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.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
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)