To be honest, this isn't new news.
But it makes me like Republicans...and Donald Trump, kind of.
But here is some new news:
I like Kucinich even more. That's not the new news, this is: KUCINICH SEES UFO!! In Tuesday night's debate, presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich informed the voting public that he saw a UFO at actress Shirley MacLaine’s house in Washington state. Kucinich said that he “felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind.” Trying to explain what happened, he told moderator Tim Russert, “It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's, like, it's unidentified. I saw something.”
Here's the video.
What I found even funnier -- yes, funnier than the UFO claim -- was the way Kucinich tried to defend himself: "Also, you have to keep in mind that more -- that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO -- and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than, I think, approve of George Bush's presidency," said Kucinich. Nice effort, but I don't think Kucinich was on the debate team or improv comedy club in college.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
8 & 9
"Bonds and bail can take many forms. Some bonds require that 100 percent of the face amount be posted, others require only 10 percent and still others may require only that a defendant give a signature to a promise to appear in court. These latter bonds are known as 'signature bonds.'" Signature bonds certainly aren't mentioned in Law & Order (where I've learned most -- read: all -- of my legalese). I didn't even know they existed until I read this. I'd like to think that they were used back in the good old days -- when men had honor, when a signature was as good as chash...but they're probably still used today, and just aren't cool enough to mention in tv scripts.
I thought it was interesting that the author said that sometimes the defendant is better off pleading guilty, because prosecutors will be more willing to make deals and judges more willing to decrease the severity of sentences. Prosecutors and judges often reward defendants for helping them wrap up the case as expediently as possible. The author made it seem like guilty defendants are punished extra harshly if they avoid the plea bargain option.
The chapter reaffirmed what I learned back in high school government classes: That the defense is given every possible advantage in the court system. The prosecution has to identify what evidence it will use against the defendant before it is actually presented in court; the defense gets to hold its cards closer to the chest. Yay, democracy!
I thought it was interesting that "gag order" is not a term used by judges and lawyers, but a phrase coined by the media. It makes sense -- "gag order" implies that the motion to seal certain documents or limit public exposure to court proceedings is an injustice; of course the media would want to portray these limitations as such. Judges and lawyers call gag orders "protective orders."
I thought it was very interesting that the author mentioned that, in the last 15 years, DNA testing has resulted in new evidence being found post-trial that proved a convicted defendant not guilty. Individuals have gone free after spending time in prison because of such testing. Yay, science!
I thought it was interesting that the author said that sometimes the defendant is better off pleading guilty, because prosecutors will be more willing to make deals and judges more willing to decrease the severity of sentences. Prosecutors and judges often reward defendants for helping them wrap up the case as expediently as possible. The author made it seem like guilty defendants are punished extra harshly if they avoid the plea bargain option.
The chapter reaffirmed what I learned back in high school government classes: That the defense is given every possible advantage in the court system. The prosecution has to identify what evidence it will use against the defendant before it is actually presented in court; the defense gets to hold its cards closer to the chest. Yay, democracy!
I thought it was interesting that "gag order" is not a term used by judges and lawyers, but a phrase coined by the media. It makes sense -- "gag order" implies that the motion to seal certain documents or limit public exposure to court proceedings is an injustice; of course the media would want to portray these limitations as such. Judges and lawyers call gag orders "protective orders."
I thought it was very interesting that the author mentioned that, in the last 15 years, DNA testing has resulted in new evidence being found post-trial that proved a convicted defendant not guilty. Individuals have gone free after spending time in prison because of such testing. Yay, science!
Beat Reporters and Their Sources
What makes beat reporting different is that when you regularly report on the same institution or social topic, you develop relationships with key sources, relationships that are fundamental to your ability to do your job. The type of relationships formed between beat reporters and their sources is what makes beat reporting unique.
After landing a beat, it is necessary to talk with your predecesor about their past relationships with crucial sources, as well as to introduce yourself to the sources themselves. You need to flatter sources -- especially when you know that you will need their help story after story. The textbook recommends showing interest in their work and showing that you value any information they can give you.
Getting to know your sources also makes it more likely that you'll be able to get exclusive interviews with them when they are involved in a story that extends beyond your beat. When this happens, your familiarity with a source will be invaluable to an editor, and might result in a promotion.
The textbook warns that after extended close contact with some sources, you may find yourself developing sympathies for their cause/opinions. You may use your beat to get their views out to the public, whether consciously or not. Sources could even intentionally try to take advantage of the personal relationships beat reporters often develop with key sources. The textbook's recommendation is to "be wary" -- good advice for any journalist, but beat reporters especially.
I thought the textbook's "police beat" section was particularly interesting...and funny. Police departments are portrayed here as speicial clubs, where reporters should strive to "fit in" and "learn police lore." Journalists should also encourage police gossip -- some of the most interesting gossip around -- and to then, of course, look for the truth behind it.
What I found most interesting was that the book also recommended reporters "lend a sympathetic ear" to police officers -- interesting advice, considering the textbook warns against developing sympathies for your sources earlier in the chapter. I do think it's true though: Journalists should show sympathy to police officers, to all individuals who place themselves in harms way to serve the public. I have two reasons:
1) As the book says, you have to give a little to get a little. Police officers have a tough job, no argument. If you recognize this, and show you recognize this, they'll probably be more likely to talk to you...everyone likes to be appreciated.
and 2) There's nothing wrong with developing sympathies for any source, even if they're not a police officer or another individual with a notably dangerous or admirable job. Yes, you should be wary of your sympathies, but as long as you don't report in a way that reflects personal bias, no harm done. Journalists should remain fair and objective in their reporting, but aren't expected to show no emotion and refrain from developing personal relationships within the community they're reporting on.
After landing a beat, it is necessary to talk with your predecesor about their past relationships with crucial sources, as well as to introduce yourself to the sources themselves. You need to flatter sources -- especially when you know that you will need their help story after story. The textbook recommends showing interest in their work and showing that you value any information they can give you.
Getting to know your sources also makes it more likely that you'll be able to get exclusive interviews with them when they are involved in a story that extends beyond your beat. When this happens, your familiarity with a source will be invaluable to an editor, and might result in a promotion.
The textbook warns that after extended close contact with some sources, you may find yourself developing sympathies for their cause/opinions. You may use your beat to get their views out to the public, whether consciously or not. Sources could even intentionally try to take advantage of the personal relationships beat reporters often develop with key sources. The textbook's recommendation is to "be wary" -- good advice for any journalist, but beat reporters especially.
I thought the textbook's "police beat" section was particularly interesting...and funny. Police departments are portrayed here as speicial clubs, where reporters should strive to "fit in" and "learn police lore." Journalists should also encourage police gossip -- some of the most interesting gossip around -- and to then, of course, look for the truth behind it.
What I found most interesting was that the book also recommended reporters "lend a sympathetic ear" to police officers -- interesting advice, considering the textbook warns against developing sympathies for your sources earlier in the chapter. I do think it's true though: Journalists should show sympathy to police officers, to all individuals who place themselves in harms way to serve the public. I have two reasons:
1) As the book says, you have to give a little to get a little. Police officers have a tough job, no argument. If you recognize this, and show you recognize this, they'll probably be more likely to talk to you...everyone likes to be appreciated.
and 2) There's nothing wrong with developing sympathies for any source, even if they're not a police officer or another individual with a notably dangerous or admirable job. Yes, you should be wary of your sympathies, but as long as you don't report in a way that reflects personal bias, no harm done. Journalists should remain fair and objective in their reporting, but aren't expected to show no emotion and refrain from developing personal relationships within the community they're reporting on.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
1,5, & 7
CRIME & JUSTICE:
I thought it was interesting that the chapter notes that "Most reporters have no criminal justice background when assigned to cover crime. Whether a reporter plans a year or a lifetime on the beat, news organizations should help the journalist get off on the right foot by allowing adequate time and resources for training." While I do think that some training is necessary -- just so the reporter knows what the police officers and lawyers are talking about -- I think there's some benefit to going into a story a bit confused...because most of a reporter's audience will be just as oblivious to what goes on in the legal world. Not knowing too much about your subject ensures that you can report about it in terms that the general public will understand.
"Cops are leery of journalists, and many journalists are cynical about cops. Perhaps this is healthy."
This cop-reporter comment is interesting, and I think it points to the fact that reporters should ALWAYS check information that is given to them by ANY source, even a source that has been reliable in the past. The fact that the author -- who worked a crime beat in NYC -- mentions doing this when dealing with cops, in particular, is kind of funny.
A tip for developing a good relationship with your editor: Don't whine.
Thanks for that.
I liked that the author says it's okay to ask your editor for a two-week training period before starting a crime beat. I would want to shadow police officers, meet sources that my predecessor had good relations with, and do some of the other things the author suggests you do to get to know a beat before I'd start writing. Before reading this chapter, though, I might've been too afraid to ask.
Avoid making a stand-alone crime appear as if it were part of a general trend; don't downplay a trend by making it appear to be a stand-alone crime: I think this was advice will stick with me, because it's something I've never really thought about before. But it's true: Reporters need to frame their stories appropriately. Every individual story that can be used to tell a larger story should do so.
CRIME AND ITS VICTIMS
"It's not uncommon for some individuals to pass out or be unable to stand...If you see someone who is in that state, it's best to leave them alone." Made me laugh out loud.
This chapter used the term "wolfpack journalism." It was the first time I'd heard this term used. They used it in reference to an aggressive, get-the-facts approach to interviewing. But "wolfpack" also made me envision a group of journalists at a press conference, questioning the lawyer/police chief in a team effort to get the information they all need to write what will probably be very similar stories. I like the term "wolfpack journalism." It implies that journalists are primarily concerned with doing whatever it takes to get the information that readers need to know in print, even if it means sharing that information with reporters from other news agencies. "Wolfpack journalists" are aggressive for the sake of their readers, not for the sole purpose of beating out the competition.
"Focus on active listening. Constant interruptions or questions can often get the storyteller off track. You want to become a visual dictionary for your readers, describing and sharing significant details."
I think this is good advice for any interviewing situation, except in investigative journalism. I think it's important to make the interviewee feel you find the information he or she is sharing to be valuable. Reporters should ask quesitons that illicit good responses, not tell the interviewee what it is they're trying to say, what the reporter wants to hear. In investigative journalism, this is different: Sometimes reporters know more information than they let on, or have heard a side of the story that the interviewee has not -- then they can be more accusatory and try to get the truth, what the reporter has determined to be true, out of the interviewee.
COVERING THE COURTS
"More than anything else, the law shapes and holds our society together." This comment really struck me. Laws do hold our society together, I won't argue that, but I will say that most crime and court beat reporters focus on how the law tears society apart. Divorce, custody battles, discrimination in the workplace -- when reporters talk about these issues they usually talk about the shortcomings of the legal system and how the law sometimes has a difficult time "holding society together." Few court and crime stories focus on the law's ability to successfully maint peace and order in society.
"The law controls how these things affect our lives. It is crucial that reporters not only translate the often arcane into language that all can understand, but that they connect the rulings and decisions in individual cases to the everyday lives of our citizens." This bit further highlights the point I made in response to chapter 1 about going into a beat without expert knowledge.
The author stresses studying up on appropriate legal background information relevant to the case. He recommends doing this by getting in touch with men and women in the field willing to talk to you and put legalese into everyday terms. My only concern is finding these "touchstone sources." Will I inherit them from my predecessor? Will my editor recommend some names to me? Will I be on my own, and if so, what steps should I take to find these men and women? I wish the author had touched on this a little more.
I thought it was interesting that the chapter notes that "Most reporters have no criminal justice background when assigned to cover crime. Whether a reporter plans a year or a lifetime on the beat, news organizations should help the journalist get off on the right foot by allowing adequate time and resources for training." While I do think that some training is necessary -- just so the reporter knows what the police officers and lawyers are talking about -- I think there's some benefit to going into a story a bit confused...because most of a reporter's audience will be just as oblivious to what goes on in the legal world. Not knowing too much about your subject ensures that you can report about it in terms that the general public will understand.
"Cops are leery of journalists, and many journalists are cynical about cops. Perhaps this is healthy."
This cop-reporter comment is interesting, and I think it points to the fact that reporters should ALWAYS check information that is given to them by ANY source, even a source that has been reliable in the past. The fact that the author -- who worked a crime beat in NYC -- mentions doing this when dealing with cops, in particular, is kind of funny.
A tip for developing a good relationship with your editor: Don't whine.
Thanks for that.
I liked that the author says it's okay to ask your editor for a two-week training period before starting a crime beat. I would want to shadow police officers, meet sources that my predecessor had good relations with, and do some of the other things the author suggests you do to get to know a beat before I'd start writing. Before reading this chapter, though, I might've been too afraid to ask.
Avoid making a stand-alone crime appear as if it were part of a general trend; don't downplay a trend by making it appear to be a stand-alone crime: I think this was advice will stick with me, because it's something I've never really thought about before. But it's true: Reporters need to frame their stories appropriately. Every individual story that can be used to tell a larger story should do so.
CRIME AND ITS VICTIMS
"It's not uncommon for some individuals to pass out or be unable to stand...If you see someone who is in that state, it's best to leave them alone." Made me laugh out loud.
This chapter used the term "wolfpack journalism." It was the first time I'd heard this term used. They used it in reference to an aggressive, get-the-facts approach to interviewing. But "wolfpack" also made me envision a group of journalists at a press conference, questioning the lawyer/police chief in a team effort to get the information they all need to write what will probably be very similar stories. I like the term "wolfpack journalism." It implies that journalists are primarily concerned with doing whatever it takes to get the information that readers need to know in print, even if it means sharing that information with reporters from other news agencies. "Wolfpack journalists" are aggressive for the sake of their readers, not for the sole purpose of beating out the competition.
"Focus on active listening. Constant interruptions or questions can often get the storyteller off track. You want to become a visual dictionary for your readers, describing and sharing significant details."
I think this is good advice for any interviewing situation, except in investigative journalism. I think it's important to make the interviewee feel you find the information he or she is sharing to be valuable. Reporters should ask quesitons that illicit good responses, not tell the interviewee what it is they're trying to say, what the reporter wants to hear. In investigative journalism, this is different: Sometimes reporters know more information than they let on, or have heard a side of the story that the interviewee has not -- then they can be more accusatory and try to get the truth, what the reporter has determined to be true, out of the interviewee.
COVERING THE COURTS
"More than anything else, the law shapes and holds our society together." This comment really struck me. Laws do hold our society together, I won't argue that, but I will say that most crime and court beat reporters focus on how the law tears society apart. Divorce, custody battles, discrimination in the workplace -- when reporters talk about these issues they usually talk about the shortcomings of the legal system and how the law sometimes has a difficult time "holding society together." Few court and crime stories focus on the law's ability to successfully maint peace and order in society.
"The law controls how these things affect our lives. It is crucial that reporters not only translate the often arcane into language that all can understand, but that they connect the rulings and decisions in individual cases to the everyday lives of our citizens." This bit further highlights the point I made in response to chapter 1 about going into a beat without expert knowledge.
The author stresses studying up on appropriate legal background information relevant to the case. He recommends doing this by getting in touch with men and women in the field willing to talk to you and put legalese into everyday terms. My only concern is finding these "touchstone sources." Will I inherit them from my predecessor? Will my editor recommend some names to me? Will I be on my own, and if so, what steps should I take to find these men and women? I wish the author had touched on this a little more.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
NY Times' Campaign Map
Okay, so, once again I have to say that although I've been keeping tabs on the 2008 election stories, there hasn't really been one big story that's caught my eye that I've read three or more articles on. And I'd hate to be trite and praise the NY Times (again, yeah, I'm sure you know...they're good), but...I'm going to anyway.
Check out the "Candidates on the Trail" interactive graphic on NY Times' online politics page. It's in the multimedia sidebar.
Like the Al-Qaeda attacks timeline that we discussed in class, the candidate campaign-stop map is a wonderful example of multimedia being used to tell a story in online journalism.
The graphic is a map of the United States with purple circles indicating where a presidential candidate has visited since 8/1/2007 (or any month you choose). The more visits a city has received, the bigger its circle. When you drag your mouse over a circle, a list pops up naming the candidates who have been to the city and the number of times they have visited.
It seems like an easy enough graphic to make, and I'm sure it is. But there's two things about the campaign visit map that I especially like: 1) it's incredibly easy to use, and 2) the rather simple visual tells an interesting story. The map shows which states the candidates are fighting over, and which ones they have deemed less important -- I assume because they are "very Red" or "very Blue" states, whose citizens have made up their mind on who they're going to vote for.
For example, the number of visits to:
Nebraska: 1 (Obama)
Kansas: 0
The Dakotas: 0
Actually, there hasn't been too many visits west of the Mississippi at all, except in California
The purple-ness of these states on the map tells a different story:
IOWA: Too many purples to count, unless you zoom in on the map three or four times
NEW HAMPSHIRE: The same as Iowa
SOUTH CAROLINA: Close behind the above two
You should really check out the map. It's kind of funny. Some states are covered in purple chicken pox. Some are completely bare.
The site also includes a list of upcoming presidential visits.
This map makes it easy to see which states are going to be the most prized next November, which states candidates are spending the most money on campaigning in. Take a look, especially if you're not too wise on the notion of swing-states.
Check out the "Candidates on the Trail" interactive graphic on NY Times' online politics page. It's in the multimedia sidebar.
Like the Al-Qaeda attacks timeline that we discussed in class, the candidate campaign-stop map is a wonderful example of multimedia being used to tell a story in online journalism.
The graphic is a map of the United States with purple circles indicating where a presidential candidate has visited since 8/1/2007 (or any month you choose). The more visits a city has received, the bigger its circle. When you drag your mouse over a circle, a list pops up naming the candidates who have been to the city and the number of times they have visited.
It seems like an easy enough graphic to make, and I'm sure it is. But there's two things about the campaign visit map that I especially like: 1) it's incredibly easy to use, and 2) the rather simple visual tells an interesting story. The map shows which states the candidates are fighting over, and which ones they have deemed less important -- I assume because they are "very Red" or "very Blue" states, whose citizens have made up their mind on who they're going to vote for.
For example, the number of visits to:
Nebraska: 1 (Obama)
Kansas: 0
The Dakotas: 0
Actually, there hasn't been too many visits west of the Mississippi at all, except in California
The purple-ness of these states on the map tells a different story:
IOWA: Too many purples to count, unless you zoom in on the map three or four times
NEW HAMPSHIRE: The same as Iowa
SOUTH CAROLINA: Close behind the above two
You should really check out the map. It's kind of funny. Some states are covered in purple chicken pox. Some are completely bare.
The site also includes a list of upcoming presidential visits.
This map makes it easy to see which states are going to be the most prized next November, which states candidates are spending the most money on campaigning in. Take a look, especially if you're not too wise on the notion of swing-states.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Crime, Accident & Court Stories
This chapter was the first time the textbook covered spot-news stories. When a reporter arrives at the scene of a crime, accident or fire, all initial reporting must be done at the scene -- there is no time to gain background information or pre-arrange interviews.
In both cases, the book strongly recommends talking to witnesses, because they often give the best accounts of what happened. It also recommends interviewing victims' families and friends, but to be sensitive. I wish the book had gone into further detail about what questions should and should not be asked. I'm afraid that I'll ask too few questions for fear of being insensitive, because I know that I'll be uncomfortable and will feel like I'm overstepping my boundaries.
The only other part of this reading that really stuck with me is that, when it comes to journalism ethics, most things are decided on a case-by-case basis. Every editor is different and is willing to publish different things. I'm glad I don't have to memorize a bunch of ethical rules and standards while I'm in school...I can just wait to see what my editor says.
In both cases, the book strongly recommends talking to witnesses, because they often give the best accounts of what happened. It also recommends interviewing victims' families and friends, but to be sensitive. I wish the book had gone into further detail about what questions should and should not be asked. I'm afraid that I'll ask too few questions for fear of being insensitive, because I know that I'll be uncomfortable and will feel like I'm overstepping my boundaries.
The only other part of this reading that really stuck with me is that, when it comes to journalism ethics, most things are decided on a case-by-case basis. Every editor is different and is willing to publish different things. I'm glad I don't have to memorize a bunch of ethical rules and standards while I'm in school...I can just wait to see what my editor says.
Academic Writing & George Orwell
In the reading, academic writing was described as the antithesis of direct, lean writing. Academic writing is "static" and lacks action, and is written in highly abstract sentences.
"Lean writing," as it was described, seems a lot like story-telling. The author is telling a story about who did what, and when, why, and how. Academic writing is more like theorizing -- it's less likely to talk about specific people or describe specific situations with concrete words and vivid imagery. It's harder for a reader to get a picture in their head about what's beind discussed as they read academic prose.
This ties in with Orwell's discussion of precision in writing. Orwell recommends using simple, everyday words to avoid the mixture of vagueness and incompetence he sees in most modern writing. He believes writers use ready-made phrases, which are spread and sustained through tradition and immitation, when they don't have the skill to accurately convey PRECISELY the images or ideas they have in their own minds.
As a journalism student, I recognize the importance of clarity and concision in writing, but I never really thought about saying things "freshly." Orwell condemns the use of dying metaphors and simple adjectives that replace specifics. Writers should write EXACTLY what it is they want to say. If they describe something with an overused metaphor, it shows that they're not quite sure what it is they're trying to spit out...they just use a metaphor that is often applied to many different situations.
Another point that I will take from the Orwell text concerns adjectives -- that they shouldn't be used ini place of more appropriate specifics. "A beautiful sunset" is not as precise and concrete as "a sunset of reds and violets."
"Lean writing," as it was described, seems a lot like story-telling. The author is telling a story about who did what, and when, why, and how. Academic writing is more like theorizing -- it's less likely to talk about specific people or describe specific situations with concrete words and vivid imagery. It's harder for a reader to get a picture in their head about what's beind discussed as they read academic prose.
This ties in with Orwell's discussion of precision in writing. Orwell recommends using simple, everyday words to avoid the mixture of vagueness and incompetence he sees in most modern writing. He believes writers use ready-made phrases, which are spread and sustained through tradition and immitation, when they don't have the skill to accurately convey PRECISELY the images or ideas they have in their own minds.
As a journalism student, I recognize the importance of clarity and concision in writing, but I never really thought about saying things "freshly." Orwell condemns the use of dying metaphors and simple adjectives that replace specifics. Writers should write EXACTLY what it is they want to say. If they describe something with an overused metaphor, it shows that they're not quite sure what it is they're trying to spit out...they just use a metaphor that is often applied to many different situations.
Another point that I will take from the Orwell text concerns adjectives -- that they shouldn't be used ini place of more appropriate specifics. "A beautiful sunset" is not as precise and concrete as "a sunset of reds and violets."
Media Law
I was not looking forward to reading this chapter. Media law: it just sounds boring. And while, yes, it wasn't the most interesting chapter, there were a few interesting little nuggets.
It's interesting that one defense a journalist can uses in a libel case is "privilege." Not a journalist's privilege to say whatever he or she likes, but the privilege to report on the remarks of public officials -- remarks that may be false or defamatory. Public officials have absolute privilege to speak freely about government and government proceedings, and journalists are free to report on what they say.
This implies that public officials have a firm understanding of social issues and citizen concerns in regard to their government. I find this funny since so many public officials prove incompetent and unable to understand and accurately describe the inner-workings of government. Reporters can put quotation marks around something absolutely absurd that a public official said and use "Hey, but he said it, not me" as their defense. I like this. I think it's important to report on the false and defamatory claims and opinions of public officials to reveal their political ineptitude...but I never really considered that their right to say what they wish could be used to protect reporters' rights.
This chapter also discussed shield laws, but only briefly. I know that there has been much discussion about shield laws in the media lately, and this is a topic that I'd like to discuss further in class.
It's interesting that one defense a journalist can uses in a libel case is "privilege." Not a journalist's privilege to say whatever he or she likes, but the privilege to report on the remarks of public officials -- remarks that may be false or defamatory. Public officials have absolute privilege to speak freely about government and government proceedings, and journalists are free to report on what they say.
This implies that public officials have a firm understanding of social issues and citizen concerns in regard to their government. I find this funny since so many public officials prove incompetent and unable to understand and accurately describe the inner-workings of government. Reporters can put quotation marks around something absolutely absurd that a public official said and use "Hey, but he said it, not me" as their defense. I like this. I think it's important to report on the false and defamatory claims and opinions of public officials to reveal their political ineptitude...but I never really considered that their right to say what they wish could be used to protect reporters' rights.
This chapter also discussed shield laws, but only briefly. I know that there has been much discussion about shield laws in the media lately, and this is a topic that I'd like to discuss further in class.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
$$ Clinton Beats Obama $$
Hillary Clinton has raised more donations for her 2008 presidential race since July than Barack Obama has. The 3rd quarter was the first time Clinton beat Obama in fund-raising efforts.
Clinton raised $27 million; Obama raised $19 million. Clinton also attracted 100,000 new donors last quarter, 7,000 more than Obama's 93,000.
Obama is still well ahead of Clinton in terms of money that can be spent on the primary election. Obama has $74.9 million he can spend on the primary. Clinton has $62.6 million.
In the past, Clinton has significantly downplayed the role of fund-raising in the election process.
"It would mean nothing to my campaign. Nothing at all," said Clinton when it became clear that she had been outraised by Obama before the 2nd quarter results came out. "You know, when I ran in 2000, I was outraised two-to-one. And we're going to do really well. I hope other Democrats do well because that shows the appetite for change. But for me, all I care about is that we're going to have the resources we need to run a winning campaign, and we will."
But now that she has come out on top, the Clinton campaign seems rather pleased. They say this suggests support for Obama is losing steam "big time," as one Clinton aide put it.
Whoever raises the most money, I hope they lose. It takes money to win an election, but these figures are ridiculous. I think the candidates will get more voter support if they donate their raised funds to charity rather than launching huge ad campaigns promoting themselves.
That's probably not even legal......politics.......
Clinton raised $27 million; Obama raised $19 million. Clinton also attracted 100,000 new donors last quarter, 7,000 more than Obama's 93,000.
Obama is still well ahead of Clinton in terms of money that can be spent on the primary election. Obama has $74.9 million he can spend on the primary. Clinton has $62.6 million.
In the past, Clinton has significantly downplayed the role of fund-raising in the election process.
"It would mean nothing to my campaign. Nothing at all," said Clinton when it became clear that she had been outraised by Obama before the 2nd quarter results came out. "You know, when I ran in 2000, I was outraised two-to-one. And we're going to do really well. I hope other Democrats do well because that shows the appetite for change. But for me, all I care about is that we're going to have the resources we need to run a winning campaign, and we will."
But now that she has come out on top, the Clinton campaign seems rather pleased. They say this suggests support for Obama is losing steam "big time," as one Clinton aide put it.
Whoever raises the most money, I hope they lose. It takes money to win an election, but these figures are ridiculous. I think the candidates will get more voter support if they donate their raised funds to charity rather than launching huge ad campaigns promoting themselves.
That's probably not even legal......politics.......
Speeches, News Conferences, Meetings
These stories are so boring. I think they are, at least. (Although I don't mind speeches as much as the other two.)
I have trouble writing about these kinds of events. It's too easy to just report on exactly what was said, newsworthy or not. I mean, if I had to sit in on that meeting for three hours I should at least get to tell my audience what was said...right? I know I'm supposed to go through my notes and find what is most interesting and socially relevant, but that's hard when a) you don't care what was said or b) you think everything was intersting and you can't include it all.
Also, sometimes it's hard for me to decide what the most important part of a speech or meeting was, especially if I didn't know much about the topic covered. And, yes, it's important to do your research on what the meeting/coference will discuss and why, but sometimes that's impossible. That could just be because I've only covered such small-scale, uber-local events. I hope that's the reason.
Ugh, I hate these stories.
I have trouble writing about these kinds of events. It's too easy to just report on exactly what was said, newsworthy or not. I mean, if I had to sit in on that meeting for three hours I should at least get to tell my audience what was said...right? I know I'm supposed to go through my notes and find what is most interesting and socially relevant, but that's hard when a) you don't care what was said or b) you think everything was intersting and you can't include it all.
Also, sometimes it's hard for me to decide what the most important part of a speech or meeting was, especially if I didn't know much about the topic covered. And, yes, it's important to do your research on what the meeting/coference will discuss and why, but sometimes that's impossible. That could just be because I've only covered such small-scale, uber-local events. I hope that's the reason.
Ugh, I hate these stories.
News Releases are not News Stories
Chapter 11 of the News Reporting and Writing textbook taught me that news releases are helpful to reporters as long as reporters realize that releases are often boring and often contain sub-par writing and content.
News releases help reporters find stories and save some time doing research. They can open the door to more interesting, hopefully news-worthy stories, and can provide reporters with initial contact infromation for individuals that might be interview-worthy.
But it's important to remember that you are the reporter. Do not just publish what is given to you. It's probably not good enough to be in the newspaper. It may be written poorly or contain incorrect information. A news release is written by a PR person, not a journalist.
Take the information in a news release and look for a new angle. Take the release and find out what story behind it -- is it something the public needs to know? Just because something has happened or is about to happen in the community does not mean it is newsworthy.
If the information in a release is newsworthy, FINISH THE REPORTING.
News releases help reporters find stories and save some time doing research. They can open the door to more interesting, hopefully news-worthy stories, and can provide reporters with initial contact infromation for individuals that might be interview-worthy.
But it's important to remember that you are the reporter. Do not just publish what is given to you. It's probably not good enough to be in the newspaper. It may be written poorly or contain incorrect information. A news release is written by a PR person, not a journalist.
Take the information in a news release and look for a new angle. Take the release and find out what story behind it -- is it something the public needs to know? Just because something has happened or is about to happen in the community does not mean it is newsworthy.
If the information in a release is newsworthy, FINISH THE REPORTING.
Political Blogging
This post isn't going to talk about an update in the 2008 presidential election...like it's supposed to. The truth is, I didn't read much on the 2008 election this week. And I'm okay with that...the election is, after all, over a year away.
But this post kind-a-sort-a has to do with the 2008 election.
I think everyone should check out The Caucus. It's "Political Blogging from the NY Times," and it's really good (I'm sure I sound silly taking the time to bother saying that something put out by the Times is good, and I'm sure many of you are familiar with The Caucus...but still...).
I would describe myself as apolitical, but I can actually stand to check out The Caucus and read some of the blogs posted there. And it's not just because The Caucus is a collection of some pretty high-profile, high-quality blogging (again, it's the NY Times, so duh).
I don't usually visit The Caucus to read the daily posts -- and there are many -- but to look up some specific information on a specific candidate. Like, What does Joe Biden think about abortion? This is easy to do because each candidate has his own mini-section on the blog, which even gives a brief bio on their political and personal history. These mini-sections arrange content in every way imaginable: by type (print or video), topic, popularity...
The Caucus is just a great example of a very thorough, well-organized blog. Maybe I just like it so much because I'm politically illiterate, who knows.
But this post kind-a-sort-a has to do with the 2008 election.
I think everyone should check out The Caucus. It's "Political Blogging from the NY Times," and it's really good (I'm sure I sound silly taking the time to bother saying that something put out by the Times is good, and I'm sure many of you are familiar with The Caucus...but still...).
I would describe myself as apolitical, but I can actually stand to check out The Caucus and read some of the blogs posted there. And it's not just because The Caucus is a collection of some pretty high-profile, high-quality blogging (again, it's the NY Times, so duh).
I don't usually visit The Caucus to read the daily posts -- and there are many -- but to look up some specific information on a specific candidate. Like, What does Joe Biden think about abortion? This is easy to do because each candidate has his own mini-section on the blog, which even gives a brief bio on their political and personal history. These mini-sections arrange content in every way imaginable: by type (print or video), topic, popularity...
The Caucus is just a great example of a very thorough, well-organized blog. Maybe I just like it so much because I'm politically illiterate, who knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)