Since I've come to IC I've heard from numerous professors that journalism students shouldn't be surprised if the first job they get out of college is writing obituaries. It's the starting-level position. It's where you prove yourself.
I found it interesting that the News Reporting textbook presents obituary writing as a noble profession requiring grace and sensitivity.
I also noticed that the textbook made a point of labeling obituaries as news stories, requiring the same lead and body format as other news stories. At the same time, however, there are elements of feature-style writing present in obituaries (that's my interpretation).
When you write an obituary, the text says, you should write about life. Write about the essence of an individual's existence, don't just "merely note" their death. This leaves the journalist looking for what exactly that "essence" was -- what were the distinguishing characteristics of the person and the life they led? To write a good obituary, a journalist has to research the life of the deceased and decide what one or two aspects of their life to focus on.
In hard news a journalist reports the facts and the story tells itself. When writing an obituary, journalits have to decide what the story should be.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Norman Hsu Update
I haven't really been following this story too closely since I first posted about it a few weeks ago. But now that Hsu's actually made his first court appearance, I thought it was time for an update.
Here's a brief synopsis of the story thus far:
- Since Norman Hsu, a top Democratic fundraiser, was discovered to be a 15-year fugitive, most of the Democrats who received his funds have given the money to charity. Hillary Clinton has donated $850,000 of Hsu-donated money to charity.
- Hsu was "on the lam" for skipping a 1992 court date for a grand-theft conviction. On September 5 of this year, Hsu missed a court date "where he was supposed to surrender his passport and ask that half his bail be returned." Hsu's bail was $2 million.
- On September 6 Hsu's lawyers reported that he attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills. The Wall Street Journal reports on Hsu's suicide note.
- In the hospital during his overdose recovery, Hsu admitted to FBI agents that he conducted another Ponzi scheme, much larger than the one he did in California 15 years ago, the one he was convicted of. In this scheme, Hsu took $60 million from investors to fund nonexistent companies. In 1992 he only stole $1 million.
- Hsu's lawyers say that the confession is invalid because Hsu was suffering from several "infirmities" and not yet recovered. They also point out that no lawyer was present during the confession.
The most interesting part about this case is that Hsu's lawyers are accusing the California government of neglecting to hunt down Hsu because he's been donating to California Democrats for the past 15 years. Also, since the judge from Hsu's 1992 case has retired, Hsu's lawyers say that Hsu cannot legally be sentenced by another judge.
Hsu's laywers are currently asking for a new trial.
Here's a brief synopsis of the story thus far:
- Since Norman Hsu, a top Democratic fundraiser, was discovered to be a 15-year fugitive, most of the Democrats who received his funds have given the money to charity. Hillary Clinton has donated $850,000 of Hsu-donated money to charity.
- Hsu was "on the lam" for skipping a 1992 court date for a grand-theft conviction. On September 5 of this year, Hsu missed a court date "where he was supposed to surrender his passport and ask that half his bail be returned." Hsu's bail was $2 million.
- On September 6 Hsu's lawyers reported that he attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills. The Wall Street Journal reports on Hsu's suicide note.
- In the hospital during his overdose recovery, Hsu admitted to FBI agents that he conducted another Ponzi scheme, much larger than the one he did in California 15 years ago, the one he was convicted of. In this scheme, Hsu took $60 million from investors to fund nonexistent companies. In 1992 he only stole $1 million.
- Hsu's lawyers say that the confession is invalid because Hsu was suffering from several "infirmities" and not yet recovered. They also point out that no lawyer was present during the confession.
The most interesting part about this case is that Hsu's lawyers are accusing the California government of neglecting to hunt down Hsu because he's been donating to California Democrats for the past 15 years. Also, since the judge from Hsu's 1992 case has retired, Hsu's lawyers say that Hsu cannot legally be sentenced by another judge.
Hsu's laywers are currently asking for a new trial.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Quotes, RSS Feeds, Story Timelines
So I was checking up on the latest presidential candidate news and looking at the blog and I realized...oh dear, my "Quotes" entry from last week is missing! My avid readers...they were expecting it! The disappointment!
I don't know what happened...I blame Safari. People are blaming it for everything else blog-related.
This is what I remember...I don't have the book with me so this won't be too in depth...
1. Quotes are good when they personalize, add credibility to, or just spice-up your story.
2. You should quote colloquialisms unless they unfairly represent the source (who might speak in a dialect that looks unflattering in print).
3. I remember that the "problems with quotes" section was a lot bigger than the "benefits of quotes" section. I also remember the solution to every quote problem was to quote in a way that didn't misrepresent the reader or show bias. I feel like the "problems with quotes" section could have been a lot shorter if they had just said that once.
4. I learned a lot about attribution:
- Only attribute at the beginning of a quote when direct quotes from two different speakers follow one another.
- Put the noun or pronoun before the verb, unless the source has a long title:
"I like that," the sheriff said.
"I like that, too," said Bill Sawyer, direct of public relations for the Madeup Institute.
- Only use present tense attribution in feature writing:
"I like being president of the PTA," she says.
I like quotes. My only problem is that I like to interview people. Usually I interview people longer than I have to. I ask a lot of questions. Sometimes they don't even apply to what I'm writing about. So what I'm left with is a bunch of information, and a decent amount of quotable information. I want to use it all -- anything I got out of a source with my super amazing interviewing skills should be in print...right?
I usually only need one or two quotes from an individual. That means I have to choose what does and what does not make it into the story. I'm very indecisive. I can spend a good twenty minutes weighing the pros and cons of using one quote over another. It makes for slow goings.
RSS FEEDS: Before reading the Poynter Institute's E-Tidbit on RSS feeds, I really wasn't sure what these things were. I love the concept. National and metropolitan newspapers and broadcast news programs deliver the day-to-day, local, national and world news. RSS feeds, however, don't have to collect information based on its timeliness or geographic relevance -- stories are packaged together according to content. Thus, individuals subscribing to RSS feeds aren't necessarily getting what journalists think they need to know, but what the individual actually wants to read up on.
My only beef with the article is that I still don't know what "RSS" stands for.
USING A TIMELINE TO TELL A STORY: The El Pais Al Qaeda timeline was really cool. It was a great expample of how online journalism allows a reporter to show the story rather than tell it. My only question is -- who developed that package? Did some web guy take a bunch of old newspaper reports on Al Qaeda attacks and piece them together in that timeline? Did an editor come up with the timeline idea, tell a web guy to make the animation and then tell a reporter to do research on Al Qaeda attacks? Did an online journalist do it all?
I'm definitely interested in online journalism, I just don't quite understand how it works.
I don't know what happened...I blame Safari. People are blaming it for everything else blog-related.
This is what I remember...I don't have the book with me so this won't be too in depth...
1. Quotes are good when they personalize, add credibility to, or just spice-up your story.
2. You should quote colloquialisms unless they unfairly represent the source (who might speak in a dialect that looks unflattering in print).
3. I remember that the "problems with quotes" section was a lot bigger than the "benefits of quotes" section. I also remember the solution to every quote problem was to quote in a way that didn't misrepresent the reader or show bias. I feel like the "problems with quotes" section could have been a lot shorter if they had just said that once.
4. I learned a lot about attribution:
- Only attribute at the beginning of a quote when direct quotes from two different speakers follow one another.
- Put the noun or pronoun before the verb, unless the source has a long title:
"I like that," the sheriff said.
"I like that, too," said Bill Sawyer, direct of public relations for the Madeup Institute.
- Only use present tense attribution in feature writing:
"I like being president of the PTA," she says.
I like quotes. My only problem is that I like to interview people. Usually I interview people longer than I have to. I ask a lot of questions. Sometimes they don't even apply to what I'm writing about. So what I'm left with is a bunch of information, and a decent amount of quotable information. I want to use it all -- anything I got out of a source with my super amazing interviewing skills should be in print...right?
I usually only need one or two quotes from an individual. That means I have to choose what does and what does not make it into the story. I'm very indecisive. I can spend a good twenty minutes weighing the pros and cons of using one quote over another. It makes for slow goings.
RSS FEEDS: Before reading the Poynter Institute's E-Tidbit on RSS feeds, I really wasn't sure what these things were. I love the concept. National and metropolitan newspapers and broadcast news programs deliver the day-to-day, local, national and world news. RSS feeds, however, don't have to collect information based on its timeliness or geographic relevance -- stories are packaged together according to content. Thus, individuals subscribing to RSS feeds aren't necessarily getting what journalists think they need to know, but what the individual actually wants to read up on.
My only beef with the article is that I still don't know what "RSS" stands for.
USING A TIMELINE TO TELL A STORY: The El Pais Al Qaeda timeline was really cool. It was a great expample of how online journalism allows a reporter to show the story rather than tell it. My only question is -- who developed that package? Did some web guy take a bunch of old newspaper reports on Al Qaeda attacks and piece them together in that timeline? Did an editor come up with the timeline idea, tell a web guy to make the animation and then tell a reporter to do research on Al Qaeda attacks? Did an online journalist do it all?
I'm definitely interested in online journalism, I just don't quite understand how it works.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sincerely, Mitt Romney
The NY Times reported today that Mitt Romney will send a letter to His Excellency Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General, tomorrow. The letter addresses Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's planned visit to the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.
"The only way he should be greeted in the United States is with an indictment under the Genocide Convention," says Romney's letter.
Romney and U.S. Ambassdor John Bolton accuse Ahmadinejad of "incitement of genocide," which is prohibited under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Ahmadinejad has openly called for the destruction of Israel.
Romney's letter not only adivses the U.N. on what action to take with Ahmadinejad, it seems to deliver an ultimatum:
"A failure by the United Nations to take a strong stand against Iran’s President Ahmadinejad would be especially disturbing given the United Nations’ record of failure to prevent genocide in other circumstances and the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Council to confront the Iranian regime and others among the world’s worst human rights abusers. Failure to act would mean that the United States must RECONSIDER ITS LEVEL OF SUPPORT AND FUNDING for the United Nations as we look to rebuild and revitalize effective international partnerships to meet 21st century threats."
Strong words...does Romney know that candidates don't have any real power?
In January, the Boston Globe reported that Romney called for "anti-apartheid-like sanctions" against Iran. He called for an indictment of President Ahmadinejad on genocide charges as well as an end to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Romny tried the intimidation tactic then, too. He made it clear that Ahmadinejad's desire for nuclear capabilities was a source of peril for the Iranian people -- "The military option remains on the table," said Romney.
On a semi-related (not really) Romney-Iran note:
In September 2006 Harvard University invited former President of Iran Mohammed Khatami to speak on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Harvard requested that a security escort take Khatami from the airport to the school, but then-governor Romney promised that no state resources would be used to protect Khatami. Romney then criticized the school harshly.
"There are people in this state who have suffered from terrorism, and taking even a dollar of their money to support a terrorist is unacceptable," he said. He went on to say that inviting "a terrorist" to the U.S. was "a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists."
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, which invited Khatami, issued the following statement: "We can understand and often share his disagreement with the positions of Khatami, the school nonetheless believes that active and open dialogue are a critical part of effective education and policy."
In the end, the Boston Police Department elected to step in. "We were asked by the State Department to assist in protecting a guest of the United States, and the Police Department plans to oblige," spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said.
"The only way he should be greeted in the United States is with an indictment under the Genocide Convention," says Romney's letter.
Romney and U.S. Ambassdor John Bolton accuse Ahmadinejad of "incitement of genocide," which is prohibited under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Ahmadinejad has openly called for the destruction of Israel.
Romney's letter not only adivses the U.N. on what action to take with Ahmadinejad, it seems to deliver an ultimatum:
"A failure by the United Nations to take a strong stand against Iran’s President Ahmadinejad would be especially disturbing given the United Nations’ record of failure to prevent genocide in other circumstances and the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Council to confront the Iranian regime and others among the world’s worst human rights abusers. Failure to act would mean that the United States must RECONSIDER ITS LEVEL OF SUPPORT AND FUNDING for the United Nations as we look to rebuild and revitalize effective international partnerships to meet 21st century threats."
Strong words...does Romney know that candidates don't have any real power?
In January, the Boston Globe reported that Romney called for "anti-apartheid-like sanctions" against Iran. He called for an indictment of President Ahmadinejad on genocide charges as well as an end to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Romny tried the intimidation tactic then, too. He made it clear that Ahmadinejad's desire for nuclear capabilities was a source of peril for the Iranian people -- "The military option remains on the table," said Romney.
On a semi-related (not really) Romney-Iran note:
In September 2006 Harvard University invited former President of Iran Mohammed Khatami to speak on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Harvard requested that a security escort take Khatami from the airport to the school, but then-governor Romney promised that no state resources would be used to protect Khatami. Romney then criticized the school harshly.
"There are people in this state who have suffered from terrorism, and taking even a dollar of their money to support a terrorist is unacceptable," he said. He went on to say that inviting "a terrorist" to the U.S. was "a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists."
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, which invited Khatami, issued the following statement: "We can understand and often share his disagreement with the positions of Khatami, the school nonetheless believes that active and open dialogue are a critical part of effective education and policy."
In the end, the Boston Police Department elected to step in. "We were asked by the State Department to assist in protecting a guest of the United States, and the Police Department plans to oblige," spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Fred Thompson
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, or New York District Attorney Arthur Branch for you "Law and Order" fans, announced his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election Wednesday night.
Thompson has been considering running for several months now, but never made any formal campaign announcement. For the time being, this might work to his advantage: the other Republican candidates have already discussed their platforms -- and faced criticism -- during several debates. Thompson has had the luxury of sitting back, observing the weaknesses of the other GOP candidates, and perfecting his campaign strategies.
A New York Times editorial describes the rationale behind Thompson's tactic: "Mr. Thompson’s approach was to avoid a formal announcement until well after his rivals were strutting and stumbling from the wings."
The article does go on to point out that the election is over a year away. The buzz around Thompson's campaign won't last forever.
But Thompson definitely has a fanbase, and it's not just made up of "Law and Order" diehards. In March, the Washington Post reported that Thompson was a favorite among Republican-leading voters, sitting behind McCain and Giuliani but ahead of Romney. Six months is an eternity in politics, but an interest in Thompson was once there. It could still be there.
Right now Thompson's main rivals are Giuliani and Romney; McCain doesn't seem to be as much of a threat anymore. Newsday reports that Thompson will have difficulty convincing Republicans that he is as strong as Giuliani when it comes to terrorism. The Thompson campaign has to convince conservatives "that Thompson is just as tough on terrorism, but with values and beliefs that conservatives say Giuliani lacks, on abortion, gun control and other issues."
Thompson seems less concerned with Romney, or is at least acting that way. The Thompson campaign has attacked Romney's conservative values as "evolving" when it comes to several issues.
So maybe Thompson will convince Republicans that he his political values are more conservative than Giuliani's or Romney's. But do voters, even Republican voters, want the "most conservative" candidate in 2008? I thought the era of partisan politic, far-right v. far-left, was at an end. Thompson should realize that being the "most Republican" might not make him the best candidate for the GOP.
More on Thompson:
Social conservatives see Thompson as a Reagan-like figure, but leading evangelicals aren't as excited.
Heated Giuliani-Thompson relations before Thompson announced his candidacy.
Thompson has been considering running for several months now, but never made any formal campaign announcement. For the time being, this might work to his advantage: the other Republican candidates have already discussed their platforms -- and faced criticism -- during several debates. Thompson has had the luxury of sitting back, observing the weaknesses of the other GOP candidates, and perfecting his campaign strategies.
A New York Times editorial describes the rationale behind Thompson's tactic: "Mr. Thompson’s approach was to avoid a formal announcement until well after his rivals were strutting and stumbling from the wings."
The article does go on to point out that the election is over a year away. The buzz around Thompson's campaign won't last forever.
But Thompson definitely has a fanbase, and it's not just made up of "Law and Order" diehards. In March, the Washington Post reported that Thompson was a favorite among Republican-leading voters, sitting behind McCain and Giuliani but ahead of Romney. Six months is an eternity in politics, but an interest in Thompson was once there. It could still be there.
Right now Thompson's main rivals are Giuliani and Romney; McCain doesn't seem to be as much of a threat anymore. Newsday reports that Thompson will have difficulty convincing Republicans that he is as strong as Giuliani when it comes to terrorism. The Thompson campaign has to convince conservatives "that Thompson is just as tough on terrorism, but with values and beliefs that conservatives say Giuliani lacks, on abortion, gun control and other issues."
Thompson seems less concerned with Romney, or is at least acting that way. The Thompson campaign has attacked Romney's conservative values as "evolving" when it comes to several issues.
So maybe Thompson will convince Republicans that he his political values are more conservative than Giuliani's or Romney's. But do voters, even Republican voters, want the "most conservative" candidate in 2008? I thought the era of partisan politic, far-right v. far-left, was at an end. Thompson should realize that being the "most Republican" might not make him the best candidate for the GOP.
More on Thompson:
Social conservatives see Thompson as a Reagan-like figure, but leading evangelicals aren't as excited.
Heated Giuliani-Thompson relations before Thompson announced his candidacy.
Journalism Basics
This weeks reading assignment was the first three chapters of the News Reporting and Writing textbook: The nuts and bolts of journalism.
Much of these chapters discussed concepts I have already faced in previous journalism classes. There was, however, one theme that was consistently repeated which I have not heard much of before. That is, that civic/public journalism has become an accepted style of reporting in the past decade, that complete objectivity might be an impossible goal, and that that might be OK.
Where previous textbooks have reinforced the idea that accuracy and objectivity make good news writing, the News Reporting and Writing book includes a more modern definition for journalism: Journalism should exist "to provide people with the information needed to be self-governing." Good journalists monitor power. They uncover injustice. This is what the news consumer wants and expects from journalists: A certain element of social-activism in reporting. I'm sure many college students, IC students especially, will adopt this description of what a journalist should be.
The textbook also pointed out that the power to choose what news individuals will and will not consume is increasingly becoming a personal choice. The gatekeeping function of journalists seems to be at an end. More and more individuals are getting their news from online, where anyone can post information or personal views. Indeed, the definition of "news" is expanding to include the work of bloggers and other online "journalists," even those with an obvious bias, no expertise on the subject or lack of formal journalistic training. Traditional media no longer have total control over what is out there.
My only grudge with this week's assignment was that we had to read Chapter Three, Interviewing. I think it's obvious that if you're interviewing someone, the interview will run more smoothly and will yield more quotable responses if you are friendly and empathetic. And I don't think I'd ever go into an interview without researching my subject or preparing questions.
The chapter wasn't a total waste. It did point out that it's sometimes good to ask sources if they'd like to see you work before publication, especially when writing an investigative piece (so the source can see the value of their help). I also didn't mind being retold to observe my surroundings during an interview; I tend to only focus on the verbal aspect of an interview. Still, I think we could have quickly discussed these items in the next class.
Much of these chapters discussed concepts I have already faced in previous journalism classes. There was, however, one theme that was consistently repeated which I have not heard much of before. That is, that civic/public journalism has become an accepted style of reporting in the past decade, that complete objectivity might be an impossible goal, and that that might be OK.
Where previous textbooks have reinforced the idea that accuracy and objectivity make good news writing, the News Reporting and Writing book includes a more modern definition for journalism: Journalism should exist "to provide people with the information needed to be self-governing." Good journalists monitor power. They uncover injustice. This is what the news consumer wants and expects from journalists: A certain element of social-activism in reporting. I'm sure many college students, IC students especially, will adopt this description of what a journalist should be.
The textbook also pointed out that the power to choose what news individuals will and will not consume is increasingly becoming a personal choice. The gatekeeping function of journalists seems to be at an end. More and more individuals are getting their news from online, where anyone can post information or personal views. Indeed, the definition of "news" is expanding to include the work of bloggers and other online "journalists," even those with an obvious bias, no expertise on the subject or lack of formal journalistic training. Traditional media no longer have total control over what is out there.
My only grudge with this week's assignment was that we had to read Chapter Three, Interviewing. I think it's obvious that if you're interviewing someone, the interview will run more smoothly and will yield more quotable responses if you are friendly and empathetic. And I don't think I'd ever go into an interview without researching my subject or preparing questions.
The chapter wasn't a total waste. It did point out that it's sometimes good to ask sources if they'd like to see you work before publication, especially when writing an investigative piece (so the source can see the value of their help). I also didn't mind being retold to observe my surroundings during an interview; I tend to only focus on the verbal aspect of an interview. Still, I think we could have quickly discussed these items in the next class.
Inverted Pyramid & Writing Well
I just found out we are supposed to write about ALL of the reading assignments, not just what we found most interesting. So here is a quick look back at what was assigned from the News Reporting and Writing textbook last week.
I expected the chapter on the inverted pyramid writing style to be old news, and I was not looking forward to reading it. To my surprise, however, I did learn some things that I hadn't really thought about before.
Apparently it's ok to give a summary of your story in the lead, whenever the "whole of the action is more important than any of its parts." I hope that I get to write a lot of stories this year where summary leads would be appropriate, because I often have trouble deciding what my story focus should be, what the most interesting or relevant aspect of the news is for the reader.
The inverted pyramid chapter also pointed out something that should be obvious, but I think it's something that is sometimes forgotten when writing hard news. A reporter should always tell the reader what the story means to them, why the story has impact. If a reader leaves a story asking "so what?," than the piece has obviously not hit home. Readers want to know what the news means to them, and it's a reporters job to show them.
The next chapter focused on the necessity of news writing to be clear, simple and interesting. I think this is obvious enough. The text did make two points, however, that will stick with me:
Journalists should not write implicitly. Say what you are thinking.
"The football player scored and the crowd was happy." This sentence shows two things happening, but does not say, explicitly, the relationship between the two things.
Last week's reading assignment taught me that "Because the football player scored, the crowd was happy," is a more appropriate way of reporting those events.
Journalists should relate obscure numbers to something known.
Express large numbers in terms of smaller units (don't talk about state tax revenues, talk about dollar amount per taxpayer).
Also: "An area the size of three football fields," is more appropriate than "18,000 square feet of land."
I expected the chapter on the inverted pyramid writing style to be old news, and I was not looking forward to reading it. To my surprise, however, I did learn some things that I hadn't really thought about before.
Apparently it's ok to give a summary of your story in the lead, whenever the "whole of the action is more important than any of its parts." I hope that I get to write a lot of stories this year where summary leads would be appropriate, because I often have trouble deciding what my story focus should be, what the most interesting or relevant aspect of the news is for the reader.
The inverted pyramid chapter also pointed out something that should be obvious, but I think it's something that is sometimes forgotten when writing hard news. A reporter should always tell the reader what the story means to them, why the story has impact. If a reader leaves a story asking "so what?," than the piece has obviously not hit home. Readers want to know what the news means to them, and it's a reporters job to show them.
The next chapter focused on the necessity of news writing to be clear, simple and interesting. I think this is obvious enough. The text did make two points, however, that will stick with me:
Journalists should not write implicitly. Say what you are thinking.
"The football player scored and the crowd was happy." This sentence shows two things happening, but does not say, explicitly, the relationship between the two things.
Last week's reading assignment taught me that "Because the football player scored, the crowd was happy," is a more appropriate way of reporting those events.
Journalists should relate obscure numbers to something known.
Express large numbers in terms of smaller units (don't talk about state tax revenues, talk about dollar amount per taxpayer).
Also: "An area the size of three football fields," is more appropriate than "18,000 square feet of land."
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The State of the News Media
For the past four years, the Project for Excellence in Journalism has published an annual report on American journalism. This year's report, as I'm sure previous reports have done, outlines some unfortunate but unsurprising trends in the news industry.
My journalism professors often toss around phrases like "localism," "digital journalism," and "citizen journalism," and this report does also. Before reading this report, I had a grasp on how the Internet was reshaping the journalsim industry and how the news media was attempting to adapt to the digital age. What I found most interesting about this report was that it actually dilineated to just what extent the changing face of journalism was affecting profits.
Newspaper revenues were flat in 2006; the number of ad pages in magazines in 2006 was flat; radio revenues were flat. The ad revenue for the ethnic press, particularly Hispanic, grew 4.6% in 2005, the latest data available, but that growth is expected to plateau soon.
Only the television industry seems to be surviving. Advertising revenues for local TV news increased 10% in 2006. Cable is also doing well. Fox's profits are projected to grow by a third, overtaking CNN (which isn't doing bad, either -- profits are expected to increase 13%). The report pointed out that television is able to increase revenues by adding more news programming during the day, whereas newspapers and magazines only have so much space to print news stories, and radio news has to contend with other types of programming. Fox News and CNN, on the other hand, are 24-hour news channels. Still, there are only 24 hours in a day, and they will not be able to add new programming forever. Eventually, the television industry will also have to develop a new economic model.
Another interesting sub-topic in the report concerned the function of blogs in 2007, and how the role of blogs and bloggers is expected to change in the future. Blogging doesn't represent citizen media as strongly as it once did. Politicians, corporations, and other organisations focused on generating positive public opinion are beginning to employ blogs to spread their message, sometimes covertly. Blogs are an open acess medium -- it is what gave blogs their initial appeal, but it is also what leaves them open to manipulation.
Blogs are also expected to change in the future just because of their immense appeal as a news provider. Well-known bloggers who have gained a large following are more prone to become a profit-driven business. To protect their status as a credible news source, many of these bloggers are forming codes of ethics and standards of conduct. Blogs are becoming professionalized, ironic considering many people enjoy blogs for their informal and unchecked style.
My journalism professors often toss around phrases like "localism," "digital journalism," and "citizen journalism," and this report does also. Before reading this report, I had a grasp on how the Internet was reshaping the journalsim industry and how the news media was attempting to adapt to the digital age. What I found most interesting about this report was that it actually dilineated to just what extent the changing face of journalism was affecting profits.
Newspaper revenues were flat in 2006; the number of ad pages in magazines in 2006 was flat; radio revenues were flat. The ad revenue for the ethnic press, particularly Hispanic, grew 4.6% in 2005, the latest data available, but that growth is expected to plateau soon.
Only the television industry seems to be surviving. Advertising revenues for local TV news increased 10% in 2006. Cable is also doing well. Fox's profits are projected to grow by a third, overtaking CNN (which isn't doing bad, either -- profits are expected to increase 13%). The report pointed out that television is able to increase revenues by adding more news programming during the day, whereas newspapers and magazines only have so much space to print news stories, and radio news has to contend with other types of programming. Fox News and CNN, on the other hand, are 24-hour news channels. Still, there are only 24 hours in a day, and they will not be able to add new programming forever. Eventually, the television industry will also have to develop a new economic model.
Another interesting sub-topic in the report concerned the function of blogs in 2007, and how the role of blogs and bloggers is expected to change in the future. Blogging doesn't represent citizen media as strongly as it once did. Politicians, corporations, and other organisations focused on generating positive public opinion are beginning to employ blogs to spread their message, sometimes covertly. Blogs are an open acess medium -- it is what gave blogs their initial appeal, but it is also what leaves them open to manipulation.
Blogs are also expected to change in the future just because of their immense appeal as a news provider. Well-known bloggers who have gained a large following are more prone to become a profit-driven business. To protect their status as a credible news source, many of these bloggers are forming codes of ethics and standards of conduct. Blogs are becoming professionalized, ironic considering many people enjoy blogs for their informal and unchecked style.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Norman Hsu
Norman Hsu, a top fundraiser for the Democrats, turned himself in to authorities on a 16-year-old grand theft charge on Friday. Hsu has contributed to the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, comedian Al Franken, and several state senators and representatives. CNN.com reports that nearly all recepients of Hsu's donations are "purging" their campaigns of Hsu-money; most are donating it to charity.
Right-wing bloggers have focused the majority of their Hsu-related attacks on Hillary Clinton, who seems to have received a particularly large sum of Hsu-money. The NY Times reports that her campaign has announced it will give at least $23,000 of the money to charity. Hillary's husband, former president Bill Clinton, had his own fund-raising scandals during the 1996 re-election. Oddly enough, those scandals were also centered around Asian moneymen.
Presidential candidates were not the only recepients of Hsu-money. The Associated Press reports that Gov. Jon S. Corzine and U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey plan to return and donate the money given to them by Hsu. The New Jersey Democratic Party, which received $49,000 from Hsu since 2005, will do the same.
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania is keeping nearly $40,000 he received from Hsu in 2005 and 2006. Gov. Rendell is the only Democrat the AP has reported to have kept Hsu's money. Rendell, like all Democrats who received Hsu funds, claims he did not know Hsu was a fugitive for the past 16 years.
If these politicians truly did not know that Hsu was a wanted man, I see nothing wrong with keeping his donations. It is nice that the money is being donated to charity, but presidential candidates and other Democratic politicians shouldn't have to worry about neutralizing a situation whose only reprecussions would be harsh words from a right-wing blogger. The money could be put toward other, equally important ends -- like funding the campaign of a Democratic candidate.
More on Norman Hsu:
Talk Left, a liberal online crime-related magazine, finds Hsu's donations "all legit and above board."
Clinton returns money linked to Hsu, but not given by him directly.
Right-wing bloggers have focused the majority of their Hsu-related attacks on Hillary Clinton, who seems to have received a particularly large sum of Hsu-money. The NY Times reports that her campaign has announced it will give at least $23,000 of the money to charity. Hillary's husband, former president Bill Clinton, had his own fund-raising scandals during the 1996 re-election. Oddly enough, those scandals were also centered around Asian moneymen.
Presidential candidates were not the only recepients of Hsu-money. The Associated Press reports that Gov. Jon S. Corzine and U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey plan to return and donate the money given to them by Hsu. The New Jersey Democratic Party, which received $49,000 from Hsu since 2005, will do the same.
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania is keeping nearly $40,000 he received from Hsu in 2005 and 2006. Gov. Rendell is the only Democrat the AP has reported to have kept Hsu's money. Rendell, like all Democrats who received Hsu funds, claims he did not know Hsu was a fugitive for the past 16 years.
If these politicians truly did not know that Hsu was a wanted man, I see nothing wrong with keeping his donations. It is nice that the money is being donated to charity, but presidential candidates and other Democratic politicians shouldn't have to worry about neutralizing a situation whose only reprecussions would be harsh words from a right-wing blogger. The money could be put toward other, equally important ends -- like funding the campaign of a Democratic candidate.
More on Norman Hsu:
Talk Left, a liberal online crime-related magazine, finds Hsu's donations "all legit and above board."
Clinton returns money linked to Hsu, but not given by him directly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)