Political coverage

After a semester of actively following the news of the upcoming elections, I still don’t like politics. But, at least, I know now that political stories can be fun and interesting. Another thing that I learned was that anything can make a headline at CNN or the NYT.

Now, that I’m reading my older postings on political coverage, I see an interesting tendency: I almost never wrote about the “political” sides of candidates. I never really discussed who supports what and what their plans are. I wrote mostly about those typical “anythings” that make headlines. And, for people like me, who are absolutely not interested in politics because they think politicians are boring, corrupt and tend to lie, so, for these people, only those funny, interesting or shocking stories are compelling.

For example, what do voters’ brain functions, candidates’ diets or Obama’s acting skills have to do with how the country is governed? Exactly: nothing. But that’s what the NYT offers to its readers as news besides those highly political articles with headlines that turn down an average reader with having big bald words like “legislation,” “endorsement,” “immigration” and “criticize.” Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t read news with such headlines.

I think my generation has developed immunity against political news. Maybe even against news in general. I don’t know anyone (except for those geeky journalism majors at Park) who’d read the news. I mean entire articles every day. And this is terrible. Our future lies, sort of, in the news. The problem with the elections is hat people will vote for those candidates they saw a lot on TV without knowing what their programs are.

Another problem that I realized back at home, in Hungary, was that people voted “just because.” Of course, this has a lot to do at home with out history and what kind of family a person was born into. But as I heard people speaking about elections both here and at home, I realized that no matter what they see on TV or read in the newspapers, they will vote for the person they had decided to vote for in the very beginning.

So, is it worth writing about politics at all?? Yes, it is! First of all, journalists are there to help the public by monitoring those nasty politicians. And, of course, there are several people from older generations out there who do read the news and do think about issues. I guess journalists should just figure out something to involve young readers, too.

Those “anythings” I mentioned earlier are good teasers to at least inform people on who the candidates are and sort of what they want. If I ever end up having to report on politics, I’ll try to find interesting and new angles. I guess one way is to make politics personal. For example, if an article talks about higher taxes or lower interest rates, my eyes are moving along the lines, but after a while I’ll probably start thinking about what I’m going to have for dinner or how I could do my hair tomorrow. But, if the article starts out by stating that I’ll have to pay $1000 more in taxes and I’ll get $100 less after my savings, well, I guess I wouldn’t start thinking about what I’m having for dinner but whether I’m having dinner at all!!
So when the NYT article talks about Hillary going on a diet, I can be like: “Yeah, I feel you.”

Poynter Online: Places Journalists Should Go for Politics

Well, this list was rather amazing. What would journalists do without the Internet, seriously?? I guess in 50 years, candidates won’t even have to give public speeches and talk about themselves and their views, because journalists will the job for them. If I were interested in politics, which I’m not, I’d be really excited now. If a journalist has a free day or two, he or she can just go through all the sites and gather a tremendous amount of information.

I think OpenSecrets.org was rather interesting. Did you know for example that Obama started out with $516,500 on his Senate account and then raised more than $79 million from individuals??

And then the Tyndall Report. Well, that is pretty intense. I don’t understand how that site is able to monitor all the news, but it’s awesome. I mean, looking back 20 years from now and analyzing all the data. That’d make an interesting article!! Journalists are writing history! It’s so cool. Mostly with the Internet… I’m so excited about how the knowledge and thinking of people will change in the next 100 years.

Missouri Professors: Merrill's Offense Was Plagiarism

This article was really interesting, and it made me ask questions that I just simply can't find the answer for. Why did John Merrill steal those quotes?? First, I thought he was a loser and he needed last minute quotes. But then I read that he was 80 something years old and a real pro, so I had to drop this explanation.
Then, I figured he was lazy, and it was easier to lift those quotes. But no... that's not what such a guy would do. So the next thing that came into my mind was that he must think that just because he's a famous journalist, he can just take the quotes from the little journalism student. And then I read his argument that he views quotes as public property, which just added to my confusion.

So, these are my finalized thoughts on the question:
1. Quotes are not public property, only people are who give the quotes. Getting quotes is a journalist's job, so stealing equals to not doing your job.
2. Journalists should be humble. If a journalist has anything to write, that's not because he or she's sooo damn good but because some nice people devoted minutes or even hours of their lives to talk to the journalist. I think this is what Merrill forgot.

When I read Merrill's answer to the claims, I got sort of disgusted. He started the article with his resume!! "I did this and that, I've been a journalist for 60 years, I'm so awesome, I have the right to do anything, and anyways, I stand so much above all of you people. Oh, and I stole only quotes because my writing is so much better than anyone else's." Well, after this "theme paragraph," I decided that this guy was not only guilty in plagiarism but he was also a terrible terrible person and I'm not sorry for him at all!!

Hostage drama at Hillary's place

Last Friday, a man went into one of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign office and said he had a bomb on him. The story ended well, because no one was hurt and the "bomb" turned out to be road flares and duct tape.

However, the story doesn't end here. Leeland Eisenberg, the suspect of the case, is supposedly a heavy drinker and her wife had just filed for divorce last Tuesday. Also, Eisenberg, who admitted he needed mental health, told reporters why he took hostages: he wanted attention. He wanted to let people know about his lawsuit against a priest who allegedly raped him.

This story is just startling. I can't believe such things happen. And Eisenberg used Hillary Clinton's office thinking that taking hostages there would draw people's attention. And he was right. If he had done it in a mall, local newspapers might have wrote about it, but I doubt that the NYT and CNN would have it among their top headlines.

I wonder if the case will affect Hillary Clinton. Is she just a victim herself? I guess she is. But can we say that she's innocent in a case where someone used her fame to draw public attention by almost hurting people? Okay, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Clinton had anything to do with this guy. But now we know that publicity has its tolls, and "evil" people can take advantage of it.

On the other hand, I'm not sure whether Eisenberg is the ultimate bad guy. I'd say he was the victim of his circumstances. So, whose fault is this? How about the media that's always ready to report on terror attacks and hostage dramas?

I don't really know what to think about this case. I wonder what's going to happen to the guy.

Poynter

Poynter

Well, I really liked reading about the inventor of Soundslides. He must be an amazing guy. I admire people who are good professionals and at the same time they see the big picture. In this case, Joe Weiss saw the importance of integrating modern technology into photojournalism.

I liked the point he made that video is not necessarily better than still photos. I like when people appreciate "traditional" things and can also explain why they do it so.

However, Weiss said a couple things about the down side of slideshows: they take four or five times longer to make than putting together a simple visual assignment and you need good photos. L

On the other hand the web enables photojournalists to publish as many pictures as they like without limits.

And the reason why I really liked this guy was his idea of seeing journalism as a tool to connect “humans to humans.”

Tutorials

iMovie Tutorial

I hate tutorials. I think they are dull and it takes a lot of time to read them. I went through this one, though. And what I said proved to be true...

The thing is I've used iMovie a couple times before. As a filmmaker wanna-be, I started out with Final Cut Pro when I was 16, so using iMovie wasn't that big of a deal.

The news things I "learned" from the tutorials was the difference between cropping and cutting. Also, I sort of forgot that iMovie had some cool video FX, I'll check those out.

And yeah, I had no idea what Magic iMovie meant, so I know that now, too.



Garageband Tutorial

As a Journalism professor, I guess you don't really know the musical sides of your students. Well, let me tell you, I'm a musical talent and my first CD came out this summer. No, seriously. I already sold one copy to my sister. Actually, it was rather a gift... Anyways, the title of my CD is "The Debuting Album of a Born Genius." And I created it with Garage Band. It was rather fun. So that’s how I got to get familiar with this amazing program.

However, I don’t think it’s the very tool I’d use to record audio for slide shows or videos. To me, it seems more of a music maker tool. As a Journalist, all I have to use is the record button and then edit it.

I like the podcast function, though. The only thing is: I’d be careful with using prerecorded sound effects. I just wrote a research paper on Welles’ “War of the Worlds,” and trust me people believe what they hear…

So, the “Enhanced Podcast” function is basically identical to making an audio slideshow. Interesting…

Presidential candidates on diet… they only wish!

Presidential candidates have a hard time keeping their shapes during the campaign. As they tour around, they HAVE to eat the traditional meals of all locations, which means that they can’t stick to their diets. Poor Hillary even prays to God to help her lose weight, wrote an article in the NYT.

Having a look at a video showing what things that candidates have to eat made me understand their problem!! Greasy meat, hot dog, soda, etc. I guess I would get sick after a couple days of “campaigning.”

So, why is it so important to keep fit but also eat traditional food??

“If you’re really overweight, some people just look at you and immediately sort of write you off,” Mr. Huckabee said for the NYT. “They just assume you’re undisciplined.”

But at the same time, if a candidate chooses not to eat the local specialties, it means he or she is not worthy for the vote of the local people.

Well, this problem is pretty typical to the 21^st century USA. It’s not that in Europe we wouldn’t care about how our candidates look, but when it comes to voting, what they eat and how they look don’t really count. At home, I guess because of the history, there are fewer people who are in the middle. People usually know what they believe in and who they’re voting for. And even if they’re undecided, what convince them are usually promises and arguments, not the candidate’s eating habits.

Of course, I’m not saying that Americans decide just based on appearance and whether the candidate stuffs him- or herself with local food. But if the issue makes it to the NYT’s front page, it should be important, right?

Anyways, I’m glad I’m not running for president. I hate when people make me eat out of courtesy!!