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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
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.
Capturing the heart of the Heartland
Well, Barack and Hillary on battling it out in Iowa again. The
Washington Post reports that both used strong rhetorical arguments in hopes of getting the Democrat's presidential nomination.
On Saturday Obama delivered what some call his best speech of the campaign trail at an annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner.
Yay. A president who can speak. I was told in high school that I should be a speech writer...of course my newspaper advisor's sister was a Chicago Sun Times Reporter turned speech writer for the Governor of Illinois.
It's a tempting thought, but I still believe that politicians should be able to write their own speeches (with a little tweaking from a professional). After all, they are supposed to present themselves as intelligent and poised professionals to world leaders. I'd like to think that the president of the what we like to call the ruling country in the world should be able to speak fluently with or without a teleprompter.
On a side note,
I think it's interesting that media personalities routinely ask Obama if he'd be willing to run as Clinton's vice president. On Meet the Press, I didn't notice a similar question but that seems to be a rarity lately. And what's Obama's response? Sorry but no.
Of course he's not going to jeopardize his chance at the oval office, but isn't that a thought: Setting two historical precedents in one election.
One can dream...
Washington Post reports that both used strong rhetorical arguments in hopes of getting the Democrat's presidential nomination.
On Saturday Obama delivered what some call his best speech of the campaign trail at an annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner.
Yay. A president who can speak. I was told in high school that I should be a speech writer...of course my newspaper advisor's sister was a Chicago Sun Times Reporter turned speech writer for the Governor of Illinois.
It's a tempting thought, but I still believe that politicians should be able to write their own speeches (with a little tweaking from a professional). After all, they are supposed to present themselves as intelligent and poised professionals to world leaders. I'd like to think that the president of the what we like to call the ruling country in the world should be able to speak fluently with or without a teleprompter.
On a side note,
I think it's interesting that media personalities routinely ask Obama if he'd be willing to run as Clinton's vice president. On Meet the Press, I didn't notice a similar question but that seems to be a rarity lately. And what's Obama's response? Sorry but no.
Of course he's not going to jeopardize his chance at the oval office, but isn't that a thought: Setting two historical precedents in one election.
One can dream...
Sunday, November 4, 2007
It's All the Same
Today I decided to break from my usual trend of searching the Washington Post or New York Times for election stories. Instead, I looked at the Minneapolis Star Tribune because I used to read their Sunday paper when I was in high school.
And what did I find?
The exact same story as story I would have read on nytimes.com, except written by an Associated Press writer. Humph. Media convergence, how I hate thee. But anyway, I suppose Fred Thompson's woes are the same no matter who's writing about them.
The Republican Presidential nominee want to be, has some excuses up his sleeve regarding the criminal past of one of his advisers, though he refused to "throw [his] friend under the bus" for a poor choice made decades ago.
The Washington Post -- yes, the newspaper I refused my diligence to this afternoon -- broke the story today that a co-chairman of Thompson's campaign, has a criminal record for drug dealing. Philip Martin, plead guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979 and then was charged for violating probation in 1983 with multiple counts of bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy.
Thompson maintains that Martin is a good friend and has paid his debt to society. He underscores that none of the illegal actions have been tied to the campaign and are in no way going to impact his campaign's future or the future of his friendship with Martin.
I'm not exactly sure what I think about this issue. While I certainly don't think I want my "future president" to rub elbows with drug lords, I also understand that no one is perfect. Everyone may have a blemish or two on their resumé but I'm not one to take federal offenses lightly.
And what did I find?
The exact same story as story I would have read on nytimes.com, except written by an Associated Press writer. Humph. Media convergence, how I hate thee. But anyway, I suppose Fred Thompson's woes are the same no matter who's writing about them.
The Republican Presidential nominee want to be, has some excuses up his sleeve regarding the criminal past of one of his advisers, though he refused to "throw [his] friend under the bus" for a poor choice made decades ago.
The Washington Post -- yes, the newspaper I refused my diligence to this afternoon -- broke the story today that a co-chairman of Thompson's campaign, has a criminal record for drug dealing. Philip Martin, plead guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979 and then was charged for violating probation in 1983 with multiple counts of bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy.
Thompson maintains that Martin is a good friend and has paid his debt to society. He underscores that none of the illegal actions have been tied to the campaign and are in no way going to impact his campaign's future or the future of his friendship with Martin.
I'm not exactly sure what I think about this issue. While I certainly don't think I want my "future president" to rub elbows with drug lords, I also understand that no one is perfect. Everyone may have a blemish or two on their resumé but I'm not one to take federal offenses lightly.
Investigative Reporting
Chapter 8 in "News Reporting and Writing" is kind of a how-to guide to investigative reporting. The chapter takes readers through the investigative process and explains some the problems that arise during most investigations.
Conducting an investigation is one of the most challenging aspects of journalism. Yet, in my opinion, it is one of the types that reaps the most reward. The chapter gave a brief history of muckraking in the U.S. press. Forerunners like Tarbell, Sinclair, and Dreiser set a precedent for the investigative reporting that was to follow.
I think the key subject that the reading addressed is that no good reporter decides to pursue an investigation unless there is a basis to their suspicion. I know that as a writer I get excited about the idea of proving my thesis. I need to, however, also be able to recognize when evidence disproves the theory. Only through investigation and a strong sense of determination will an investigation be fruitful.
The chapter highlights the importance of organization during an investigation. I don't expect this to be a problem for me considering that I'm a compulsive planner. I do, however, have a problem with being confrontational. I can't imagine going after a tough source and really having to be aggressive to get the information I need. But I suppose some of that gumption is built up gradually.
As far as the actual writing is concerned, I think the hard news lede doesn't do the writing justice. I really like the example for the Peace Corps story where the article started out with a human touch and then moved into a the news.
The IRE reading for today gave some examples of recent investigative reports and the ramifications of the stories. I noticed two of the example were from Minnesota and it was nice to read about the work of journalists I recognized.
The one thing that the investigations had in common was that they took one element that would be important to an audience and went with it. For instance, many dealt with taxes or government action. Some were specifically human interest but they were all broad enough to interest a number of people. Because investigative pieces take so much money and time, it is important the you go after a story that will interest your audience. An off-the-wall story may have promise but it must also hold up to the news worthiness judgments so that the audience wants to care about the injustice that's exposed.
Conducting an investigation is one of the most challenging aspects of journalism. Yet, in my opinion, it is one of the types that reaps the most reward. The chapter gave a brief history of muckraking in the U.S. press. Forerunners like Tarbell, Sinclair, and Dreiser set a precedent for the investigative reporting that was to follow.
I think the key subject that the reading addressed is that no good reporter decides to pursue an investigation unless there is a basis to their suspicion. I know that as a writer I get excited about the idea of proving my thesis. I need to, however, also be able to recognize when evidence disproves the theory. Only through investigation and a strong sense of determination will an investigation be fruitful.
The chapter highlights the importance of organization during an investigation. I don't expect this to be a problem for me considering that I'm a compulsive planner. I do, however, have a problem with being confrontational. I can't imagine going after a tough source and really having to be aggressive to get the information I need. But I suppose some of that gumption is built up gradually.
As far as the actual writing is concerned, I think the hard news lede doesn't do the writing justice. I really like the example for the Peace Corps story where the article started out with a human touch and then moved into a the news.
The IRE reading for today gave some examples of recent investigative reports and the ramifications of the stories. I noticed two of the example were from Minnesota and it was nice to read about the work of journalists I recognized.
The one thing that the investigations had in common was that they took one element that would be important to an audience and went with it. For instance, many dealt with taxes or government action. Some were specifically human interest but they were all broad enough to interest a number of people. Because investigative pieces take so much money and time, it is important the you go after a story that will interest your audience. An off-the-wall story may have promise but it must also hold up to the news worthiness judgments so that the audience wants to care about the injustice that's exposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)