Well, this week's reading has officially scared me. The story of John Merrill’s plagiarism accusations are quite unsettling. I hate to think that the one mistake, one oversight can tarnish a journalist's career. As a journalist, even the most minute oversight could come back to haunt me time and time again.
Merrill's opinion piece was interesting to read as well. I feel kind of bad for the guy considering that a lifetime of creating and critiquing journalism is now tarnished with the plagiarism accusation.
I thought that the two articles did a good job of presenting me with both sides of the argument.
I think that article hit home with me because of my experience getting stories off the AP wire. Newswires are growing in importance all the time. While they save journalists time -- and probably more noteworthy, companies money -- I think that it also leads to laziness in reporting. It's easy for someone sitting in a newsroom just to make a few clicks and receive a story...what's more difficult is for that person to take the initiative and make sure that the story is the best possible portrayal of the news.
I think the lines are blurry when it comes to cited and uncited sources. I feel that in this case Merrill was a fault but what about when a quote comes from the AP wire or another publication that may have widely known information, what's the proper citation? I remember the first article I'd ever had published was for my high school newspaper when I was a sophomore. I emailed the article -- which was about changes in funding from the Minnesota State Department of Education -- to my editor and at the bottom wrote something to the extent of, "I cited information from the Pioneer Press, do I need to cite that?" The answer was, of course, yes.
Sometimes the obvious is less apparent than it should be. Sometimes writers are uninformed, misinformed or just flaky. It's a scary thought, but I'll inevitably make mistakes in my career, I just hope that I don't ever have to deal with the backlash that Merrill did. Yikes.
At least this week's reading ended with a laundry list of sources for political information. How exciting? Well, maybe for some but for me it was an information overload. I'm sure "Places Journalists Should Go for Politics" is good heading, but honestly, I would need to alter the title to say: Places Journalist Should WANT to Go for Politics. Sorry. As much as I try, I just can't get excited with the thought of digging out the skeletons from a politician's closet for a living.
The cites and sources here are quite helpful I'm sure. I say more power to journalists who want to scour the web looking for a politicians criminal record or how they voted on an issue decades ago.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Political Coverage in the 2000s.
When I think of political coverage, a little part of me winces. One, I’m not a politics buff. While I understand the importance of government in my life and vote whenever I can, I’m not likely to pay attention to politics in the media. I don’t read that section of the paper or give the TV my full attention when a story comes on about so-and-so’s scandal.
Two, I hate the way that media coverage polarizes people. I understand that we live in a diverse country that fosters different points of view. However, I feel that the media searches out tiffs between politicians to make news. The media certainly tread a fine line in deciding what’s newsworthy and politics is one area that they can take an angle a day and still call it quits. Fox News currently features the section online about whether religious values matter to voters when it comes to 2008 Presidential Candidate Nominees. While I can understand that this may be an issue in the campaign, I don't like the way that it was covered. Somehow I don't see how a topic like this is a good choice for a video package. Not only is the topic kind of fluffy, any type of visual portrayal would render itself stereotypical or overly dramatic.
One element about present coverage I do like is the ability to present each politician’s platform simultaneously using the internet. Just today, The Washington Post featured a “Choose your Candidate” feature on the first page of the politics section. This platform comparison tool could be very helpful for voters. When information is presented in a logical way voters can make a more informed decision.
Finally, I can't help but note the role of celebrity and infotainment that is seeping into political coverage. Politicians are public figures, of course. They are not, however, supposed to be glorified and media-made superstars. (They may try, however to use the media to their benefit...nothing like free advertising, right?)
Consider CNN's coverage of Oprah and Obama's campaign tour from this week. The writing practically deems to the pair to be political soul mates and presents Winfrey's admiration for the politician without the slightest reality check. She may love Obama, and to be perfectly honest he's starting to win me over, but I don't want the NEWS section of the paper or of a news broadcast to read like an advertisement. There's already enough of that to annoy me.
Two, I hate the way that media coverage polarizes people. I understand that we live in a diverse country that fosters different points of view. However, I feel that the media searches out tiffs between politicians to make news. The media certainly tread a fine line in deciding what’s newsworthy and politics is one area that they can take an angle a day and still call it quits. Fox News currently features the section online about whether religious values matter to voters when it comes to 2008 Presidential Candidate Nominees. While I can understand that this may be an issue in the campaign, I don't like the way that it was covered. Somehow I don't see how a topic like this is a good choice for a video package. Not only is the topic kind of fluffy, any type of visual portrayal would render itself stereotypical or overly dramatic.
One element about present coverage I do like is the ability to present each politician’s platform simultaneously using the internet. Just today, The Washington Post featured a “Choose your Candidate” feature on the first page of the politics section. This platform comparison tool could be very helpful for voters. When information is presented in a logical way voters can make a more informed decision.
Finally, I can't help but note the role of celebrity and infotainment that is seeping into political coverage. Politicians are public figures, of course. They are not, however, supposed to be glorified and media-made superstars. (They may try, however to use the media to their benefit...nothing like free advertising, right?)
Consider CNN's coverage of Oprah and Obama's campaign tour from this week. The writing practically deems to the pair to be political soul mates and presents Winfrey's admiration for the politician without the slightest reality check. She may love Obama, and to be perfectly honest he's starting to win me over, but I don't want the NEWS section of the paper or of a news broadcast to read like an advertisement. There's already enough of that to annoy me.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Standoff Ends
The hostage situation at Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign office ended peacefully yesterday. The Washington Post's Standoff Coverage included an article and Clinton's reaction video. Clinton spoke before the press once all of the hostages were released and the suspect was in custody.
Yesterday afternoon's events occurred when a man who claimed to have a bomb strapped to his chest seized four workers in Clinton's campaign office in Rochester, N.H. Officials say that the suspect demanded to speak with Clinton but eventually surrendered to police and released the hostages after five hours of retention.
The suspect, Leeland Eisenber, was know to local law enforcement for erratic behavior. The entire situation was really strange and unsettling.
I think that covering this event would have been difficult considering the unknowns. Trying to make sense of information that was given would have been tricky to say the least. I also think that in hostage situations the media can negatively impact police action. If the suspect enjoys getting media coverage he or she may be less cooperative with officials. Journalists and the media tread a fine line in situations like the these while trying to inform the public while not jeopardizing the safety of others.
Yesterday afternoon's events occurred when a man who claimed to have a bomb strapped to his chest seized four workers in Clinton's campaign office in Rochester, N.H. Officials say that the suspect demanded to speak with Clinton but eventually surrendered to police and released the hostages after five hours of retention.
The suspect, Leeland Eisenber, was know to local law enforcement for erratic behavior. The entire situation was really strange and unsettling.
I think that covering this event would have been difficult considering the unknowns. Trying to make sense of information that was given would have been tricky to say the least. I also think that in hostage situations the media can negatively impact police action. If the suspect enjoys getting media coverage he or she may be less cooperative with officials. Journalists and the media tread a fine line in situations like the these while trying to inform the public while not jeopardizing the safety of others.
Online Journalism
The article from Poynter Online was interesting to read. The creator of Sound Slides is a talented journalist and software inventor. Frankly, I was really surprised that the creator of Sound Slides was a journalist. I've never realized that the program was created by and for journalists. Its history emphasizes that online reporting really is driving a need for innovative new methods of storytelling.
I also liked reading about the difference between video and still photography. I've always been partial to still photography, but by working on Newswatch I've become accustomed to video. Ultimately, however, the power of the story really comes down to the writing and the journalist's talent.
I also liked reading about the difference between video and still photography. I've always been partial to still photography, but by working on Newswatch I've become accustomed to video. Ultimately, however, the power of the story really comes down to the writing and the journalist's talent.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Ethics and Online Schtuff
This week's reading began with the sidebar about the ethical issues journalists deal with on a daily basis. These include: responsibility, freedom of the press, independence, sincerity accuracy and truthfulness, impartiality, fair play and decency. It's hard to pin-point which of these should be considered the most important because they all whole weight in ethical decision-making. I do feel, however, that sincerity, accuracy and truthfulness should probably take precedent. "Good faith with the reader is the foundation of all journalism worthy of the name," according to the textbook and it seems that without these principles the entire essences of journalism is lost.
The text book defines principled reasoning as the paramount element in journalism ethics. I can't agree more. I've been told that I have a "good head on my shoulders." Whatever weight that holds I pride myself on being someone who others come to for advice. Only through sound decision making is it possible to decide on the moral way to act. However, some decisions are difficult to make no matter how grounded a person is in ethical theories and principles.
Ultimately, journalists should be concerned with protecting the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights sets our nation apart from most other countries in the world. I feel that the First Amendment protects journalists but they also hold significant responsibility to the citizens and the government. Deceit, conflicts of interest, invasion of privacy and withholding information are all issues that journalist struggle with.
It's easy to say that journalism is completely free from outside influence, however it's completely untrue. Maybe in the utopia of journalism outside influences are avoided but in today's profit-driven media it's impossible. I'm not saying that advertising should be removed from journalism. Nope, I'm quite certain that I'd like the be paid someday, but when ads start interfering with content there is a problem.
I guess I didn't realize that freebies and checkbook journalism were as present as they are before this reading. Obviously freebies interfere with the principle of objectivity and checkbook journalism should be avoided whenever possible. I can't say, however, that I'm willing to give up my LIFE for my job. I don't plan to become an avid crusader or politician after becoming a journalist. I DO plan to continue speaking to my friends, family and going to church after graduation. I understand that journalism doesn't really end when you clock out for the day and likewise, my life cannot be put on hold for my career. Each should balance and add to the other.
As for the internet readings, I kind of enjoyed them. Everyone keeps saying that convergence is paramount in journalism. I like the idea of being able to put together an on-line slide show or make packages that are longer than one minute. It's exciting, especially since I was always more drawn to the visual side of story-telling than the writing aspect.
Hopefully, I will be able to continue learning about online journalism. The readings really made the point that EVERYONE is still learning about online journalism, and I think that's part of the fun.
The text book defines principled reasoning as the paramount element in journalism ethics. I can't agree more. I've been told that I have a "good head on my shoulders." Whatever weight that holds I pride myself on being someone who others come to for advice. Only through sound decision making is it possible to decide on the moral way to act. However, some decisions are difficult to make no matter how grounded a person is in ethical theories and principles.
Ultimately, journalists should be concerned with protecting the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights sets our nation apart from most other countries in the world. I feel that the First Amendment protects journalists but they also hold significant responsibility to the citizens and the government. Deceit, conflicts of interest, invasion of privacy and withholding information are all issues that journalist struggle with.
It's easy to say that journalism is completely free from outside influence, however it's completely untrue. Maybe in the utopia of journalism outside influences are avoided but in today's profit-driven media it's impossible. I'm not saying that advertising should be removed from journalism. Nope, I'm quite certain that I'd like the be paid someday, but when ads start interfering with content there is a problem.
I guess I didn't realize that freebies and checkbook journalism were as present as they are before this reading. Obviously freebies interfere with the principle of objectivity and checkbook journalism should be avoided whenever possible. I can't say, however, that I'm willing to give up my LIFE for my job. I don't plan to become an avid crusader or politician after becoming a journalist. I DO plan to continue speaking to my friends, family and going to church after graduation. I understand that journalism doesn't really end when you clock out for the day and likewise, my life cannot be put on hold for my career. Each should balance and add to the other.
As for the internet readings, I kind of enjoyed them. Everyone keeps saying that convergence is paramount in journalism. I like the idea of being able to put together an on-line slide show or make packages that are longer than one minute. It's exciting, especially since I was always more drawn to the visual side of story-telling than the writing aspect.
Hopefully, I will be able to continue learning about online journalism. The readings really made the point that EVERYONE is still learning about online journalism, and I think that's part of the fun.
Tastes of the Campaign
My election update fits surprisingly well with this week's reading. I was browsing The New York Times' website for a topic and came across an interesting angle. Jodi Kantor put together an video that is in companion to an article she wrote. Both deal with the way politicians eat on the campaign.
I thought this was an interesting feature approach to the campaign. The video, titled "Food on the Campaign Trail" obviously used some of Kantor's writing but was voiced by Ben Werschkel. Its 3:09 minute length was surprising. Obviously longer than the typical TV package, the piece proves that the internet can escape some of the time-crunch pressures that TV experiences.
After watching the video and reading the companion article, I can definitely say that the video is more interesting for the viewer. I think that this is such a visual story that a standard article cannot do it justice.
Both the video and the article serve two primary purposes. One, they explain the role of food on the campaign trail because it attracts people and two, they make the the politicians seem, quite frankly, human.
While I could probably have gone through life without knowing Obama's workout and diet routine or Clinton's prayers for weight loss, it's nice to know that they deal with the same issues as everyday citizens.
Likewise, I couldn't help but notice that the camera work wasn't all that fancy and the writing wasn't over the top. I think the pieces were put together in a way that makes the viewer really feel like they got --pardon my pun-- a taste of what life on the campaign trail is like around meal time.
I thought this was an interesting feature approach to the campaign. The video, titled "Food on the Campaign Trail" obviously used some of Kantor's writing but was voiced by Ben Werschkel. Its 3:09 minute length was surprising. Obviously longer than the typical TV package, the piece proves that the internet can escape some of the time-crunch pressures that TV experiences.
After watching the video and reading the companion article, I can definitely say that the video is more interesting for the viewer. I think that this is such a visual story that a standard article cannot do it justice.
Both the video and the article serve two primary purposes. One, they explain the role of food on the campaign trail because it attracts people and two, they make the the politicians seem, quite frankly, human.
While I could probably have gone through life without knowing Obama's workout and diet routine or Clinton's prayers for weight loss, it's nice to know that they deal with the same issues as everyday citizens.
Likewise, I couldn't help but notice that the camera work wasn't all that fancy and the writing wasn't over the top. I think the pieces were put together in a way that makes the viewer really feel like they got --pardon my pun-- a taste of what life on the campaign trail is like around meal time.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Best (And Worst) of Broadcast
Chapter 19 is a nice review of the basics for writing broadcast copy.
Writing for TV and radio presents new and different challenges compared to writing for a print publication. The concept of news changes for this media to emphasize timeliness above all else. Likewise, key audio or visual impact and is key to telling a good story.
Sometimes some of the limitations of broadcast really annoy me. For instance, I hate that readers need to be limited to 30 seconds. I feel that a lot of the story is cut out and you don't do the story justice. I also get annoyed that things are deemed important simply because they have a visual. Though, this is also true in newspapers where audiences are drawn to photographs rather than text.
Writing for broadcast also takes a lot of creativity. The writer must use syntax that is simplistic and straightforward while not being overly simplistic or demeaning. It's also difficult to vary syntax because the story needs to be easily understood on the first read through--there's no chance to go back and clarify.
I thought the section on formatting copy for broadcast was kind of elementary. I've used ENPS for Newswatch and all of the elements of the broadcast can be incorporated and printed off easily. I guess we're lucky to have the technology we do because I can't imagine trying to put on a newscast with only typewriters. As it is for Newswatch, we print 4 copies of a 60+ page script for each broadcast.
Writing for TV and radio presents new and different challenges compared to writing for a print publication. The concept of news changes for this media to emphasize timeliness above all else. Likewise, key audio or visual impact and is key to telling a good story.
Sometimes some of the limitations of broadcast really annoy me. For instance, I hate that readers need to be limited to 30 seconds. I feel that a lot of the story is cut out and you don't do the story justice. I also get annoyed that things are deemed important simply because they have a visual. Though, this is also true in newspapers where audiences are drawn to photographs rather than text.
Writing for broadcast also takes a lot of creativity. The writer must use syntax that is simplistic and straightforward while not being overly simplistic or demeaning. It's also difficult to vary syntax because the story needs to be easily understood on the first read through--there's no chance to go back and clarify.
I thought the section on formatting copy for broadcast was kind of elementary. I've used ENPS for Newswatch and all of the elements of the broadcast can be incorporated and printed off easily. I guess we're lucky to have the technology we do because I can't imagine trying to put on a newscast with only typewriters. As it is for Newswatch, we print 4 copies of a 60+ page script for each broadcast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)