A journalism professor at the University of North Carolina said that Edwards’s aides were pressuring him to remove a YouTube video made by one of his student criticizing Edwards.
The journalism student Carla Babb went to the Edwards headquarters to make an interview with a student intern. However, after seeing the headquarters, her focus changed to the contrast between Edwards’ message to erase poverty and setting of Edwards’ center in an affluent part of Chapel Hill.
After the video was published, Babb’s journalism professor was called by Edwards’ people demanding explanations for why the focus changed and saying that they felt, “blind-sided by the way the reporter presented the piece in the pitch,” reported a NYT article.
So, as a student journalist, I think this is a pretty nice case for me to think about. First of all, it shows that student journalists are not treated as real journalists in the political world. Politicians think they can call up the professor and tell them to scold the student, which they couldn’t do in case of an editor.
Also, politics at college is a swampy area. What if the professor had been a hard-core Edwards-supporter? Again, the question of objectivity comes up. Apparently, politics can’t be kept outside of colleges, but at the same time, both students and professors have to be cautious about what they say and they react to others’ opinions.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Book Chapter 14: Covering a Beat
Beats. If there’s one that I’d love to cover, that would be: SHOPPING MALLS!! Em would love to hang out and socialize in malls. I could make friends with the sales people at H&M, get acquainted with the “system” like when new collections come and become part of the community!! For me, the “Be there” part would go perfectly.
The primarily purpose of beats is to get people in involved, which sounds cool. This looks really a community building service.
So, I start researching the newspaper library, which is understandable, cause I wanna know about news in the past, not academic stuff. Yeah, knowing history: the good old Mr. Fisk keeps coming up all the time. And he is right!
But knowing history seems to mean that I have to stalk my sources. I can’t ask “Are you married?” because I already know it: I checked the guy’s MySpace. Instead, I should ask: “I understand you spent your honeymoon at Barbados, how was the Jacuzzi in your hotel room? You know, the one you took of picture of!” Okay, just kidding…
Beats require persistence. I can’t really comment on this, since I don’t really have it yet. But I’m gonna get one soon! I saw they’re on sale at Amazon!
Here a couple things that I found just soo true and so important:
1. Do favor when you can. YES! I hate asking favors. Every time I call someone for an interview, I feel I wasting their time and they’re doing a favor for me. So I’d feel soo much better if I could do something in return!
2. Don’t shun good news. YES! I like to think that I’m a positive person, so I’d love to transmit something good to people. I want my audience to put down that newspaper or switch of that TV with a smile thinking that they got something today. Something that might help them to have a bit nicer day.
3. Protect sources. Loyalty is important. But as the book mentions on the next page, journalists shouldn’t be influenced by what the sources feel, think or what their agendas are.
When it comes to online coverage, the only thing I can say is: RSS feed. Mostly in case of beats, that’s the ultimate invention!
Covering religion. I pretty much agree with what the book has to say about this topic. Actually, I just saw the other day Joel Osteen and his wife on Larry King Live. Osteen is the senior pastor of the largest U.S. congregation. It was interesting.
And environmental beats! They are sooo important. My vision is that one day all those local environment beat reporters will join together and create a global perspective. This way the local publics could be connected and global changes could be made. For example, I was amazed by CNN’s Planet In Peril. Honestly, I couldn’t watch the entire show, but it’s on my do-to-list to download it from iTunes. The point was to connect all those places with environmental problems and to give a big picture of what’s going on globally. I just loved it. If I were to work for CNN (which dream I hope will come true one day) I’d love to do such reporting!
The primarily purpose of beats is to get people in involved, which sounds cool. This looks really a community building service.
So, I start researching the newspaper library, which is understandable, cause I wanna know about news in the past, not academic stuff. Yeah, knowing history: the good old Mr. Fisk keeps coming up all the time. And he is right!
But knowing history seems to mean that I have to stalk my sources. I can’t ask “Are you married?” because I already know it: I checked the guy’s MySpace. Instead, I should ask: “I understand you spent your honeymoon at Barbados, how was the Jacuzzi in your hotel room? You know, the one you took of picture of!” Okay, just kidding…
Beats require persistence. I can’t really comment on this, since I don’t really have it yet. But I’m gonna get one soon! I saw they’re on sale at Amazon!
Here a couple things that I found just soo true and so important:
1. Do favor when you can. YES! I hate asking favors. Every time I call someone for an interview, I feel I wasting their time and they’re doing a favor for me. So I’d feel soo much better if I could do something in return!
2. Don’t shun good news. YES! I like to think that I’m a positive person, so I’d love to transmit something good to people. I want my audience to put down that newspaper or switch of that TV with a smile thinking that they got something today. Something that might help them to have a bit nicer day.
3. Protect sources. Loyalty is important. But as the book mentions on the next page, journalists shouldn’t be influenced by what the sources feel, think or what their agendas are.
When it comes to online coverage, the only thing I can say is: RSS feed. Mostly in case of beats, that’s the ultimate invention!
Covering religion. I pretty much agree with what the book has to say about this topic. Actually, I just saw the other day Joel Osteen and his wife on Larry King Live. Osteen is the senior pastor of the largest U.S. congregation. It was interesting.
And environmental beats! They are sooo important. My vision is that one day all those local environment beat reporters will join together and create a global perspective. This way the local publics could be connected and global changes could be made. For example, I was amazed by CNN’s Planet In Peril. Honestly, I couldn’t watch the entire show, but it’s on my do-to-list to download it from iTunes. The point was to connect all those places with environmental problems and to give a big picture of what’s going on globally. I just loved it. If I were to work for CNN (which dream I hope will come true one day) I’d love to do such reporting!
Reading
Chapter 8: Covering Criminal Courts
When I think of criminal cases, the first things that pop into my mind are Chicago, the movie, and Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy. I always thought that all crime cases involve lengthy investigations and gathering of evidence, then there’s always an extra smart defense lawyer. Apparently, I was wrong. The article says 95% of crime cases end with a guilty plea. Wow… And the cases that get media attention are probably way less than only 5% of all cases! I guess the media do create a somewhat unrealistic image about criminal court proceedings.
Then it turns out that prosecutors try to make a deal with the defendant so that they can avoid paper work. Hm… a bit pathetic, I guess. Yeah, I know it’s not just paper work but lots of time, effort, etc. that can be saved by a simple guilty plea. But what if an innocent person decides to give in to the prosecutors’ persuasion and go to jail because he thinks that proving his innocence would be impossible and long and tiring? I mean to me, the entire criminal justice system seems risky, aggressive and blurred.
The other thing that kind of struck me was this “proof beyond reasonable doubt” along with the “guilty or not guilty” thing. This is such a cynical standpoint. Just because no one can be 100% sure about the truth, that doesn’t mean that there is no truth. But thanks to the miraculous AP Style, I can write that the defendant was INNOCENT!
But being a criminal court journalist is I guess not always fun. I’m thinking of the 7 years in prison I get if I’m trying to contact a juror during the trial. I know that there is a logical reason behind it, but 7 years seem a lot to me. I might as well just kill someone and get 10 years in prison. It’s kind of like in Wegmans… You can get half a gallon milk for $3.30 or get one gallon for $3.80. I usually pick the one gallon bottle. So, if I want to go to jail, I guess I want to do if do for killing some dictator and not for talking to a juror.
I don’t agree with death penalty. I know, as a journalist, no one really cares what I agree with, but I really don’t agree with death penalty. First of all, I don’t think anybody has the right to take someone else’s life, even if that person had killed other people. And second, what’s the point of killing a criminal? That’s almost like rewarding them: instead of long years in prison, they get to die quickly and painlessly.
Chapter 9: Covering Civil Courts
While criminal courts seem cruel and frightening, civil courts look kind of loopy and exciting. Some of the cases mentioned just blew my mind, starting with “The lady, her lap and the hot McDonald’s coffee” story. People become extraordinarily smart when it comes to getting lots of money without working for it…
Of course, I understand that for many, “tort” cases are the last chance to get someone back on track, mostly if they got hurt really bad or something. I’m sorry for those people because they not only have to stop working but they also have to go through a lengthy trial to get compensation. Like those poor guys in that PBS video “A Dangerous Business.”
But also, I kind of understand that the government wants to cut down on class action suits. My dad’s aunt told me once that she was flying back from Hawaii when the plane got into turbulence and plummeted 300 feet. The passengers ended up suing the airline and everyone got $100 compensation. If there were let’s say 150 passengers on board, that means the airline had to pay about $15,000 for a single turbulence. That kinda sucks.
Burden of proof. This thing with the percentages… How can anyone say how many percent the evidence is? So, if I show a video of my boss beating me up in a case where I’m suing my company, is it 51% or 100%? It’s so subjective! I think the human factor plays such a big role in jurisdiction.
And finally those settlements. First of all, if a Roman Catholic priest molests children, shouldn’t that be a criminal case? Mostly, because he’s a priest! People tend to trust them more, so that’s why they should be judged more seriously. And then the workers who sell themselves to the company instead of suing and thus helping others… I would sue those workers for being antisocial and selfish!
When I think of criminal cases, the first things that pop into my mind are Chicago, the movie, and Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy. I always thought that all crime cases involve lengthy investigations and gathering of evidence, then there’s always an extra smart defense lawyer. Apparently, I was wrong. The article says 95% of crime cases end with a guilty plea. Wow… And the cases that get media attention are probably way less than only 5% of all cases! I guess the media do create a somewhat unrealistic image about criminal court proceedings.
Then it turns out that prosecutors try to make a deal with the defendant so that they can avoid paper work. Hm… a bit pathetic, I guess. Yeah, I know it’s not just paper work but lots of time, effort, etc. that can be saved by a simple guilty plea. But what if an innocent person decides to give in to the prosecutors’ persuasion and go to jail because he thinks that proving his innocence would be impossible and long and tiring? I mean to me, the entire criminal justice system seems risky, aggressive and blurred.
The other thing that kind of struck me was this “proof beyond reasonable doubt” along with the “guilty or not guilty” thing. This is such a cynical standpoint. Just because no one can be 100% sure about the truth, that doesn’t mean that there is no truth. But thanks to the miraculous AP Style, I can write that the defendant was INNOCENT!
But being a criminal court journalist is I guess not always fun. I’m thinking of the 7 years in prison I get if I’m trying to contact a juror during the trial. I know that there is a logical reason behind it, but 7 years seem a lot to me. I might as well just kill someone and get 10 years in prison. It’s kind of like in Wegmans… You can get half a gallon milk for $3.30 or get one gallon for $3.80. I usually pick the one gallon bottle. So, if I want to go to jail, I guess I want to do if do for killing some dictator and not for talking to a juror.
I don’t agree with death penalty. I know, as a journalist, no one really cares what I agree with, but I really don’t agree with death penalty. First of all, I don’t think anybody has the right to take someone else’s life, even if that person had killed other people. And second, what’s the point of killing a criminal? That’s almost like rewarding them: instead of long years in prison, they get to die quickly and painlessly.
Chapter 9: Covering Civil Courts
While criminal courts seem cruel and frightening, civil courts look kind of loopy and exciting. Some of the cases mentioned just blew my mind, starting with “The lady, her lap and the hot McDonald’s coffee” story. People become extraordinarily smart when it comes to getting lots of money without working for it…
Of course, I understand that for many, “tort” cases are the last chance to get someone back on track, mostly if they got hurt really bad or something. I’m sorry for those people because they not only have to stop working but they also have to go through a lengthy trial to get compensation. Like those poor guys in that PBS video “A Dangerous Business.”
But also, I kind of understand that the government wants to cut down on class action suits. My dad’s aunt told me once that she was flying back from Hawaii when the plane got into turbulence and plummeted 300 feet. The passengers ended up suing the airline and everyone got $100 compensation. If there were let’s say 150 passengers on board, that means the airline had to pay about $15,000 for a single turbulence. That kinda sucks.
Burden of proof. This thing with the percentages… How can anyone say how many percent the evidence is? So, if I show a video of my boss beating me up in a case where I’m suing my company, is it 51% or 100%? It’s so subjective! I think the human factor plays such a big role in jurisdiction.
And finally those settlements. First of all, if a Roman Catholic priest molests children, shouldn’t that be a criminal case? Mostly, because he’s a priest! People tend to trust them more, so that’s why they should be judged more seriously. And then the workers who sell themselves to the company instead of suing and thus helping others… I would sue those workers for being antisocial and selfish!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Covering Crime and Justice
[In this posting, I’m using bullet points to list the things that stood out for me.]
Chapter 1
- A good crime reporter must have: “exceptional initiative and determination, an eye for accuracy and details, a knack for sourcing, and the ability to tell a story.”
- The difference between small-town reporters and big-city ones is that the first one needs to have good relationships with sources, because he or she will deal with the very same sources all the time. Having a good relationship with certain people is highlighted many, many times. I feel that journalism on this level is pretty much about knowing the right person and being able to contact them any time.
- The public became fascinated with crime reports only two centuries ago. Why did this happen? Does this show some sort of shift in the society? Journalists started write “entertaining, impolite stories about pretty lawbreakers,” and the public loved them, because they featured sex, violence, blood and scandal.
- Felony: more than one year in prison; misdemeanor: less than one year in jail; violation: lesser offence
- Robbery: larceny involving violence; burglary: unlawfully entering someone’s property
- Crime reporters (and I guess this applies to all sorts of reporters as well) shouldn’t take editorial suggestions and criticism personally. Also, the document suggests how to have a good relationship w/ the editor adding, “Consider personal component and dress appropriately,” and, “Don’t whine!” Interesting. So no mini skirts and hysterical crying.
- Question: “The 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited access to private property for tag-along journalists.” Does this apply to us during the upcoming police-ride alongs?
- Wording is import, again. Someone is arrested “on suspicion of,” “in connection with” or simply “in” something. NOT “for.”
- Journalists are humans, too. So, it’s nice reading about crimes and stuff, but I guess crime reporting is not as easy as it seems. Personal and human factors are involved in this sort of job, as well. I’m a really sensitive person, and I think crime reporting would just wear me out totally. I’d get emotionally involved, which would make it so hard to concentrate on writing and accuracy. Also, the article mentions that many times journalists suffer from port-traumatic stress disorder…
- Personal safety. So, basically the trunk of my car needs to be transformed into some surviving supplement storage. Flashlight, water, food, bad-weather clothing, first-aid kit and… of course… extra pens and notebooks! It’s also important to wear the MEDIA sign on my clothing, except when it becomes rather dangerous by making me a target. How comforting…
- When dealing victims, journalists must be really sensitive. I knew this before, but I never thought that in such cases it’s acceptable to allow the source to read the story before it’s published, which is never-ever done in news business.
- Keeping the distance with the police in important. Journalists shouldn’t seem pro-police in order to get the information they want from police officers.
- I found a line that I think is so true. “We pretend to be interested in thing we really aren’t. We do what we need to do to wheedle information out of people.” And so many thins pretending makes me sick. Even though I’m taking acting classes, there is a big difference between theatrical acting and journalistic acting. In theater, acting is not about putting something ON, but it’s about letting something out of ourselves. In journalism, I think it’s just the opposite. We put on the mask of being interested, but we do because the deadlines are coming up and we need x hundred word about the frozen microbes on the North Pole.
- I like the 12 additional questions when reporting. I guess I’ll make my extra-dozen-q list!
- Corruption among police officers. Well, that was a kind of stunning part. I think it all comes down to power-relationships. Just like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the ones with more power thing that they can do whatever they want. And this is sad.
- I don’t want to be arrested for doing my job!!
Chapter 5
- Victims: people who are affected by a crime, which includes family members, too. I think in case of 9/11, we can say that every American was a victim.
- High-, medium- and low-risk victims. A woman traveling alone at night is a high-risk victim. Why?! Isn’t the problem with the society? Just because it’s dark outside and I happen to be a woman, I become likely to be raped?
- Being sensitive. I like all the methods described in the article when it comes to interviewing victims. For example, standing apart from the crowd of journalists, and just handing a business card with a note on it. I think this is a really gentle way of approaching a victim. Also, triple-checking names and dates!
- Rape. I think this is the worst of all crimes. The article says that more than 350,000 people are raped each year. That means 3,500,000 in a decade. More than 1% of the U.S. population! Another stunning number: 84% of rape victims don’t report the crime to the police.
Chapter 7
- I felt so lost!
- Okay, so there are two court systems: federal and state. Within each, there are 3 levels: trial court, intermediate appeals and final appeals. The first is where the entire trail procedure is with a judgment at the end. The second only inspects the first one if all the procedures were lawful. And the final appeals level is the “supreme” court, which can change the judgment made by the court trial.
- A good court reporter is “part historian, part critic, part transcriber, part observer—and always a good listener, accurate note taker and critical thinker.” Anything else?!
- Trials are like a sports events. “Hey yo, I got tix for the O.J. game tonight. Wanna come?”
- Making friends with court people is important. The list is not that long: docket clerks, court clerks, court reporters (even though these guys don’t think just record information), law clerks, bailiffs and administrations people. And of course lawyers and the members of the jury. But with lawyers, journalists must be skeptical, because they are cunning!
- Journalists have access to every document. The only problem is that I’d get so confused by a huge pile of files. So… do court reporters sleep at all? If I had to go through lots and lots of papers, I wouldn’t…
Chapter 1
- A good crime reporter must have: “exceptional initiative and determination, an eye for accuracy and details, a knack for sourcing, and the ability to tell a story.”
- The difference between small-town reporters and big-city ones is that the first one needs to have good relationships with sources, because he or she will deal with the very same sources all the time. Having a good relationship with certain people is highlighted many, many times. I feel that journalism on this level is pretty much about knowing the right person and being able to contact them any time.
- The public became fascinated with crime reports only two centuries ago. Why did this happen? Does this show some sort of shift in the society? Journalists started write “entertaining, impolite stories about pretty lawbreakers,” and the public loved them, because they featured sex, violence, blood and scandal.
- Felony: more than one year in prison; misdemeanor: less than one year in jail; violation: lesser offence
- Robbery: larceny involving violence; burglary: unlawfully entering someone’s property
- Crime reporters (and I guess this applies to all sorts of reporters as well) shouldn’t take editorial suggestions and criticism personally. Also, the document suggests how to have a good relationship w/ the editor adding, “Consider personal component and dress appropriately,” and, “Don’t whine!” Interesting. So no mini skirts and hysterical crying.
- Question: “The 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling limited access to private property for tag-along journalists.” Does this apply to us during the upcoming police-ride alongs?
- Wording is import, again. Someone is arrested “on suspicion of,” “in connection with” or simply “in” something. NOT “for.”
- Journalists are humans, too. So, it’s nice reading about crimes and stuff, but I guess crime reporting is not as easy as it seems. Personal and human factors are involved in this sort of job, as well. I’m a really sensitive person, and I think crime reporting would just wear me out totally. I’d get emotionally involved, which would make it so hard to concentrate on writing and accuracy. Also, the article mentions that many times journalists suffer from port-traumatic stress disorder…
- Personal safety. So, basically the trunk of my car needs to be transformed into some surviving supplement storage. Flashlight, water, food, bad-weather clothing, first-aid kit and… of course… extra pens and notebooks! It’s also important to wear the MEDIA sign on my clothing, except when it becomes rather dangerous by making me a target. How comforting…
- When dealing victims, journalists must be really sensitive. I knew this before, but I never thought that in such cases it’s acceptable to allow the source to read the story before it’s published, which is never-ever done in news business.
- Keeping the distance with the police in important. Journalists shouldn’t seem pro-police in order to get the information they want from police officers.
- I found a line that I think is so true. “We pretend to be interested in thing we really aren’t. We do what we need to do to wheedle information out of people.” And so many thins pretending makes me sick. Even though I’m taking acting classes, there is a big difference between theatrical acting and journalistic acting. In theater, acting is not about putting something ON, but it’s about letting something out of ourselves. In journalism, I think it’s just the opposite. We put on the mask of being interested, but we do because the deadlines are coming up and we need x hundred word about the frozen microbes on the North Pole.
- I like the 12 additional questions when reporting. I guess I’ll make my extra-dozen-q list!
- Corruption among police officers. Well, that was a kind of stunning part. I think it all comes down to power-relationships. Just like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the ones with more power thing that they can do whatever they want. And this is sad.
- I don’t want to be arrested for doing my job!!
Chapter 5
- Victims: people who are affected by a crime, which includes family members, too. I think in case of 9/11, we can say that every American was a victim.
- High-, medium- and low-risk victims. A woman traveling alone at night is a high-risk victim. Why?! Isn’t the problem with the society? Just because it’s dark outside and I happen to be a woman, I become likely to be raped?
- Being sensitive. I like all the methods described in the article when it comes to interviewing victims. For example, standing apart from the crowd of journalists, and just handing a business card with a note on it. I think this is a really gentle way of approaching a victim. Also, triple-checking names and dates!
- Rape. I think this is the worst of all crimes. The article says that more than 350,000 people are raped each year. That means 3,500,000 in a decade. More than 1% of the U.S. population! Another stunning number: 84% of rape victims don’t report the crime to the police.
Chapter 7
- I felt so lost!
- Okay, so there are two court systems: federal and state. Within each, there are 3 levels: trial court, intermediate appeals and final appeals. The first is where the entire trail procedure is with a judgment at the end. The second only inspects the first one if all the procedures were lawful. And the final appeals level is the “supreme” court, which can change the judgment made by the court trial.
- A good court reporter is “part historian, part critic, part transcriber, part observer—and always a good listener, accurate note taker and critical thinker.” Anything else?!
- Trials are like a sports events. “Hey yo, I got tix for the O.J. game tonight. Wanna come?”
- Making friends with court people is important. The list is not that long: docket clerks, court clerks, court reporters (even though these guys don’t think just record information), law clerks, bailiffs and administrations people. And of course lawyers and the members of the jury. But with lawyers, journalists must be skeptical, because they are cunning!
- Journalists have access to every document. The only problem is that I’d get so confused by a huge pile of files. So… do court reporters sleep at all? If I had to go through lots and lots of papers, I wouldn’t…
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Others' blogs
http://thestorysofar-jt.blogspot.com/
“Don’t judge others”
“Hillary, Hillary, Hillary”
http://reporterandrea.blogspot.com/
“08-10/14/07”
http://amusante123.blogspot.com/
"Colbert, Kucinich's Deep Pockets"
http://fallingfornews2007.blogspot.com/
“I'm glad you realized who you are, Guiliani!”
http://lvpdnews-lara.blogspot.com/
"Booming Baby Bonds!"
"Health Care, who needs it?"
http://seagullatemycheetos.blogspot.com/
"Political Blogging"
“Don’t judge others”
“Hillary, Hillary, Hillary”
http://reporterandrea.blogspot.com/
“08-10/14/07”
http://amusante123.blogspot.com/
"Colbert, Kucinich's Deep Pockets"
http://fallingfornews2007.blogspot.com/
“I'm glad you realized who you are, Guiliani!”
http://lvpdnews-lara.blogspot.com/
"Booming Baby Bonds!"
"Health Care, who needs it?"
http://seagullatemycheetos.blogspot.com/
"Political Blogging"
Monday, October 15, 2007
The truest Republican of the Republican wing of the Republican Party… or something like that
So, it seems some of the Republican candidates fight over who is the “real Republican.” Mitt Romney said in an Oct 12 speech that he was the only true Republican candidate. Answers came from John McCain and Fred Thompson the very next day.
Silly story with tons of good quotes. For example, Romney said that he represented the “Republican wing of the Republican Party.” So, who represents then the Democratic wing of the Republican Party or the Republican wing of the Democratic Party or the Republican-Democratic wing of the Anarchist Party? Yeah, exactly, I don’t get it either.
But as I said, all articles are full of quotes, which makes them easier to read. It’s also kind of amusing to read candidates throwing mud at each other.
Oddly enough, only one out of three articles quote Romney’s spokesperson defending him, the others mention only Romney’s infamous “Republicanest Republican” quotes.
I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Seriously, why do candidates have to say stupid things? Romney could have waited until the public says, “Wow, this guy is the real Republican!” but no, he couldn’t. Probably, he should have waited for such a comment forever, anyways.
A search in Google News brings up 123 articles written on the issue. This is just… Do people really care who is the true Republican?!
Silly story with tons of good quotes. For example, Romney said that he represented the “Republican wing of the Republican Party.” So, who represents then the Democratic wing of the Republican Party or the Republican wing of the Democratic Party or the Republican-Democratic wing of the Anarchist Party? Yeah, exactly, I don’t get it either.
But as I said, all articles are full of quotes, which makes them easier to read. It’s also kind of amusing to read candidates throwing mud at each other.
Oddly enough, only one out of three articles quote Romney’s spokesperson defending him, the others mention only Romney’s infamous “Republicanest Republican” quotes.
I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Seriously, why do candidates have to say stupid things? Romney could have waited until the public says, “Wow, this guy is the real Republican!” but no, he couldn’t. Probably, he should have waited for such a comment forever, anyways.
A search in Google News brings up 123 articles written on the issue. This is just… Do people really care who is the true Republican?!
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Chatper 13: Other Types of Basic Stories
“Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Pause. Tap. Tap. Tap.” Best lede ever! But how does the story end? Who was murderer???
Police reports are inaccurate. Ouch! Police officers lie to cover up shortcomings and misconduct. Man, I think I’m just too naïve to be a journalist. Seriously. Who can we trust after all? I don’t want to end up as a bitter person who thinks everybody is suspicious and no one can be trusted.
It’s good to know that in crime stories, both inverted pyramid style and chronological order works. Even though, I think these two structures are mixed many times. Obviously, when a reporter uses chronological order, the story won’t start like this: “Jack and Jill woke up in the morning and decided to go for a ride,” and then end like: “And then Jack suddenly pushed Jill over the cliff. She died immediately.” The news that someone was killed always goes to the top of the story in some form.
I realized that I don’t want to cover accidents, because I can’t really take blood. I can’t even watch ER. And the worst is that in such a situation I have to keep looking for sources and push people to talk about what happened…
Oh, something funny. No, actually it’s rather ridiculous. In the middle of a disaster, when people are losing their relatives and homes, and firefighters are risking their lives, a journalist’s biggest problem is: “I can’t obtain the quotes I need to improve my story!” Ridiculous!! If I were a firefighter, I’d be really mad at journalists…
It was important to learn what’s the difference between being arrested and being charged. And again, this thing with really cautious wording! In print, the demand for accurate wording is acceptable. But how about broadcast, for example? What if libelous things just slip out when I’m reporting?
And finally: how can an editorial get to the front-page in case of a murder trial?
Police reports are inaccurate. Ouch! Police officers lie to cover up shortcomings and misconduct. Man, I think I’m just too naïve to be a journalist. Seriously. Who can we trust after all? I don’t want to end up as a bitter person who thinks everybody is suspicious and no one can be trusted.
It’s good to know that in crime stories, both inverted pyramid style and chronological order works. Even though, I think these two structures are mixed many times. Obviously, when a reporter uses chronological order, the story won’t start like this: “Jack and Jill woke up in the morning and decided to go for a ride,” and then end like: “And then Jack suddenly pushed Jill over the cliff. She died immediately.” The news that someone was killed always goes to the top of the story in some form.
I realized that I don’t want to cover accidents, because I can’t really take blood. I can’t even watch ER. And the worst is that in such a situation I have to keep looking for sources and push people to talk about what happened…
Oh, something funny. No, actually it’s rather ridiculous. In the middle of a disaster, when people are losing their relatives and homes, and firefighters are risking their lives, a journalist’s biggest problem is: “I can’t obtain the quotes I need to improve my story!” Ridiculous!! If I were a firefighter, I’d be really mad at journalists…
It was important to learn what’s the difference between being arrested and being charged. And again, this thing with really cautious wording! In print, the demand for accurate wording is acceptable. But how about broadcast, for example? What if libelous things just slip out when I’m reporting?
And finally: how can an editorial get to the front-page in case of a murder trial?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Romney's water race adventures
Mitt Romney attended the New Hampshire Grass Drags and Water Crossing yesterday. On this event, snowmobiles were racing on water or grass. Apparently, Romney’s goal was to meet the average people. The articles written about the event are good examples of sensory writing.
There’s not much news value to the story. All Romney was doing was engaging in conversations with both adults and children.
The stories describe the surroundings, the people who showed up and how they reacted to the presence of the candidate. There are also a couple good quotes, mostly from children or young adults. Parent are also quoted in connection with their children and how excited they were to meet a man who might be the president one day.
I think the articles are examples of a laid-back style. Journalists probably enjoyed writing these pieces and aimed them to be entertaining for the audience, as well.
There’s not much news value to the story. All Romney was doing was engaging in conversations with both adults and children.
The stories describe the surroundings, the people who showed up and how they reacted to the presence of the candidate. There are also a couple good quotes, mostly from children or young adults. Parent are also quoted in connection with their children and how excited they were to meet a man who might be the president one day.
I think the articles are examples of a laid-back style. Journalists probably enjoyed writing these pieces and aimed them to be entertaining for the audience, as well.
Chapter 8—Writing to Be Read
Many of Orwell’s thoughts about clear writing showed up in this chapter.
When I read that a study had found that novels had become easier read while just the opposite had happened to newspapers and magazines, I wasn’t surprised. If I just think of my summer: I read the last 3 volumes of Harry Potter, altogether 2000 pages, while at the same time I could hardly get myself to sit down and read through a couple NYT articles. Harry Potter was easier to read and also more enjoyable. But I guess, any topic can be enjoyable, even stock market news and stuff, if it’s written in a good way.
Just as Orwell noted in his essay that good writing should include many images, the book also highlights that a story should include all kinds of sensory experiences. An article should take the reader right to the scene of the story.
I guess this should be the same with numbers and sizes. I actually like numbers because I was a nerd in high school, so oddly enough I love finding out comparisons to give dimensions to numbers that otherwise mean almost nothing.
I think I have problems with being coherent. First of all, when I’m using inverted pyramid style, I always feel that it’s more of a list in the order of importance. For example, when covering a speech, I try to figure out what the important things are, and when I finally have them, it turns out that they are not connected at all. But at the same time I want all the information to be in my article. What do I do?
And finally being specific: when writing a story, it’s so much easier to use abstractions than to write detailed information on everything. Even 1000 words would not be enough to describe just the circumstances of a meeting.
When I read that a study had found that novels had become easier read while just the opposite had happened to newspapers and magazines, I wasn’t surprised. If I just think of my summer: I read the last 3 volumes of Harry Potter, altogether 2000 pages, while at the same time I could hardly get myself to sit down and read through a couple NYT articles. Harry Potter was easier to read and also more enjoyable. But I guess, any topic can be enjoyable, even stock market news and stuff, if it’s written in a good way.
Just as Orwell noted in his essay that good writing should include many images, the book also highlights that a story should include all kinds of sensory experiences. An article should take the reader right to the scene of the story.
I guess this should be the same with numbers and sizes. I actually like numbers because I was a nerd in high school, so oddly enough I love finding out comparisons to give dimensions to numbers that otherwise mean almost nothing.
I think I have problems with being coherent. First of all, when I’m using inverted pyramid style, I always feel that it’s more of a list in the order of importance. For example, when covering a speech, I try to figure out what the important things are, and when I finally have them, it turns out that they are not connected at all. But at the same time I want all the information to be in my article. What do I do?
And finally being specific: when writing a story, it’s so much easier to use abstractions than to write detailed information on everything. Even 1000 words would not be enough to describe just the circumstances of a meeting.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Chapter 22—Rights and Responsibilities
I’m glad I’m not a Legal Studies major.
Of course, as a Journalist I also have to know a couple laws that affect my job, such as the open-meeting laws or the shield laws.
Actually, I don’t think that Journalists think about their rights and responsibilities on a daily basis. It happens only when they get into conflict with the law. Yes, I’m thinking of Libel… I’m a bit worried about it, because many times libel can come from inaccurate reporting. And inaccurate reporting can come from tricky sources giving deliberately ambiguous answers.
I know that the best defense against libel is truth. But in so many cases, no one really knows what the truth is because of the way a person words something or because sources don’t give proper information (as in case of TMI). I think journalists aren’t writing defamatory articles because they are determined to ruin somebody’s reputation. It’s rather a choice between the public’s right to know and the risk that something might not be true. For example, I think I’d report on something alleged that can possibly harm many people than not warn anyone because I’m not 100% sure. But I also want to be accurate. This is just so complicated. Maybe I should try thinking less as a person and more of a professional.
Privilege: while it is good for journalists, I think this is a weapon of the government against the public. Why can a state official say things that aren’t true?
The Actual Malice Test: so, as a journalist, I can write anything about an officeholder or candidate unless I know it’s false or I’m ignorant about what the truth is. Sounds good. But again: how do I know if something is true? Just because someone says so? I have the feeling that no one is really required to tell the truth. Everyone can find some law to be protected.
And then of course the invasion of privacy: even if I finally find out something that is true, I can’t write it because it’s private. But the thing is, if I’m about to write a story on a person’s private affairs, I do it so because I think that the public is affected by it, so it should knows about it. So is it a private or a public issue? If I get to know that there’s a man with AIDS raping women in his house: do I have the right to write about it? Can I enter his private property? (Let’s say that this man is rich enough to have contacts at the local police station, so I can’t call the police. What do I do?)
I just hope I won’t have to deal with such issues later on. I feel that laws are just so ambiguous. If I think of the language used in legal issues… It’s just so hard to understand and lawyers always find a way to get around laws.
Of course, as a Journalist I also have to know a couple laws that affect my job, such as the open-meeting laws or the shield laws.
Actually, I don’t think that Journalists think about their rights and responsibilities on a daily basis. It happens only when they get into conflict with the law. Yes, I’m thinking of Libel… I’m a bit worried about it, because many times libel can come from inaccurate reporting. And inaccurate reporting can come from tricky sources giving deliberately ambiguous answers.
I know that the best defense against libel is truth. But in so many cases, no one really knows what the truth is because of the way a person words something or because sources don’t give proper information (as in case of TMI). I think journalists aren’t writing defamatory articles because they are determined to ruin somebody’s reputation. It’s rather a choice between the public’s right to know and the risk that something might not be true. For example, I think I’d report on something alleged that can possibly harm many people than not warn anyone because I’m not 100% sure. But I also want to be accurate. This is just so complicated. Maybe I should try thinking less as a person and more of a professional.
Privilege: while it is good for journalists, I think this is a weapon of the government against the public. Why can a state official say things that aren’t true?
The Actual Malice Test: so, as a journalist, I can write anything about an officeholder or candidate unless I know it’s false or I’m ignorant about what the truth is. Sounds good. But again: how do I know if something is true? Just because someone says so? I have the feeling that no one is really required to tell the truth. Everyone can find some law to be protected.
And then of course the invasion of privacy: even if I finally find out something that is true, I can’t write it because it’s private. But the thing is, if I’m about to write a story on a person’s private affairs, I do it so because I think that the public is affected by it, so it should knows about it. So is it a private or a public issue? If I get to know that there’s a man with AIDS raping women in his house: do I have the right to write about it? Can I enter his private property? (Let’s say that this man is rich enough to have contacts at the local police station, so I can’t call the police. What do I do?)
I just hope I won’t have to deal with such issues later on. I feel that laws are just so ambiguous. If I think of the language used in legal issues… It’s just so hard to understand and lawyers always find a way to get around laws.
Assessment of Media Performance
Reading this report was astonishing. A nuclear accident happens, and neither the media nor the public knows anything about what’s going on. I have no idea how I would have reported this story.
What I found the worst about the situation was that officials intentionally withheld information. How can such a thing happen? Not knowing anything is pretty much a theme that comes up in at every point of the story: this is why so many outside sources were quoted, there’s confusion about almost everything, officials saying contradicting things, etc.
While reading the report, I had the feeling that sometimes it blamed the journalists for the general confusion. But then it also makes it clear that they were officials who gave inconsistent and false information many times. On one hand, I understand that quoting officials saying contradicting things makes the public worried, but on the other hand, what else could the media do?
Apparently, the biggest problem was that journalists were at all not familiar with the topic. Well, who is? I guess that’s when clear and accurate writing comes up: if a journalist doesn’t know what he or she wants to say, how could he/she write an accurate story?
On pg. 190 the report says, “The media surveyed failed to include some of the information needed to understand fully the events.” Well, I guess with some more background research, journalists could have given more accurate description of the current situation, but they didn’t have much time to do it. Again, I think it’s not the journalist’s task to “translate” what a source said, but the interviewee should be clear about what his/her statements.
A question: when a nuclear plant declares general emergency, which is the highest level of radiation emergency, isn’t it required by law to explain the public what is going on and how dangerous the situation is?
Another question: isn’t lying to the media against the law? Those officials from Met Ed and NRC said that the accident happened due to equipment malfunction, but that wasn’t the case. Also, they gave conflicting information on the level of radiation. How can they get away with that??
It seems the government wasn’t helping the public at all either: the White House was trying to prevent journalists from getting to good sources. I don’t really get how they had the right to do that.
But of course the way media handled the story wasn’t perfect either. This was a nuclear catastrophe. Every journalist dreams of such a story with millions of people dying and big radioactive explosions. That’s why of course many journalists got on sidetracks with the “what if?” questions. I guess I would have done that, too. The report says, “Reporters as a group were putting a somewhat more alarming face on the accident than were their sources” (205). Well, I kind of understand why journalists did that: first of all, they had n credible sources, and second of all, it’s better to fear than to be frightened (as an old Hungarian proverb goes).
The airtime given to the coverage of the accident was 30-50% of news programs. I think that’s pretty impressive.
After reading the report, I’m angry and also frightened. How come that people just withhold information that when it comes to such a serious question? Ambiguity is the worst thing ever.
What I found the worst about the situation was that officials intentionally withheld information. How can such a thing happen? Not knowing anything is pretty much a theme that comes up in at every point of the story: this is why so many outside sources were quoted, there’s confusion about almost everything, officials saying contradicting things, etc.
While reading the report, I had the feeling that sometimes it blamed the journalists for the general confusion. But then it also makes it clear that they were officials who gave inconsistent and false information many times. On one hand, I understand that quoting officials saying contradicting things makes the public worried, but on the other hand, what else could the media do?
Apparently, the biggest problem was that journalists were at all not familiar with the topic. Well, who is? I guess that’s when clear and accurate writing comes up: if a journalist doesn’t know what he or she wants to say, how could he/she write an accurate story?
On pg. 190 the report says, “The media surveyed failed to include some of the information needed to understand fully the events.” Well, I guess with some more background research, journalists could have given more accurate description of the current situation, but they didn’t have much time to do it. Again, I think it’s not the journalist’s task to “translate” what a source said, but the interviewee should be clear about what his/her statements.
A question: when a nuclear plant declares general emergency, which is the highest level of radiation emergency, isn’t it required by law to explain the public what is going on and how dangerous the situation is?
Another question: isn’t lying to the media against the law? Those officials from Met Ed and NRC said that the accident happened due to equipment malfunction, but that wasn’t the case. Also, they gave conflicting information on the level of radiation. How can they get away with that??
It seems the government wasn’t helping the public at all either: the White House was trying to prevent journalists from getting to good sources. I don’t really get how they had the right to do that.
But of course the way media handled the story wasn’t perfect either. This was a nuclear catastrophe. Every journalist dreams of such a story with millions of people dying and big radioactive explosions. That’s why of course many journalists got on sidetracks with the “what if?” questions. I guess I would have done that, too. The report says, “Reporters as a group were putting a somewhat more alarming face on the accident than were their sources” (205). Well, I kind of understand why journalists did that: first of all, they had n credible sources, and second of all, it’s better to fear than to be frightened (as an old Hungarian proverb goes).
The airtime given to the coverage of the accident was 30-50% of news programs. I think that’s pretty impressive.
After reading the report, I’m angry and also frightened. How come that people just withhold information that when it comes to such a serious question? Ambiguity is the worst thing ever.
Politics And The English Language
I just love Orwell. I think the points he makes in this article are really important. I realized that I do all those stupid mistakes all the time, when I’m just too lazy to think of what would be the best way to express myself. Honestly, many times I use those terrible metaphors and “verbal false limbs” to make my writing look more professional. I feel other journalists out there use such complicated language that I feel I also have to make my articles seem more educated I guess.
So basically what Orwell says is that we have no idea what the words MEAN. And he’s right.
Also, from now on I’m going to try using simple words, active voice and gerunds.
No foreign words. This is actually a funny thing. I mean, we all know a couple foreign words, like deus ex machina or status quo, and we think that using them makes us look smart, but the fact is that almost all people knows these words and uses them with the same intention. So these words become terrible commonplaces besides making the text ambiguous.
Another important point: a text has to be like a film. People reading an article should see pictures in their heads, which can be achieved by good metaphors. I loved Orwell giving a lesson on this with the metaphor of “stale phrases” that “choke [the writer] like tea-leaves blocking a sink.” This was just awesome and really vivid. [I was actually cleaning the kitchen sink just yesterday.]
Orwell also talks about vagueness and bluntness. So, is it because authors are lazy to say things right? Or because they don’t dare to write down clear statements? I remember that in Intro to Mass Media class we learned that heavy TV viewers are more likely to have “moderate” political views than light viewers. Maybe it’s because of the blunt language used in TV. Yeah, again, I’m back at the topic of being objective. But not making clear statements about either side is not objectivity! It’s worse than not saying anything at all!
I loved the 6 rules at the end of the essay. They’re so sarcastic!! I mean Orwell talks about how authors should think instead of using “ready-made phrases” and then he gives a list of how an author should write?! But even if the rules he subscribes are right, the point is that without thinking we’re all bad writers. (Rule vi. “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” = THINK!)
So basically what Orwell says is that we have no idea what the words MEAN. And he’s right.
Also, from now on I’m going to try using simple words, active voice and gerunds.
No foreign words. This is actually a funny thing. I mean, we all know a couple foreign words, like deus ex machina or status quo, and we think that using them makes us look smart, but the fact is that almost all people knows these words and uses them with the same intention. So these words become terrible commonplaces besides making the text ambiguous.
Another important point: a text has to be like a film. People reading an article should see pictures in their heads, which can be achieved by good metaphors. I loved Orwell giving a lesson on this with the metaphor of “stale phrases” that “choke [the writer] like tea-leaves blocking a sink.” This was just awesome and really vivid. [I was actually cleaning the kitchen sink just yesterday.]
Orwell also talks about vagueness and bluntness. So, is it because authors are lazy to say things right? Or because they don’t dare to write down clear statements? I remember that in Intro to Mass Media class we learned that heavy TV viewers are more likely to have “moderate” political views than light viewers. Maybe it’s because of the blunt language used in TV. Yeah, again, I’m back at the topic of being objective. But not making clear statements about either side is not objectivity! It’s worse than not saying anything at all!
I loved the 6 rules at the end of the essay. They’re so sarcastic!! I mean Orwell talks about how authors should think instead of using “ready-made phrases” and then he gives a list of how an author should write?! But even if the rules he subscribes are right, the point is that without thinking we’re all bad writers. (Rule vi. “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” = THINK!)
5 Characteristics of Academic or Scholarly Prose
So, if I’m not supposed to use academic writing style in journalism that means I should:
1. use the verb form instead of nominalization
2. use active verbs instead of passive voice
3. use very easy language avoiding inflation and embellishment
4. avoid long and complex sentences
What I don’t understand is why people use the academic style at all? I mean if I were some professor figuring out something really important, I would want people to understand my findings. If scholarly writing makes things ambiguous, what’s the point?
1. use the verb form instead of nominalization
2. use active verbs instead of passive voice
3. use very easy language avoiding inflation and embellishment
4. avoid long and complex sentences
What I don’t understand is why people use the academic style at all? I mean if I were some professor figuring out something really important, I would want people to understand my findings. If scholarly writing makes things ambiguous, what’s the point?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Christian group considers running a third-party candidate
A “powerful group of Christian leaders” agreed yesterday that if the Republican Party runs the pro-abortion Giuliani, they will consider nominating a third-party candidate.
In my News Releases posting, I was writing about how actions are sometime less important than getting media coverage, and I think the situation is this now. All articles written on the topic highlight that this mysterious group of Christian leaders, who actually discussed this question at a secret meeting, are considering running a new candidate, and they don’t even who that would be. All they wanted was to get the issue out to the public and see what happens. I don’t think that Giuliani will be nominated after this, so they basically achieved their goal without taking any actions.
The reporting is also a bit weird. All news articles mention that this was a top secret meeting and only anonymous sources are quoted, which makes the story a bit blunt. Also, a “powerful group of Christian leaders” sounds like some secret freemason society.
And I found something interesting: what The Moderate Voice did on its website was that they simply copied and pasted the story from Salon.com. Is it legal? I mean, for example, in case of our second assignment, could I just write a lede and then say: “this is how The Ithaca Journal wrote about the meeting,” and then copy and paste? If a news article is out, can just quote it? Or be like, “quote,” said John Doe in an interview he gave to the NYT? (So basically I’m stealing only the quote ☺)
In my News Releases posting, I was writing about how actions are sometime less important than getting media coverage, and I think the situation is this now. All articles written on the topic highlight that this mysterious group of Christian leaders, who actually discussed this question at a secret meeting, are considering running a new candidate, and they don’t even who that would be. All they wanted was to get the issue out to the public and see what happens. I don’t think that Giuliani will be nominated after this, so they basically achieved their goal without taking any actions.
The reporting is also a bit weird. All news articles mention that this was a top secret meeting and only anonymous sources are quoted, which makes the story a bit blunt. Also, a “powerful group of Christian leaders” sounds like some secret freemason society.
And I found something interesting: what The Moderate Voice did on its website was that they simply copied and pasted the story from Salon.com. Is it legal? I mean, for example, in case of our second assignment, could I just write a lede and then say: “this is how The Ithaca Journal wrote about the meeting,” and then copy and paste? If a news article is out, can just quote it? Or be like, “quote,” said John Doe in an interview he gave to the NYT? (So basically I’m stealing only the quote ☺)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)