Reading for the Week

The two chapters for this week were about both news releases, and writing about speeches, and meetings. These are two crucial aspects of journalism that students should learn. There are three types of news releases that will need to be processed - one is to promote a cause, one is to announce an event, and the last is to build the image, typically of a public figure. Part of my job at Fox23 in Albany was to decipher press releases and fill in the information onto the run-down to be referred to the next day. I think the author of the text makes an important point when he recommends contacting the media representative who made the news release in order to get more important details (who, what, when, where...). I did this on a number of occasions. We must remember to pick out what is "news" instead of just transferring the information. This will allow a more broad sense, so that the journalist may successfully re-write the story. In an example, we learn about how to shape a press release to foster accuracy and more in-depth reporting. "Without saying that the news release was dishonest or misleading, the reporter corrected or clarified some of the information contained in it." This chapter lays basic groundwork for handling day-to-day news situations.
Almost every journalist will be assigned to cover a speech, news conference, or meeting at some point. It is easy to oversimplify the process by getting into a routine. However, this chapter makes a point about the necessity of preparation when attending such events. For example, when attending a conference, a journalist should understand background facts, people involved, and other circulating rumors/events that pertain to it. Of course, accuracy is stressed. The best way to be accurate is to take notes. I have developed my own form of shorthand that allows me to stay up to speed when conversations move quickly.
Finally, at the end of the chapter, there is a suggestion that the reader visits this website. I found it to be a useful resource, and reminder of the steps to take when covering a city council meeting.

08

I would like to follow up on my past comments about endorsements and gossip with a subject that I read numerous articles about in such online editions as the Boston Globe and the New York Times. The articles all discuss the fact that in a television interview, Bill Clinton stated that Barack Obama does not have the experience to run for the Presidency. Now, one would automatically assume that this was a clever ploy to get his wife elected, but her office declined comment on the issue. I know I'm starting to get repetitive - but...once again, who cares?
If the question here is one of political experience, we cannot deny that Barack Obama lacks in this area. But who is Bill Clinton (who one might argue was a success or a disappointment, depending on viewpoint) to give political advice? In my personal opinion, in the world of politics, lack of experience can only be a positive factor. The more "experienced" a politician is, the more they will cater to people in their social stratification. I think that politicians tend to become aloof, and jaded. So - while Barack Obama lacks political background - he also has a strong background in morality and community life, having served as a community organizer. Let's change the name of the "President" to the "American community organizer" - because isn't that exactly what he (or she) is? Or at least what he should be? It's an interesting point to ponder. As to whether this will change voting patterns, I cannot decide at this point. Clearly Clinton's opinion carries weight. But again, I would rather read an article about Barack Obama's plan juxtaposed with Hillary's, than an account from the spouse of a candidate about his opinion. Journalists! Let me decide!

And I just have to include one more thing. It makes me giggle. It's not that I'm not a Clinton fan, but this is just plain funny. It's from NY Times: "And in another development, move over Mr. Giuliani: New York magazine’s story on the Clintons — not out until Sunday — includes a cover photo illustration (meaning fictional) of Mr. Clinton dressed in drag as, we’re told, Jackie Kennedy." .... I'll buy it.

08

At first, I wasn't really sure about the relevance of moving the primaries up and down the calendar. In my opinion, the favor that is given to New Hampshire is unfair, and I really don't see why all the states can't just do this at same time. This leads me to my discussion for the week - it stemmed from an article in the Arizona Central Online Edition. The article is about a new state that will be hotly contested in the future. The paper words it like this: "A new power player is emerging in Republican presidential politics: Michigan." Michigan's primary is now set for January 15th, which is before New Hampshire! Republicans are holding special events there all week, in an effort to swing the state in their direction. There is a quote that I would like to discuss that comes from the article. A Republican Party Spokesman in the state said, "Just the talk of moving up the primary really put Makinac on the radar." Personally, I find it ridiculous that undue focus is being put on areas simply becasue of their influence on the primary. Idealistically, I think that all states should have equal and ample time with the candidates, instead of having them shift their "radars" with victory in mind. Politics is such a competition that important people who are seeking change will miss out on hearing what candidates have to say just because of the location that they happen to be in. A Detroit newspaper also reports that candidates are eager to run a "hard campaign" in Michigan. I am disappointed in this controversy...and technically, Michigan is going to have to move thier primary behind NH. Here is a blog that contains a schedule of primaries that is tentative at this time. I am sure that things will change again, and candidates will readjust, unless someone is brave enough to look past the petty locations and look forward to the future of the country.

I was a little disappointed to see that the reading for this week is on Chapter 10, which is the chapter on obituaries. I am not entirely interested in print journalism as it is, and I hope that I will not have to spend a lot of time writing obituaries. I will agree hower, "in the online world, obituarties are big business." This is becasue online papers can sell advertising to funeral homes and services because they find that readers search for obituarites frequently. I learned this by visiting the obituary page from a newspaper in my hometown, and discovering the number of advertisements on the page. I also agree that an obituary is one of the most important stories to get accurate, becasue it can be so sensitive. You should begin an obituary with the usual factors in crafting a lead such as who, what, when, where and why. This is the important list of facts to be put in: time and place of funeral services, time and burial place, visitation time, survivors, date and place of birth, achievements, occupation and memberships to any special organizations. Mortuary forms will usually provide this basic information. This helps to commemorate the person properly.
A final point that I find to be extremely important in this chapter is the importance of making the story lifelike. In writing an obit., I would want to bring that person's memory and their impact on others to the forefront of the story. Obituaries should be dynamic, and colorful, and truly give a sense of the person's life. Therefore, I think that it is very difficult to come up with a set "standard" on "how to" write an obituary. The story should be individually crafted, and should include interviews with surviving family and friends.

08

I am taking this opportunity for a short political rant about the state of affairs in our society today. I have touched briefly upon my distaste for "celebrity" politicians, and the tendency of journalists and consumers alike to be fascinated with gossip and rumor. I read an article on CNN.com's political ticker that was simply about the fact that Wesley Clark, an ex-four star general who had considered running for the Presidency in 2004 has "endorsed" Hillary Clinton. Personally, I am thoroughly confused as to who would care about this. What purpose is served by this? People in this country need to learn to form their own opinions by using the facts that are given to them. They should not care about who likes who, or who endorses who. There is no substance behind Clark's favor of Clinton either. According to the article, Clark said, ""She'll be a great leader for the United States of America, and I think she'll be a great commander in chief for the men and women in the armed forces." ... So? It was funny for me to read the comments of users underneath the article, because many reflected my sentiments. John from Longview, TX wrote, "just say someone will be good for the country, and well, shoot, let's forget the election and just declare her president. what a joke."
But to clarify, it is not just Clark's endorsement that bothers me, it's endorsements in general. Last week, I read an article about Oprah endorsing Barack Obama and I wondered the same thing. Millionaire Jeff Lamberti recently announced that he would be endorsing John McCain.
In my research, I found an interesting article which discusses the actual meaning of endorsements and how politicians have either succeeded or failed because of them. Perhaps our coverage of endorsements is a strange social phenomena. Perhaps it needs to be changed so that we can focus our energies on deciphering who is the most qualified, instead of engaging in a high-school type popularity contest....

Reading for the Week

I think that quoting is the most important part of journalism - in other words, the right quotes can make a story interesting and colorful, but the wrong quotes or a lack of quotes can ruin the story completely. Chapter 4 provided vital information about which quotes to use and when to use them. The rules of thumb that are given include quoting important people, and quoting unique sentiments, always accurately. I have always kept in mind the idea of "uniqueness" because it is often more effective to paraphrase something that is dull, and to quote more original ideas.
On the other hand, I feel like there are a few limitations that are not cited in the reading. The text suggests capturing dialect and accents by saying words such as "goin'" but I think that there are instances where this is inappropriate - it sounds more fictional than journalistic, and should be limited to feature pieces. I think an important aspect of the chapter is the one that discusses vulgarity. To quote the author, "At times you may wish to use vulgarities to show the intensity of someone's anger, terror, frustration or bitterness. Few inside the news media condone the casual, gratuitous use of vulgarity." I would support this statement. Finally, there are a few guidelines that I was unaware of concerning attribution - If a direct quote is more than one sentence long, place the attribution at the end of the first sentence. The correct form is to separate partial quotes and complete quotes. More interview and quote guidelines, especially for broadcast, can be found here.



The next reading, Poynter's Tips, reiterates a strong belief that I have about the future of journalism. The section is about journalism that engages the reader. "...Others questioned whether they would be allowed to ride even if another purchaser was found, Property rights were debated. People got mad. They became engaged.. Journalism was happening." I think that the best possible thing for the future of journalism is to get people involved - Internet journalism allows people to interact - it provides a vast database for all interests and backgrounds. It is encouraging to read about people becoming less passive about the information that they receive. It is my goal to be a journalist who engages her readers. The author of the section writes that it's fun to see what happens - I couldn't agree more. The next online reading deals with presenting a timeline to make information more clear. I think that the more visual a story can be, the easier it is to understand. The blogger has done an excellent job of providing an example of a timeline that is clear and easily comprehensible. It is something to keep in mind for stories where time is relevant.

Reading for the Week

The first reading came from the AP 2007 Stylebook. In reading the guide to punctuation, I came across a number of regulations that I would like to note. I may have been careless about them in the past, but this guide serves as a nice reminder for me. For example, I did not know that in the case of words ending in s, that you do not add an 's when the next word starts with s (hostess's invitation versus hostess' seat) When giving ownership to something that is not quantifiable, simply add an apostrophe (as in two days' work). Use a colon to introduce long quotations within a paragraph. I think that I tend to overuse dashes - but they can be used for a series or list within a phrase. I also learned that a period can be used at the end of a rhetorical question if it leans toward a suggestion. I found the reading to be very helpful, and it is something that I will make references to in the future.
The first concept in the chapter readings of News Reporting and Writing is that of convergence. Convergence is a subject that I find very interesting as well as something that I am knowledgeable about. I wrote my Journalism Research paper about YouTube, which is a prime example of convergence in the media. It is something that I think all people should be aware of, and I am interested to see how much it will continue in the future. When I was an assignment editor for newswatch I had to work on my news judgment skills - the book provides a useful set of criteria - including novelty, prominence, conflict, proximity and timeliness. I think that impact is the first and most important.
Unfortunately, the text provides research that claims that audiences believe television is the most biased news source. While I am glad that people are starting to recognize it, I think it is sad that very little is being done about it. I value objectivity highly, especially in the realm of politics (see last entry) because it is the job (as stated in the text) of journalists to monitor power. This can not be done fairly from a biased point of view. This makes me most related to a civic journalist as described in the text. An excellent reference for foundations of ethics can be found on the Poynter website.
Looking further into the future, the concept of Internet journalism must be introduced, and the text provides a number of important examples of sites that converge from print to the web, and so on.
The newspaper section has an excellent visual representation of the hierarchy within a newsroom, and the many people who put together opinions to make a decision (page 32). Interesting comparisons were made between newspapers and magazines - for instance, newspapers tend to work on deadlines so strictly that writing errors sometimes ensue, which are not tolerated at magazines.
I have worked at a news station for 2 years now, and I can closely relate to the information in the broadcasting section, because I have gotten to know people who occupy the positions described (anchors, videographers, desk assistants, etc).
Chapter 3 was a simple review of the concepts introduced to me in journalism research. When taking that class, I learned my strengths and weaknesses in the interviewing process. For example, I think that I am strong in the area of establishing rapport with sources, because I am outgoing and easy to talk to. I learned that preparation is an essential component to conducting the interview with ease. I struggle with controlling the interview, as discussed in class, and I need to practice this. The text gives a few short suggestions that are vital: Ask open ended questions, keep the questions short, and build to the point. Hopefully my interviewing skills will continue to improve as I write for this course.

08

I did a google search of Barack Obama, because I wanted to see what was going on in my favorite Presidential candidates life. Everything seemed pretty general - new health care reform, head to head with Hillary, and even support from Oprah. Then I came across this: Who's Related to Obama?
It's an article from the Sun-Times media group.A passage says, " One of Obama’s ancestors once accused a fellow New England colonist of witchcraft and later stole from the governor's house. Another had two brothers killed by American Indians, who scalped one brother and kidnapped the other's daughter. Still another ancestor was said to have been slain by pirates."
This is one of the times when I look at modern journalism and ask, "are you kidding me?" It is beyond ridiculous that anyone would care to know about Obama's ancestors, and I find it curious that everything they decided to say about his family involved violence and insanity. I question what possible good is being served by putting this information out there. I looked for family trees of other candidates in vain. Is it because Obama spent time in a number of other countries and has a diverse background that people are suddenly fascinated? I barely find it to be newsworthy that Oprah will support Obama - it looks just like a publicity stunt, in my opinion.
I then read an article by Michael Roberts on opednews.com, and he wrote, "I feel sorry for Barack Obama. He is the Tiger Woods of American politics – mixed up, afraid of his lineage and anxious for white acceptance and Black understanding" I am so frustrated to read this so-called editorial journalism. It is just plain unfair - we are making judgments and researching his history and family just because he is not the same breed of presidential candidate that we have seen in the past. Let's stop digging for past dirt and race issues, and focus on the actions that he will take. I'm not criticizing other politicians or politics in general. I'm criticizing journalists who act this way. It is our job to inform, not to speculate about pirates, or golfers. Come on.

08

I read an article today about the "Big 3" Democrat's signing a pledge to avoid the states that have been attempting to move the primaries up. My first reaction to the article in NY Times was... what good will that do? I understand that it is a symbolic measure, but to cease campaigning is comparable to shooting oneself in the foot. It will only hinder their ability to accomplish their goals. After a bit more consideration, I moved on to the question of ... How can this really be? Luckily, the article clarified my question exactly. Apparently, the candidates are allowed to hold fund raising events, and they already have events on the schedule. To me, this article may be just plain pointless. I'll have to wait and see if they actually keep to their promise, because if they don't, again, that is a shot in the foot. FOX News, sometimes known to have a Republican bias, reports that it is "hard to believe" that Hilary will stop campaigning in FL, because it is one of the states that she is the strongest in. I also find it interesting that the candidates did not take the lead on this issue - they followed Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd (according to MSNBC). In a related issue, Hilary just had to give campaign money to charity due to a controversy surrounding the donor. Democrats need to be careful at this time -Senator Craig's issue is attracting negative attention to the Republican party, so Democrats should stay quiet and wait this out. They shouldn't sign measures that are semantic or aren't well thought out. Also, Barack Obama's website has a track of the states that he is campaigning in, with photographs and a blog. However, the only states included at this time are New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. http://nevada.barackobama.com/page/content/nvhome (Nevada, for example). I think that this is an excellent campaign strategy, but he should include as many states as possible for it to be extremely effective. Getting elected President will not happen if he chooses to ignore some areas.