact that Weiss was a photojournalist. I liked reading about someone who is doing exactly what I want to be doing. I actually gained a lot of insight into photojournalism as a result of the reading. I especially enjoyed what Weiss had to say about the hope that reporters and photojournalists could eventually work together to create slideshow stories. As much as I think that an image can often speak very well by itself, I also feel that the ability to combine a good print story with a good photo could be an extremely worthwhile talent to have.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ethics.
I feel as thought there is so much to keep in mind when talking about ethics in journalism. My own personal opinions on the subject vary. I know that this is something that is supposed to keep journalism fair and moral. However, I often feel like it sometimes has the opposite effect.
There were a few parts of the reading that particularly caught my attention. I found the section on deceit interesting. If someone who is not a journalist were to read this section and read the words "lie", "misrepresent", and "steal", their initial reaction would probably be something along the lines of, "no, of course it is never okay to do these things." In fact, that was even my reaction the first time i read through the section. However, upon my second read, I realized that these are things that journalists have to seriously consider, and the dilemma of where to bend the rules is something that, as journalists, we are probably bound to face. The important thing to remember is that it's all about circumstance. What is the situation? What is bending the rules will help to reveal some major corruption in government or a corporation? What is it will help reveal information that will help a vast majority of people? In my opinion, you have to seriously look at the outcome. Is it worth it?
The second thing in the reading that grabbed my attention was the section about friendships. Personally, this is something that never even crossed my mind. I always just figured that establishing a rapport with your sources could only result positively. You gain someone's trust, and they help you out. But, in our field, it's a little more loaded than that.
Finally, I was particularly interested about the subject of paying sources. Personally, this is just something that makes me pessimistic. I don't think that it is ever okay to pay a source for information. That just takes journalism and makes it into something it isn't. For me, journalism is about informing the public; sharing knowledge. It's not about who can pay the most to get the best story.
I found the online readings very interesting and very uplifting. In my opinion, online journalism has a lot to offer. It can take many different forms of journalism and combine them into one, making a story more interesting, more accessible, and more complete. For, me, personally, online journalism is something that is very intriguing. As I mentioned in my blog about broadcast journalism, I am also a photographer, and am very interested in the concept of using compelling images as journalism. However, online journalism is something that can combine words, video and photography to create a more rounded story.
There were a few parts of the reading that particularly caught my attention. I found the section on deceit interesting. If someone who is not a journalist were to read this section and read the words "lie", "misrepresent", and "steal", their initial reaction would probably be something along the lines of, "no, of course it is never okay to do these things." In fact, that was even my reaction the first time i read through the section. However, upon my second read, I realized that these are things that journalists have to seriously consider, and the dilemma of where to bend the rules is something that, as journalists, we are probably bound to face. The important thing to remember is that it's all about circumstance. What is the situation? What is bending the rules will help to reveal some major corruption in government or a corporation? What is it will help reveal information that will help a vast majority of people? In my opinion, you have to seriously look at the outcome. Is it worth it?
The second thing in the reading that grabbed my attention was the section about friendships. Personally, this is something that never even crossed my mind. I always just figured that establishing a rapport with your sources could only result positively. You gain someone's trust, and they help you out. But, in our field, it's a little more loaded than that.
Finally, I was particularly interested about the subject of paying sources. Personally, this is just something that makes me pessimistic. I don't think that it is ever okay to pay a source for information. That just takes journalism and makes it into something it isn't. For me, journalism is about informing the public; sharing knowledge. It's not about who can pay the most to get the best story.
I found the online readings very interesting and very uplifting. In my opinion, online journalism has a lot to offer. It can take many different forms of journalism and combine them into one, making a story more interesting, more accessible, and more complete. For, me, personally, online journalism is something that is very intriguing. As I mentioned in my blog about broadcast journalism, I am also a photographer, and am very interested in the concept of using compelling images as journalism. However, online journalism is something that can combine words, video and photography to create a more rounded story.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Chapter 19
Chapter 19 addressed how to write for Television and Radio. Personally, I'm not really a broadcast person. At all. I feel that print is just more effective and more complete. Each broadcast story only gets about 2 minutes each. How can you truly include all of the information that needs to be included in 2 minutes?
The main difference I saw between writing for print and writing for television and radio was that, with tv and radio, the writing needs to stay short, concise, and conversational. I am generally bad at that. I really do enjoy writing, long, detailed pieces, and I have a slight problem with being "wordy" more often than not. So, all in all, I am fairly certain that television and radio writing is not in my future.
I do have mixed feelings about broadcast, simply because I tend to question how stories are chosen for broadcast. Our book says that stories have to meet certain criteria, one of which is timeliness. Television and radio have the advantage over print of not having certain deadlines and print dates; they can cover things as soon as they happen, and present the stories to the public as soon as they happen. However, the broadcast stories are much more condensed and less complete.
However, there is one aspect of broadcast journalism that I am partial to. The visual aspect is certainly enticing for me, being a photographer. Photo journalism is something that I find very interesting and it is extremely effective. The long and short of it is, images make a stronger impression and can sometimes get across a point better than any words. For example, the photographs of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina that were posted online got more attention than any newspaper articles. The same is true with the coverage of 9/11. The images spoke louder than words, and broadcast not only has the ability to combine words and images, but it also has the ability to use video.
This being said, I still think I'll stick to still photography.
The main difference I saw between writing for print and writing for television and radio was that, with tv and radio, the writing needs to stay short, concise, and conversational. I am generally bad at that. I really do enjoy writing, long, detailed pieces, and I have a slight problem with being "wordy" more often than not. So, all in all, I am fairly certain that television and radio writing is not in my future.
I do have mixed feelings about broadcast, simply because I tend to question how stories are chosen for broadcast. Our book says that stories have to meet certain criteria, one of which is timeliness. Television and radio have the advantage over print of not having certain deadlines and print dates; they can cover things as soon as they happen, and present the stories to the public as soon as they happen. However, the broadcast stories are much more condensed and less complete.
However, there is one aspect of broadcast journalism that I am partial to. The visual aspect is certainly enticing for me, being a photographer. Photo journalism is something that I find very interesting and it is extremely effective. The long and short of it is, images make a stronger impression and can sometimes get across a point better than any words. For example, the photographs of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina that were posted online got more attention than any newspaper articles. The same is true with the coverage of 9/11. The images spoke louder than words, and broadcast not only has the ability to combine words and images, but it also has the ability to use video.
This being said, I still think I'll stick to still photography.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Investigative Reporting
Investigative reporting seems like something that would be so much work. The text basically lays out how one would go about writing an investigative report.
I feel like after Journalism Research we each got our own little taste of what investigative reporting is like, and I can say from my own personal experience, the text doesn't lie; it is not an easy thing to do. You need to be organized, know where / how to get the correct sources, and be persistent.
According the book, you need to have "courage" in order to be an investigative reporter. Investigative reporting is one of those things where you need certain information in order to make some stories work. You need to be persistent and willing to bother people, basically.
I want to say that, one day, this is the kind of journalism I want to do. However, I'm hesitant, because what aspiring journalist doesn't want to cover the "important", hard-hitting, investigative stories? The fact of the matter is, I feel like investigative reporting is something that you need to work your way up to. A "pay your dues" sort of thing.
For me, investigative reporting is basically the epitome of journalism. To be able to investigate scandals and inform people of corrupt government I feel would be extremely rewarding.
I feel like after Journalism Research we each got our own little taste of what investigative reporting is like, and I can say from my own personal experience, the text doesn't lie; it is not an easy thing to do. You need to be organized, know where / how to get the correct sources, and be persistent.
According the book, you need to have "courage" in order to be an investigative reporter. Investigative reporting is one of those things where you need certain information in order to make some stories work. You need to be persistent and willing to bother people, basically.
I want to say that, one day, this is the kind of journalism I want to do. However, I'm hesitant, because what aspiring journalist doesn't want to cover the "important", hard-hitting, investigative stories? The fact of the matter is, I feel like investigative reporting is something that you need to work your way up to. A "pay your dues" sort of thing.
For me, investigative reporting is basically the epitome of journalism. To be able to investigate scandals and inform people of corrupt government I feel would be extremely rewarding.
Oh, Stephen Colbert
So, Colbert recently announced that he was planning to run for President in his home state of South Carolina. However, the Democratic party in South Carolina has just denied his bid. Apparently, officials feel that he is making a mockery of the election and is "really trying to use South Carolina Democrats as suckers so he can further a comedy routine,"
Personally, I have mixed feelings on the subject.
On one hand, I do feel that the whole, Colbert running for president thing was a bit extreme. I mean, honestly, I love the man, I love his comedy, I feel that he is very intelligent, BUT he is also a comedian. An entertainer. He has even said, openly, that his campaign is a joke. That he is not a real politician. It really is a comedy routine. Not to mention, the second he decided to run, the support he began to receive was immense. It seemed as though more people were paying attention to Stephen Colbert than the real candidates. It just makes me look at our society and question some things. Why do we respond more to things such as entertainment and celebrities than the real issues of the other candidates?
Then again, our generation is the largest group that does not vote. Joke or no joke, Colbert was definitely getting the attention of younger voters. The fact of the matter is, we are the group that needs to be voting right now, and we don't. Nor do we follow politics the way we should. At least this was one way to get people involved and interested. Also, the fact that someone can just be denied the right to run for president certainly unnerves me slightly. What makes one person more capable? And who truly has the right to make that decision?
Personally, I have mixed feelings on the subject.
On one hand, I do feel that the whole, Colbert running for president thing was a bit extreme. I mean, honestly, I love the man, I love his comedy, I feel that he is very intelligent, BUT he is also a comedian. An entertainer. He has even said, openly, that his campaign is a joke. That he is not a real politician. It really is a comedy routine. Not to mention, the second he decided to run, the support he began to receive was immense. It seemed as though more people were paying attention to Stephen Colbert than the real candidates. It just makes me look at our society and question some things. Why do we respond more to things such as entertainment and celebrities than the real issues of the other candidates?
Then again, our generation is the largest group that does not vote. Joke or no joke, Colbert was definitely getting the attention of younger voters. The fact of the matter is, we are the group that needs to be voting right now, and we don't. Nor do we follow politics the way we should. At least this was one way to get people involved and interested. Also, the fact that someone can just be denied the right to run for president certainly unnerves me slightly. What makes one person more capable? And who truly has the right to make that decision?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Chapters 14, 8, and 9
Chapters 8 and 9 of Covering Crime and Justice talk about covering criminal and civil courts. To be perfectly honest, I have never been able to fully understand the court system, legal jargon, etc. As I've mentioned before, having parents that are both lawyers should have given me some sort of understanding of all of this, but long story short, I just have never been able to understand the complexities of the legal system.
The chapters did help to teach me a lot about the courts that I didn't know though. For example, in Chapter 8, they talked a lot about what goes on before a trial actually takes place. I did not realize that there was so much to pre-trial proceedings. The section that laid out exactly what happens during a trial was particularly interesting to me. I never realized how specific an actual trial is. I feel that this is probably useful information to know were I to be reporting on a court case. That's what I felt was most helpful about these chapters. In order to report effectively, you need to do your background research. Particularly when reporting on something as specific as a court case.
Chapter 14 in the book talked all about beat reporting. I actually found this chapter to be pretty interesting, seeing as I have always sort of thought having a beat to cover would be pretty fun. Reporters need to have a broad understanding of a number of topics, and I feel that covering beats adds to a reporter's well-roundedness. As embarrassing as it is to admit this, Almost Famous is my favorite movie, and may have had something to do with my initial interest in journalism. Ever since then, I have always thought that it would be too much fun to cover a music scene beat of some sort.
Now, while this idea is still incredibly enticing, I have come to believe that covering other beats would be equally interesting. I have always thought that I might be able to excel pretty well with an environmental beat.
The idea of beat reporting just makes a lot of sense to me. Having a "specialty", in a way. Why have a reporter who has no idea about a certain topic write an article on it when you could have someone write it who knows a lot about the subject?
The chapters did help to teach me a lot about the courts that I didn't know though. For example, in Chapter 8, they talked a lot about what goes on before a trial actually takes place. I did not realize that there was so much to pre-trial proceedings. The section that laid out exactly what happens during a trial was particularly interesting to me. I never realized how specific an actual trial is. I feel that this is probably useful information to know were I to be reporting on a court case. That's what I felt was most helpful about these chapters. In order to report effectively, you need to do your background research. Particularly when reporting on something as specific as a court case.
Chapter 14 in the book talked all about beat reporting. I actually found this chapter to be pretty interesting, seeing as I have always sort of thought having a beat to cover would be pretty fun. Reporters need to have a broad understanding of a number of topics, and I feel that covering beats adds to a reporter's well-roundedness. As embarrassing as it is to admit this, Almost Famous is my favorite movie, and may have had something to do with my initial interest in journalism. Ever since then, I have always thought that it would be too much fun to cover a music scene beat of some sort.
Now, while this idea is still incredibly enticing, I have come to believe that covering other beats would be equally interesting. I have always thought that I might be able to excel pretty well with an environmental beat.
The idea of beat reporting just makes a lot of sense to me. Having a "specialty", in a way. Why have a reporter who has no idea about a certain topic write an article on it when you could have someone write it who knows a lot about the subject?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Chapters 1, 5, and 7.
So, time to respond to this week's massive amounts of reading on crime reporting. Actually, I did find the reading to be pretty informational and interesting.
Chapter One:
Chapter One basically outlined the basics of the crime beat; what it is, how it's approached, etc. One thing, specifically, that I found interesting was where the different technical terms used in crime reporting were defined. It is very important to be accurate in any reporting, but especially in the crime beat, seeing as there are s many terms that could be used incorrectly. I feel like the reading laid this all out pretty well, making something that is easy to get confused, be easily understood. For example, I never really knew the differences between "civil cases" and "criminal cases." After defining these differences, the reading defines terms like, larceny, fraud, theft, burglary, etc. Again, this was helpful, seeing as I have never really known the differences between these things. To be a crime reporter, you need to fully understand the ins and outs of crime, so as not to misinform during your re-telling of what happened.
Another part of chapter one that grabbed my attention was the section in which the moral aspects of crime were discussed. This is something that has always interested me. Why exactly is crime reporting so successful? Why do crime stories demand so much attention? As the reading points out, crime is interesting. The stories involve all of the juicy elements that people want to read about. But couldn't this affect how we report on them? It would be so easy to write a crime story and emphasize all of the most interesting details. But is this moral? This is why I don't think I could ever truly excel at the crime beat. Yes, these stories should be publicized, but it is so easy to publicize them for the wrong reasons.
Chapter Five:
Chapter Five was all about interviewing victims for a crime story and how this act should be approached. This is one of the reasons that I'm not sure if I could really make it in the crime beat. I'm able to be understanding, I am able to be compassionate, and it's easy for me to talk to someone, to gain their trust. But if someone has just been through something traumatic, I wouldn't want to make them feel like their privacy was being invaded, I feel like this would be the hardest part of crime reporting. If someone knows that your prime goal is to write a story on an event that happened to be particularly traumatic or upsetting for them, how trustworthy could they possibly be? The reading mentions that reporters need to create a rapport with the victims before interviewing them, but I still feel as though the line between this and insincerity could be very thin.
Chapter Seven:
Chapter Seven is all about the court beat. I feel like this would be one of the most difficult beats to cover; for me, anyhow. In order to cover courts, I feel like it would be essential to truly understand how the legal system works, and how court events would work. And these are things that are not exactly easily understood. Both of my parents are lawyers, and I still have such a hard time understanding the legal system, despite how often I am surrounded by it.
One thing that caught my attention in this chapter is that, yes, court reporting can be confusing, long, and boring. However, the chapter encourages the reporter to make it into everything it can be. The court is one of the only places in which a reporter has no more rights than anyone else observing. So, when not allowed to ask questions, you listen intently, make sure that your reporting is accurate. However, in addition to all of this, report not only on what is being said, but on what is going on around you. Pay attention to people's reactions, body language, how people interact. I feel that this is good advice not only in court reporting, but in reporting in general.
Chapter One:
Chapter One basically outlined the basics of the crime beat; what it is, how it's approached, etc. One thing, specifically, that I found interesting was where the different technical terms used in crime reporting were defined. It is very important to be accurate in any reporting, but especially in the crime beat, seeing as there are s many terms that could be used incorrectly. I feel like the reading laid this all out pretty well, making something that is easy to get confused, be easily understood. For example, I never really knew the differences between "civil cases" and "criminal cases." After defining these differences, the reading defines terms like, larceny, fraud, theft, burglary, etc. Again, this was helpful, seeing as I have never really known the differences between these things. To be a crime reporter, you need to fully understand the ins and outs of crime, so as not to misinform during your re-telling of what happened.
Another part of chapter one that grabbed my attention was the section in which the moral aspects of crime were discussed. This is something that has always interested me. Why exactly is crime reporting so successful? Why do crime stories demand so much attention? As the reading points out, crime is interesting. The stories involve all of the juicy elements that people want to read about. But couldn't this affect how we report on them? It would be so easy to write a crime story and emphasize all of the most interesting details. But is this moral? This is why I don't think I could ever truly excel at the crime beat. Yes, these stories should be publicized, but it is so easy to publicize them for the wrong reasons.
Chapter Five:
Chapter Five was all about interviewing victims for a crime story and how this act should be approached. This is one of the reasons that I'm not sure if I could really make it in the crime beat. I'm able to be understanding, I am able to be compassionate, and it's easy for me to talk to someone, to gain their trust. But if someone has just been through something traumatic, I wouldn't want to make them feel like their privacy was being invaded, I feel like this would be the hardest part of crime reporting. If someone knows that your prime goal is to write a story on an event that happened to be particularly traumatic or upsetting for them, how trustworthy could they possibly be? The reading mentions that reporters need to create a rapport with the victims before interviewing them, but I still feel as though the line between this and insincerity could be very thin.
Chapter Seven:
Chapter Seven is all about the court beat. I feel like this would be one of the most difficult beats to cover; for me, anyhow. In order to cover courts, I feel like it would be essential to truly understand how the legal system works, and how court events would work. And these are things that are not exactly easily understood. Both of my parents are lawyers, and I still have such a hard time understanding the legal system, despite how often I am surrounded by it.
One thing that caught my attention in this chapter is that, yes, court reporting can be confusing, long, and boring. However, the chapter encourages the reporter to make it into everything it can be. The court is one of the only places in which a reporter has no more rights than anyone else observing. So, when not allowed to ask questions, you listen intently, make sure that your reporting is accurate. However, in addition to all of this, report not only on what is being said, but on what is going on around you. Pay attention to people's reactions, body language, how people interact. I feel that this is good advice not only in court reporting, but in reporting in general.
Monday, October 22, 2007
My Comments
1) Moira, "Obama's Energy Crisis Plan"
http://moirasnewsblog.blogspot.com/
2) Briana, "Let's Try Something New. . ."
http://brianaword.blogspot.com/
3) Kayla, "Obama...come on...just wear the damn pin!"
http://kaylasnewsblog.blogspot.com/
4) Bryan, "Hillary vs. Everyone"
http://bryannews1.blogspot.com/
5) Ryan, "Truthiness in '08"
http://6078287.blogspot.com/
6) Hannah, "election $$$"
http://hperk.blogspot.com/
7) Laura S., "Beauty Parlor Politics"
http://lauraswanson.blogspot.com/
8) Antonina, "Thats it im turning Democrat"
http://ladyantoninakrystyna.blogspot.com/
http://moirasnewsblog.blogspot.com/
2) Briana, "Let's Try Something New. . ."
http://brianaword.blogspot.com/
3) Kayla, "Obama...come on...just wear the damn pin!"
http://kaylasnewsblog.blogspot.com/
4) Bryan, "Hillary vs. Everyone"
http://bryannews1.blogspot.com/
5) Ryan, "Truthiness in '08"
http://6078287.blogspot.com/
6) Hannah, "election $$$"
http://hperk.blogspot.com/
7) Laura S., "Beauty Parlor Politics"
http://lauraswanson.blogspot.com/
8) Antonina, "Thats it im turning Democrat"
http://ladyantoninakrystyna.blogspot.com/
Monday, October 15, 2007
Gore '08?
So, Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming work the other day. In addition to this, Gore has received an Oscar and an Emmy. And now he's being encouraged to run for president also?
There are many supporting the idea of Gore joining the presidential campaign even if it is a little late in the game. So far, Gore has said that it is highly unlikely because he feels that Hillary Clinton is unbeatable. However, that hasn't stopped people pushing the idea. After obtaining the kind of recognition that he has since losing to Bush, I don't see ow returning to politics would help him.
However, one thing that his Nobel Prize has done, is that it has taken the issue of the environment and raised it from a footnote back into a major concern of the Democrats.
There are many supporting the idea of Gore joining the presidential campaign even if it is a little late in the game. So far, Gore has said that it is highly unlikely because he feels that Hillary Clinton is unbeatable. However, that hasn't stopped people pushing the idea. After obtaining the kind of recognition that he has since losing to Bush, I don't see ow returning to politics would help him.
However, one thing that his Nobel Prize has done, is that it has taken the issue of the environment and raised it from a footnote back into a major concern of the Democrats.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Chapter 13
Chapter 13 covered "other basic stories", which our book says would include accident, fire, crime and court stories. In this chapter, I got a new realization of exactly how formulaic journalism can be. There is a style, a format, an equation involved in any kind of reporting.
While I do think that the subject matter is more important than the correct format, the way in which the chapter says these stories should be written does make sense. There's the obvious; collect your basic information [who, what, where, etc.] But what I actually liked about the chapter was that it says the best way to report a story like this is to be at the scene in order to provide description. Based on your deadline, if you have time, you should include description and color into these stories, and get some follow up information, more interviews, etc.
However, I feel that you need to become fairly accomplished before you can get the leisure of writing a lengthy crime / accident / fire story whose deadline isn't the day of / the day after the incident.
I can see what the book means about libel being something to look out for in stories of this nature especially. With the commotion of a crime scene or the scene of a fire, it is important to make sure that all of your information is correct; names, quotes, what caused the fire, what the crime was, etc. This is especially true in the case of court stories. I could see how sitting through a court case could be difficult. Despite how hard something like a court case could be to follow, it is immensely important to make sure the facts stay straight.
While, personally, I don't think that I would particularly enjoy or excel at these kinds of stories, I feel that the book did a good job of outlining how they should be done.
While I do think that the subject matter is more important than the correct format, the way in which the chapter says these stories should be written does make sense. There's the obvious; collect your basic information [who, what, where, etc.] But what I actually liked about the chapter was that it says the best way to report a story like this is to be at the scene in order to provide description. Based on your deadline, if you have time, you should include description and color into these stories, and get some follow up information, more interviews, etc.
However, I feel that you need to become fairly accomplished before you can get the leisure of writing a lengthy crime / accident / fire story whose deadline isn't the day of / the day after the incident.
I can see what the book means about libel being something to look out for in stories of this nature especially. With the commotion of a crime scene or the scene of a fire, it is important to make sure that all of your information is correct; names, quotes, what caused the fire, what the crime was, etc. This is especially true in the case of court stories. I could see how sitting through a court case could be difficult. Despite how hard something like a court case could be to follow, it is immensely important to make sure the facts stay straight.
While, personally, I don't think that I would particularly enjoy or excel at these kinds of stories, I feel that the book did a good job of outlining how they should be done.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Archbishop Raymond Burke would deny Giuliani communion
In an Associated Press article recently, it was reported that Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke declared that he would deny Rudy Giuliani communion because of his views on abortion.
The Archbishop decided that anyone whose views go against those of the church should be denied communion. This is the same man that said during the 2004 elections that he would deny Kerry communion. While, personally, I do not believe that this has anything to do with the election, seeing as I highly doubt any of the candidates are about to go and approach Archbishop Raymond Burke for communion anytime soon, but it could hurt Giuliani by taking away the religious vote from him.
Personally, this just makes me sad though; that this is news. First of all, politics and religion should not mix. Who cares if Giuliani's abortion views do not coincide with that of the church? Church and state should be separate matters, but it feels more and more these days like they really aren't, which is upsetting.
The Archbishop decided that anyone whose views go against those of the church should be denied communion. This is the same man that said during the 2004 elections that he would deny Kerry communion. While, personally, I do not believe that this has anything to do with the election, seeing as I highly doubt any of the candidates are about to go and approach Archbishop Raymond Burke for communion anytime soon, but it could hurt Giuliani by taking away the religious vote from him.
Personally, this just makes me sad though; that this is news. First of all, politics and religion should not mix. Who cares if Giuliani's abortion views do not coincide with that of the church? Church and state should be separate matters, but it feels more and more these days like they really aren't, which is upsetting.
Libel, Orwell, 3 Mile Island
Chapter 22 was all about media law, and spent a good amount of time talking about libel specifically. The book states that the best way to avoid libel is to be truthful; what we have been taught is the most important aspect of journalism. I sometimes feel as though libel should not even be an issue, seeing as journalism is all about reporting the facts. If everyone journalist stayed truthful, and those being written about were truthful, such a thing would not even exist.
Unfortunately though, in this day and age, there are untruthful reporters. There are journalists who print false information. And there are also people who read an article in which they are quoted or written about and are dissatisfied with the way in which they are portrayed.
Our book says that if you are truthful, you have nothing to worry about and, more often than not, the legal system will take care of it and rule in favor of the press. This is somewhat comforting. However, what bothers me more than the thought of having the court rule in favor of the individual over the press is just the fact, alone, that any journalist can be accused of libel. You can be the most truthful journalist in the world, but if you happen to piss someone off, you never know what might happen.
I guess that is the risk we are willing to take as journalists though. We report as truthfully and accurately as we possibly can, present the information to the public, and then at that point it is completely out of our hands. You just need to have faith in the public and trust that you will not be questioned.
I found the Orwell reading interesting. He states that the English language is declining and offers a few pieces of advice as to how to fix it. The reason he gives for this decline of the English language is that language mimics society. Therefore, our society is declining.
I thought that the few basic rules he ends the reading with were particularly helpful. They do seem simple, but are great things to keep in mind while writing. We have all been in a situation where we are writing for a deadline, become unfocused or are just tired and have an impulse to throw in a phrase that you have heard before. The fact of the matter is, why use something that someone else has already said when you can use your own words?
The Three Mile Island reading helped to re-enforce the idea that as journalists, we are going to have to write stories about things in which we have little or no previous knowledge about. All I have to say on the subject is that it is nice to know that it wasn't just me that had some difficulty writing that story; even professionals have a hard time with some stories as well.
Unfortunately though, in this day and age, there are untruthful reporters. There are journalists who print false information. And there are also people who read an article in which they are quoted or written about and are dissatisfied with the way in which they are portrayed.
Our book says that if you are truthful, you have nothing to worry about and, more often than not, the legal system will take care of it and rule in favor of the press. This is somewhat comforting. However, what bothers me more than the thought of having the court rule in favor of the individual over the press is just the fact, alone, that any journalist can be accused of libel. You can be the most truthful journalist in the world, but if you happen to piss someone off, you never know what might happen.
I guess that is the risk we are willing to take as journalists though. We report as truthfully and accurately as we possibly can, present the information to the public, and then at that point it is completely out of our hands. You just need to have faith in the public and trust that you will not be questioned.
I found the Orwell reading interesting. He states that the English language is declining and offers a few pieces of advice as to how to fix it. The reason he gives for this decline of the English language is that language mimics society. Therefore, our society is declining.
I thought that the few basic rules he ends the reading with were particularly helpful. They do seem simple, but are great things to keep in mind while writing. We have all been in a situation where we are writing for a deadline, become unfocused or are just tired and have an impulse to throw in a phrase that you have heard before. The fact of the matter is, why use something that someone else has already said when you can use your own words?
The Three Mile Island reading helped to re-enforce the idea that as journalists, we are going to have to write stories about things in which we have little or no previous knowledge about. All I have to say on the subject is that it is nice to know that it wasn't just me that had some difficulty writing that story; even professionals have a hard time with some stories as well.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Edwards on the Rise?
John Edwards has, at this point in the race, been significantly behind Obama and Clinton as far as support and funding are concerned. However, he is now making his move in the two earliest primary states, hoping to win the nomination early on. His campaigning is now including public fundraising. Currently, Clinton is leading the national support for the Democratic party, while Obama and Edwards are fighting for that coveted second spot.
Edwards' plan is all about a schedule at the moment. Being an avid supporter of Edwards, I'm hoping that this scheduled strategy works out to his advantage. It seems that wherever he goes, he is received with lots of positive energy and support, so lets hope that pulls him through.
Edwards' plan is all about a schedule at the moment. Being an avid supporter of Edwards, I'm hoping that this scheduled strategy works out to his advantage. It seems that wherever he goes, he is received with lots of positive energy and support, so lets hope that pulls him through.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Chapters 11 and 12
In Chapter 11, the book discusses writing news releases. What interested me the most about the concept of writing news releases was the fact that the facts still need to be checked. All of the information is given to you, but that still doesn't mean that there is no reporting to be done. I realize now, that no matter what you are writing, what it comes down to is that every story needs a few essential things. For example, structure, research, quotes, etc.
Granted, the researching involved in re-writing news releases does not seem nearly as in depth as researching for a different story, but it is still research. While you may not need to go attend an event, you still have to talk to a few people and double check all of the facts given to you.
That is another thing that interests me about journalism. No matter what is being written, whether it be a feature story, an obituary, or a news release, as journalists, we are taught to always hold a little bit of doubt in the information that is handed to us. We are told that even when we are fed information, like we generally are in news releases, we should still double check all of the information that we are presented with; question everything.
While I do feel that this constant questioning is a good quality amongst journalists, I do still hold some doubt in the idea of re-writing news releases. I somewhat feel as though it is not necessarily the job of journalists to promote organizations.
Chapter 12 discusses news conferences, speeches, and meetings. Not all of our assignments as journalists are going to be fun. The book explains that these types of stories will generally be assigned to us in the first few years of our reporting careers. The book then explains that preparation is an important factor in covering a news conference, meeting, or speech. You need to know who the key speakers are, what their backgrounds are, who will be at the event, what the event is about, etc.
Even though news conferences and meetings and speeches may be boring, it is still possible to make them interesting. I feel that description is what makes a piece like this interesting to an audience. Describing the different interactions going on, describing the audience, the speakers, the overall environment.
Granted, the researching involved in re-writing news releases does not seem nearly as in depth as researching for a different story, but it is still research. While you may not need to go attend an event, you still have to talk to a few people and double check all of the facts given to you.
That is another thing that interests me about journalism. No matter what is being written, whether it be a feature story, an obituary, or a news release, as journalists, we are taught to always hold a little bit of doubt in the information that is handed to us. We are told that even when we are fed information, like we generally are in news releases, we should still double check all of the information that we are presented with; question everything.
While I do feel that this constant questioning is a good quality amongst journalists, I do still hold some doubt in the idea of re-writing news releases. I somewhat feel as though it is not necessarily the job of journalists to promote organizations.
Chapter 12 discusses news conferences, speeches, and meetings. Not all of our assignments as journalists are going to be fun. The book explains that these types of stories will generally be assigned to us in the first few years of our reporting careers. The book then explains that preparation is an important factor in covering a news conference, meeting, or speech. You need to know who the key speakers are, what their backgrounds are, who will be at the event, what the event is about, etc.
Even though news conferences and meetings and speeches may be boring, it is still possible to make them interesting. I feel that description is what makes a piece like this interesting to an audience. Describing the different interactions going on, describing the audience, the speakers, the overall environment.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Chapter 10: Obituaries
The chapter talked about obituary writing as more of an artform than anything else. As the chapter puts it, "These obituaries are not formulaic pieces. They are life stories." I feel as though, as opposed to the way in which the book discusses some other forms of journalism, obituaries are approached in a slightly different way. Journalists are more careful and approach death in a much more cautious, sympathetic way. I found it interesting to read that there are certain journalists who devote their careers to writing obituaries. However, after thinking about it for awhile, it really didn't seem so strange. Devoting your life to perfecting how to tell how people lived their lives actually sounds like quite a respectable career path, actually.
One of the things I found most interesting when reading this chapter was that, even though it is described as more of an artform than we are used to hearing journalism described as, obituaries still have their very own structures and elements. For example, what makes a good obituary lead, as opposed to a normal lead. All in all, obituary writing is still just another form of "investigative reporting". The chapter talks about how obituary writers go about doing the research, and, ultimately, end up "reporting" on someone's life.
One of the things I found most interesting when reading this chapter was that, even though it is described as more of an artform than we are used to hearing journalism described as, obituaries still have their very own structures and elements. For example, what makes a good obituary lead, as opposed to a normal lead. All in all, obituary writing is still just another form of "investigative reporting". The chapter talks about how obituary writers go about doing the research, and, ultimately, end up "reporting" on someone's life.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Fred Thompson
Currently, it seems that Fred Thompson is getting the most attention of all of the Republican candidates and is currently getting the most poll votes. In my personal opinion, however, he just seems to be the antithesis of everything I could ever want in a president. Okay, so, fine, personally, I am swayed towards one party, and let's just say right now that it isn't the Republican party. However, that aside, just the thought that this man currently has the most support by the American people just somewhat frightens me.
Not only is Thompson in support of things that I just blatantly disagree with, but he is also just a seemingly awful candidate. Accounts of his appearances always seem to involve, in one way or another, Thompson skirting around an issue, babbling through an answer or just showing plain ignorance. For example, when he was asked what made him stand apart from the other Republican candidates, he simply stated that he hadn't really looked at their platforms that in depth. If you are a presidential candidate, isn't that your job?
Despite all of this, he is still getting immense support from the American people. I just don't understand.
Not only is Thompson in support of things that I just blatantly disagree with, but he is also just a seemingly awful candidate. Accounts of his appearances always seem to involve, in one way or another, Thompson skirting around an issue, babbling through an answer or just showing plain ignorance. For example, when he was asked what made him stand apart from the other Republican candidates, he simply stated that he hadn't really looked at their platforms that in depth. If you are a presidential candidate, isn't that your job?
Despite all of this, he is still getting immense support from the American people. I just don't understand.
Chapter 4, Poynter's E-Media Tidbits, and Timelines
Chapter 4 was all about how quotes make a story and what makes a good quote. To be perfectly honest, it was a nice refresher. After J-Research I found myself using quotes that were far too long, or simply giving basic information in the form of a quote. Therefore, re-reading this information on what makes a quote good was good for me.
However, the section part in the chapter where a chef was quoted in the Arizona Daily Star did strike my interest. I always find it interesting that we are taught to quote the most interesting statements, but only if they will be received well. Again in the section about profanity. I feel that these sorts of things can really make a story and give it enormous color. Things like that sometimes make me a little cynical about journalism. For example, censoring your writing, or having it changed by an editor, etc.
Still though, the chapter did teach me a lot about how to add to a story through using quotes. I have a tendency to either not use enough quotes in a story, or use too many, or use quotes that don't have enough significance. From now on though, I am definitely going to try and focus on the quality of the quotes that I am using. I need to remember that some of the most interesting aspects of stories can be brought in through using good quotes.
On the other hand. . .
The Poynter's entries showed me a new, less cynical side of journalism. The idea of the RSS feed and the stories about one specific thing is a cool idea to me. To have the freedom to write about something that interests you and know that it is being read by an audience that actually cares about what you're writing about. I hope that that kind of journalism advances in the future. The second entry about blogging was also really interesting. It shows that digital journalism is really advancing in the world today and is having a major impact. Bloggers, are becoming more prominent, and blogging is becoming a form of journalism which, as the entry showed, can really have an impact.
The timeline was also interesting and showed how technology is helping to shape journalism. It also stressed accuracy in journalism. However, beyond that, I really just found it to be less informative, and more interesting than anything else.
However, the section part in the chapter where a chef was quoted in the Arizona Daily Star did strike my interest. I always find it interesting that we are taught to quote the most interesting statements, but only if they will be received well. Again in the section about profanity. I feel that these sorts of things can really make a story and give it enormous color. Things like that sometimes make me a little cynical about journalism. For example, censoring your writing, or having it changed by an editor, etc.
Still though, the chapter did teach me a lot about how to add to a story through using quotes. I have a tendency to either not use enough quotes in a story, or use too many, or use quotes that don't have enough significance. From now on though, I am definitely going to try and focus on the quality of the quotes that I am using. I need to remember that some of the most interesting aspects of stories can be brought in through using good quotes.
On the other hand. . .
The Poynter's entries showed me a new, less cynical side of journalism. The idea of the RSS feed and the stories about one specific thing is a cool idea to me. To have the freedom to write about something that interests you and know that it is being read by an audience that actually cares about what you're writing about. I hope that that kind of journalism advances in the future. The second entry about blogging was also really interesting. It shows that digital journalism is really advancing in the world today and is having a major impact. Bloggers, are becoming more prominent, and blogging is becoming a form of journalism which, as the entry showed, can really have an impact.
The timeline was also interesting and showed how technology is helping to shape journalism. It also stressed accuracy in journalism. However, beyond that, I really just found it to be less informative, and more interesting than anything else.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Obama and Oprah?
So, apparently Oprah Winfrey is now supporting Barack Obama. Apparently, this kind of support could give Obama the push he needs and maybe even win him the presidency. Just the fact that Oprah Winfrey has that kind of impact on America still boggles my mind. But I mean, hey, I guess she has conquered pretty much everything else, so why not get involved with politics too? Pretty much every source I have seen agrees on the subject; this is probably going to be an extremely good thing for Obama. It really does make me a little cynical that something like Oprah's support can be enough for a predicted presidential win, but, I mean, if it helps, that's cool too.
Nature of News, the Changing News Business and Interviewing.
I feel as though the first three chapters of our textbook are things that we keep hearing over and over again as journalism majors. One thing I did focus on more this time though was the fact that in Chapter One, it is mentioned that journalists are not effectively doing their jobs. Statements like this make me cynical about journalism sometimes. Personally, I understand why I am doing this and I believe that I have a grasp on what i think "journalism" is. However, in the grandeur scheme of things, sometimes I wonder if my view coincides with those of other journalists.
According to our book, there are three things that make a story "newsworthy"; relevance, usefulness, and interest. How relevant is the story, how useful will it be to the public, and how interesting is it? The text then goes into explaining different things that can add to a story's relevance, usefulness, and interest. These days though, I feel as though media utilizes the novelty and prominence aspects far more than the impact and conflict aspects. I just feel that too many of the stories in the news now are either playing too far into getting a bigger audience [for example, celebrity news], are irrelevant, or are embellished. I understand that our first loyalty is to the citizens and that we write for an audience. However, shouldn't we be giving our audience information it can use in addition to information that can be entertaining. One thing I do know, is that I definitely believe that deciding on what makes a news story is one thing that modern journalists should work on.
Chapter Two also talked a lot about something I keep hearing recently; newspapers are dying. Every journalism class I have sat in, ever source about journalism I've ever read, they all say the same thing; that newspapers are dying and technology is changing journalism. This is undeniable. As technology continues to advance, the different mediums for journalism will change. I, however, continue to believe that there will always be a need for journalists who excel in print. Journalism started as nothing more than the printed word, nothing fancy.
As far as interviewing goes, that is a skill that I feel i really honed last year in J Research. That class made me feel pretty comfortable talking to people for articles. And [in my opinion] more importantly, I feel that I've also become a lot more comfortable approaching people to ask for interviews. This time last year, I was basically terrified of calling a random stranger for an interview.
The reading on punctuation was definitely something I learned from. I've always considered myself as knowing a fair amount about grammar and punctuation, but the AP stylebook definitely proved me wrong. There were things in there that I never knew through high school.
According to our book, there are three things that make a story "newsworthy"; relevance, usefulness, and interest. How relevant is the story, how useful will it be to the public, and how interesting is it? The text then goes into explaining different things that can add to a story's relevance, usefulness, and interest. These days though, I feel as though media utilizes the novelty and prominence aspects far more than the impact and conflict aspects. I just feel that too many of the stories in the news now are either playing too far into getting a bigger audience [for example, celebrity news], are irrelevant, or are embellished. I understand that our first loyalty is to the citizens and that we write for an audience. However, shouldn't we be giving our audience information it can use in addition to information that can be entertaining. One thing I do know, is that I definitely believe that deciding on what makes a news story is one thing that modern journalists should work on.
Chapter Two also talked a lot about something I keep hearing recently; newspapers are dying. Every journalism class I have sat in, ever source about journalism I've ever read, they all say the same thing; that newspapers are dying and technology is changing journalism. This is undeniable. As technology continues to advance, the different mediums for journalism will change. I, however, continue to believe that there will always be a need for journalists who excel in print. Journalism started as nothing more than the printed word, nothing fancy.
As far as interviewing goes, that is a skill that I feel i really honed last year in J Research. That class made me feel pretty comfortable talking to people for articles. And [in my opinion] more importantly, I feel that I've also become a lot more comfortable approaching people to ask for interviews. This time last year, I was basically terrified of calling a random stranger for an interview.
The reading on punctuation was definitely something I learned from. I've always considered myself as knowing a fair amount about grammar and punctuation, but the AP stylebook definitely proved me wrong. There were things in there that I never knew through high school.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
John Edwards and his Environmental Platform
One candidate that I think is worth paying close attention to in the 2008 race is John Edwards, primarily because of his plans for the environment and for American poverty. One of the biggest issues we are currently faced with is global warming. No matter what we would like to believe, this is something that has hit everyone hard and it is something that we are dealing with right now. Not to mention, it is something that many of the other candidates have not approached as aggressively as John Edwards has. It is top priority on his list. In addition to this, not only is he passionate about fixing our environment, he actually has a solid plan. For example, he has called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 % by 2050 and has presented a detailed energy plan. In addition to this, he has made his campaign "carbon-neutral" and has been cutting down on the amount of energy used in his campaign and office.
Personally, I believe this is the way to go. Our environment is top priority now, seeing as it is hitting some pretty rough times, that are only about to get worse. In addition to his environmental platform, Edwards is also seeking to reduce poverty and keep economic growth from flowing only to rich Americans. He also believes that the most important thing to do about Iraq right now is to set some sort of timetable in which the troops will leave.
When Edwards spoke in South Georgia, former president, Jimmy Carter, introduced him and commended his policies. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/edwards.carter.ap/index.html
Overall, I believe that Edwards is on the right track. However, what I think makes him the most noteworthy is that his primary goal is to make some sort of movement towards fixing our environment.
Personally, I believe this is the way to go. Our environment is top priority now, seeing as it is hitting some pretty rough times, that are only about to get worse. In addition to his environmental platform, Edwards is also seeking to reduce poverty and keep economic growth from flowing only to rich Americans. He also believes that the most important thing to do about Iraq right now is to set some sort of timetable in which the troops will leave.
When Edwards spoke in South Georgia, former president, Jimmy Carter, introduced him and commended his policies. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/edwards.carter.ap/index.html
Overall, I believe that Edwards is on the right track. However, what I think makes him the most noteworthy is that his primary goal is to make some sort of movement towards fixing our environment.
Readings for wednesday, August 29
Both readings seemed to relate in the sense that there was a lot of talk about "filtering", if you will. The two chapters from the book should pretty much be burned into everyone's minds at this point, seeing as they were the first things we ever learned about journalism. The inverted pyramid is something that we have all been exposed to and have had practice doing. This time, however, I realized how heavily the inverted pyramid style relies on simplifying a news story. For example, the inverted pyramid structure was created because of the telegraph during the Civil War. Messages were paid for by word, so the most important information would be sent first. From this we got the inverted pyramid; the most important information goes first. However, this doesn't exactly show newspaper readers or even journalists and editors as valuing good writing.
I know that in the second chapter there was a lot of emphasis put on grammar and writing clearly, it just still seems cynical to me. For example, our book at one point states "a news story doesn't end; it stops." To me, every story should have a good ending, including a news story. Leads are also defined in our book as not encouraging the reader to read the whole story, that is why the most important information is presented first; it isn't expected that the audience will have any intention of finishing what you write.
In addition, the journal raises a number of questions about the future of journalism and whether or not journalists will even hold the same importance that they do now, if any. This is confusing to me mainly, because my idea of good journalism is good writing. And who would be better suited than journalists and writers? The prospect of online media, in my opinion could be something amazing. It would open up more opportunities, offer more opinions, and be more accessible to a generation that heavily relies on computers and the internet. In addition, statistics show that most forms of print media [with the exception of ethnic press] are declining, while online, the rankings are improving. However, as the reading points out, how much of this information presented online will be devoted to providing news? While the newspaper industry is dying as far as print circulation grows, it is still thriving online, but how much longer will this news continue to be of the same caliber as print sources. Also, will online newspaper sources ever consider using their availability and space to create more in-depth stories?
In my opinion, journalism is about providing the public with the most important stories, giving the whole story, and presenting the story in the best way possible. In my mind, cutting stories and presenting information online is somewhat insulting to the audience. I understand that journalism is not the same as it was in the past and that new technology is changing it rapidly, but I believe that the core values should still involve providing the best information in the best way possible, honestly and completely.
I know that in the second chapter there was a lot of emphasis put on grammar and writing clearly, it just still seems cynical to me. For example, our book at one point states "a news story doesn't end; it stops." To me, every story should have a good ending, including a news story. Leads are also defined in our book as not encouraging the reader to read the whole story, that is why the most important information is presented first; it isn't expected that the audience will have any intention of finishing what you write.
In addition, the journal raises a number of questions about the future of journalism and whether or not journalists will even hold the same importance that they do now, if any. This is confusing to me mainly, because my idea of good journalism is good writing. And who would be better suited than journalists and writers? The prospect of online media, in my opinion could be something amazing. It would open up more opportunities, offer more opinions, and be more accessible to a generation that heavily relies on computers and the internet. In addition, statistics show that most forms of print media [with the exception of ethnic press] are declining, while online, the rankings are improving. However, as the reading points out, how much of this information presented online will be devoted to providing news? While the newspaper industry is dying as far as print circulation grows, it is still thriving online, but how much longer will this news continue to be of the same caliber as print sources. Also, will online newspaper sources ever consider using their availability and space to create more in-depth stories?
In my opinion, journalism is about providing the public with the most important stories, giving the whole story, and presenting the story in the best way possible. In my mind, cutting stories and presenting information online is somewhat insulting to the audience. I understand that journalism is not the same as it was in the past and that new technology is changing it rapidly, but I believe that the core values should still involve providing the best information in the best way possible, honestly and completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)