Newspapers Online: I liked Kurt Anderson's observation that there's no point in newspapers putting video online if they're not going to "use" the medium. Online videos should do something news print cant' -- it's easier for journalists to "show" the story in video, as opposed to telling; in print you can only show a story through quotes. Print journalists who are moving to the online video format accomplish nothing if they just read from scripts that could've been published in a newspaper (and its obvious when they do).
I didn't like Anderson's assessment of "amateur" journalism. YouTube is no longer a novelty. I think it can serve a legitimate purpose in the news industry. The YouTube debates are an example of this; they weren't just a stunt CNN pulled to get viewers. Anderson underestimates the role and value of citizen journalism in society.
Video Storytelling: "When he was out on the scene, interviewing people, discussing options with the photographer, Speake surely had a lot of ideas about the potential for this story. But in the end, he must defer to the visuals. He has to consider what the pictures show before he writes, before he thinks about what to write."
This is what I have trouble with. I usually know what I want to write before I finish interviewing -- sometimes before I even start interviewing. I usually wait to develop story angles until after I do some background research on the topic, though. Still, I know that I need to be more openminded in the interviewing process. Instead of asking questions that will help me develop the story I intend to write, I need to be confident that the story -- the real story, not the one I'm fishig for -- will come to me.
Online Storytelling Forms: The main idea of the piece and the part that stuck with me was that online news should be layered. It should be easy to swallow. In feature writing, for example, it seems like the journalist takes a whole lotta information and throws it at the reader. He soaks in this information and, hopefully, the important parts stick in his mind and he understands why the story was important and why the reporter did the piece. In online journalism, reporters seem more likely to choose the main points for the reader and expand upon them only slightly. What's more important is hammering those main points into the reader's/viewer's brain -- by telling, showing, and demonstrating one thing point in several ways. It takes less work on the part of the reader/viewer. That's good...it serves a purpose, at least.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Journalism Ethics
I'll just sum up the main message of the textbook's "Ethical Guidelines" sidebar: The journalists primary responsibility is to the public. Work and report with the public interest in mind. This guideline seems to reflect utilitarian ethics.
This chapter was a good review of the journalism ethics class I took last semester. But it reinforced what I learned in that class: Although every ethical decision is unique and should be weighed as such, I know that I will most often consider Aristotle's golden mean most strongly when I'm faced with an ethical decision (and isn't every decision -- at least every decision made in the news room -- an "ethical decision?").
Deceit. I was deceitful over Thanksgiving break when I wrote my reaction story. I was in Best Buy trying to interview an employee, but he told me that it was against store policy to give interviews. So I put away my notepad and pen and walked up to a different employee, and made what I guess they thought was small talk about how crazy it was in the store that morning (it was Black Friday). I got a decent quote -- one that I didn't even end up using -- but I guess I got it "deceitfully." If I did want to use that quote and was going to publish the piece, I would probably have used the quote but listed "a Best Buy employee" as the source. No harm done.
Withholding information. I think it's okay to withhold information if the journalist truly believes it is ethical to do so. It is not ethical to withhold information from your audience for the benefit of a third party. For example, withholding information about a politician cheating on his wife because you want the politician to be reelected is unethical. Withholding information about a politician cheating on his wife because you're concerned about the welfare of the woman after the story goes to print is ethical -- at least if that falls in with your personal ethical guidelines.
If reporters take what they see as the most ethical course of action when faced with an ethical dilemma -- and if their personal ethical guidelines put the public good as the foremost concern -- then they shouldn't be criticized too harshly if the intended restults of their actions don't materialize as expected. Journalists are human beings and all human beigns can do is try their hardest.
This chapter was a good review of the journalism ethics class I took last semester. But it reinforced what I learned in that class: Although every ethical decision is unique and should be weighed as such, I know that I will most often consider Aristotle's golden mean most strongly when I'm faced with an ethical decision (and isn't every decision -- at least every decision made in the news room -- an "ethical decision?").
Deceit. I was deceitful over Thanksgiving break when I wrote my reaction story. I was in Best Buy trying to interview an employee, but he told me that it was against store policy to give interviews. So I put away my notepad and pen and walked up to a different employee, and made what I guess they thought was small talk about how crazy it was in the store that morning (it was Black Friday). I got a decent quote -- one that I didn't even end up using -- but I guess I got it "deceitfully." If I did want to use that quote and was going to publish the piece, I would probably have used the quote but listed "a Best Buy employee" as the source. No harm done.
Withholding information. I think it's okay to withhold information if the journalist truly believes it is ethical to do so. It is not ethical to withhold information from your audience for the benefit of a third party. For example, withholding information about a politician cheating on his wife because you want the politician to be reelected is unethical. Withholding information about a politician cheating on his wife because you're concerned about the welfare of the woman after the story goes to print is ethical -- at least if that falls in with your personal ethical guidelines.
If reporters take what they see as the most ethical course of action when faced with an ethical dilemma -- and if their personal ethical guidelines put the public good as the foremost concern -- then they shouldn't be criticized too harshly if the intended restults of their actions don't materialize as expected. Journalists are human beings and all human beigns can do is try their hardest.
Blogging About the Election
So this week's blog post about the election is about...blogging about the election. You follow?
According to the NY Times, Democrats are inviting more bloggers to their convention at the Pepsi Center in Denver next August than ever before. I'm not really sure what "than ever before" means, but at least more than 30 -- the number of bloggers who were allowed into the convention in 2004.
The NY Times interviewed Jason Rosenberg, the director of online communications for the Democratic National Committee, about the decision to give "the new media a chance to shine." Rosenberg said that more bloggers at the convention will improve convention coverage, because “bloggers can give you 24-hour coverage of the convention, of the delegate meetings, of the caucuses, of the parties. Everything that goes on, the bloggers can be there to cover.”
While this might be true, I suspect that the main reason Democrats decided to allow more bloggers into the convention not to show that they're the hip party -- the party willing to expand citizen involvement in the electoral process by putting election coverage into the hands of informally trained citizen journalists.
And it's not like the Democrats are taking a risk by inviting more bloggers. The word "blogger" still has partisan connotations -- blogs often clearly favor the Democrats or Republicans. It will be easy for the convention organizers to invite only those bloggers who are likely to portray Democratic candidates favorably. Not to mention that the majority of bloggers are liberal in the first place. When you hear the word "blogger" don't you just think of artsy college students posting from their dorm rooms, or young journalism grads fresh out of college posting from their parents' basements? I mean, we all know what people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh think of the bloggers -- the "left-wing slime machines."
The NY Times seems to commend the Democrats for putting more power in the hands of the "new media," but don't we usually associate the new media with the left anyway? The Democrats move to allow more bloggers into their convention is commendable, but I'm sure they expect that the majority of the invited bloggers to cover the convention and its Democratic candidates favorably.
Want to sign up to cover the convention? The Democratic National Convention is calling on "progressive bloggers." Are you one?
According to the NY Times, Democrats are inviting more bloggers to their convention at the Pepsi Center in Denver next August than ever before. I'm not really sure what "than ever before" means, but at least more than 30 -- the number of bloggers who were allowed into the convention in 2004.
The NY Times interviewed Jason Rosenberg, the director of online communications for the Democratic National Committee, about the decision to give "the new media a chance to shine." Rosenberg said that more bloggers at the convention will improve convention coverage, because “bloggers can give you 24-hour coverage of the convention, of the delegate meetings, of the caucuses, of the parties. Everything that goes on, the bloggers can be there to cover.”
While this might be true, I suspect that the main reason Democrats decided to allow more bloggers into the convention not to show that they're the hip party -- the party willing to expand citizen involvement in the electoral process by putting election coverage into the hands of informally trained citizen journalists.
And it's not like the Democrats are taking a risk by inviting more bloggers. The word "blogger" still has partisan connotations -- blogs often clearly favor the Democrats or Republicans. It will be easy for the convention organizers to invite only those bloggers who are likely to portray Democratic candidates favorably. Not to mention that the majority of bloggers are liberal in the first place. When you hear the word "blogger" don't you just think of artsy college students posting from their dorm rooms, or young journalism grads fresh out of college posting from their parents' basements? I mean, we all know what people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh think of the bloggers -- the "left-wing slime machines."
The NY Times seems to commend the Democrats for putting more power in the hands of the "new media," but don't we usually associate the new media with the left anyway? The Democrats move to allow more bloggers into their convention is commendable, but I'm sure they expect that the majority of the invited bloggers to cover the convention and its Democratic candidates favorably.
Want to sign up to cover the convention? The Democratic National Convention is calling on "progressive bloggers." Are you one?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Seeing and Hearing The News
NOTE: This post was published on Monday, but did not appear until today due to technical difficulties, literally.
I always thought that there was a little Ron Burgundy in every television news anchor and reporter, and reading Chapter 19 hasn't changed my view of broadcast news. Broadcast writing seems easy. All you have to do is a) make the news sound urgent -- and you can do that by just changing the tone of your voice -- and b) use small words and smile a lot.
Another reason to become a broadcast journalist: the hip tv news lingo. Broadcast journalists get to "cue in" stories and "tee up" names. "Lead-in" and "wrap-up" don't sound as cool, but they're still exclusive to the realm of television.
There were a few tips the textbook (and my classmates) had for the broadcast journalists that I try to follow when I write a story for a (hypothetical) newspaper: 1) Use short, simple sentences. 2) Use one thought per sentence. 3) Use present tense whenever possible and write in an overall clear style.
Yes! I agree! But this advice shouldn't be limited to tv news. Every journalist should make it as easy as possible for the news consumer to read/see/listen to the news and understand what's going on in the world around them...without having to sit and think about it too long. Why does following the news have to be so painful? Why do print journalists try to cram 3 or 4 details in one sentence? Just because a sentence is gramatically correct doesn't mean it's easy to read! Just because it's easy to read doesn't mean it's interesting! Wait, what was I talking about, again?...
OK, so, broadcast journalism...what else can I say...
I like how the textbook didn't try to hide the fact that many televised news packages make it to air because they're content is visually interesting. What looks good on the tv screen gains news value. Newspapers are the record of our times, but television news is designed to hold a viewer's interest only for the moment...and that's okay (print journalists shudder). I think students at IC who join the journalism department to WRITE the news have a difficult time with broadcast journalism because they try to make the content of broadcast news the same as print news, just presented in a different format. But the content of broadcast news is often very different than what you might find in a newspaper. TV news performs a different function in society. The importance of that function? Well, the danger is that tv news develops into a source of entertainment rather than a source of information...but tv news is also important because, hopefully, it inspires the news viewer to do as the news anchor says and "go to the website for more information." Or even, god forbid, crack open a newspaper.
One more thing that I liked:
"Short words are best, and old words, when short, are best of all."
-- Winston Churchill
I always thought that there was a little Ron Burgundy in every television news anchor and reporter, and reading Chapter 19 hasn't changed my view of broadcast news. Broadcast writing seems easy. All you have to do is a) make the news sound urgent -- and you can do that by just changing the tone of your voice -- and b) use small words and smile a lot.
Another reason to become a broadcast journalist: the hip tv news lingo. Broadcast journalists get to "cue in" stories and "tee up" names. "Lead-in" and "wrap-up" don't sound as cool, but they're still exclusive to the realm of television.
There were a few tips the textbook (and my classmates) had for the broadcast journalists that I try to follow when I write a story for a (hypothetical) newspaper: 1) Use short, simple sentences. 2) Use one thought per sentence. 3) Use present tense whenever possible and write in an overall clear style.
Yes! I agree! But this advice shouldn't be limited to tv news. Every journalist should make it as easy as possible for the news consumer to read/see/listen to the news and understand what's going on in the world around them...without having to sit and think about it too long. Why does following the news have to be so painful? Why do print journalists try to cram 3 or 4 details in one sentence? Just because a sentence is gramatically correct doesn't mean it's easy to read! Just because it's easy to read doesn't mean it's interesting! Wait, what was I talking about, again?...
OK, so, broadcast journalism...what else can I say...
I like how the textbook didn't try to hide the fact that many televised news packages make it to air because they're content is visually interesting. What looks good on the tv screen gains news value. Newspapers are the record of our times, but television news is designed to hold a viewer's interest only for the moment...and that's okay (print journalists shudder). I think students at IC who join the journalism department to WRITE the news have a difficult time with broadcast journalism because they try to make the content of broadcast news the same as print news, just presented in a different format. But the content of broadcast news is often very different than what you might find in a newspaper. TV news performs a different function in society. The importance of that function? Well, the danger is that tv news develops into a source of entertainment rather than a source of information...but tv news is also important because, hopefully, it inspires the news viewer to do as the news anchor says and "go to the website for more information." Or even, god forbid, crack open a newspaper.
One more thing that I liked:
"Short words are best, and old words, when short, are best of all."
-- Winston Churchill
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thinking About the Election
I like to poke around the NY Times' politics site and look for ways to force-feed myself the latest election updates without actually having to read anything. Thankfully, the Times makes it really easy on me. Their latest invention is a slide show entitled "This Is Your Brain on Politics." Man, they have cool multimedia AND cool titles.
Here's how they explain the "opinion" piece: "In anticipation of the 2008 presidential election, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to watch the brains of a group of swing voters as they responded to the leading presidential candidates. Our results reveal some voter impressions on which this election may well turn."
Check it out.
Pretty cool, huh? It makes me wonder what my brain looks like when I see pictures of the candidates. Sigh...I bet my magnetic resonance brain image would turn pretty orange for Stephen Colbert.
Yeah -- this is a creative idea. But "impressions on which this election may well turn?" I'm not convinced, just entertained.
Here's how they explain the "opinion" piece: "In anticipation of the 2008 presidential election, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to watch the brains of a group of swing voters as they responded to the leading presidential candidates. Our results reveal some voter impressions on which this election may well turn."
Check it out.
Pretty cool, huh? It makes me wonder what my brain looks like when I see pictures of the candidates. Sigh...I bet my magnetic resonance brain image would turn pretty orange for Stephen Colbert.
Yeah -- this is a creative idea. But "impressions on which this election may well turn?" I'm not convinced, just entertained.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Colbert's Kicked Out
Stephen Colbert is no longer running for president. As the Washington Post reported, "South Carolina Democrats squashed Stephen Colbert's fanciful White House bid on Thursday." The executive council of the S.C. Democratic party voted 13-3 to keep Colbert off the ballot...AFTER JUST 40 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION FOLLOWING HE FILED TO GET ON THE BALLOT. Wow. Rough.
The NY Times reported that Lumus Byrd, a member of the council, said he had been lobbied by three other members of the council who argued that Mr. Colbert would expose South Carolina to ridicule. From the NY Times: "'South Carolina has been the butt of so many jokes, and the folk here are a little sensitive about anything that a comedian who’s got that much airtime might say,' said Byrd. 'They were afraid he was going to talk about some of our dirty little linen,' he said, citing the Confederate flag, which flies on the grounds of the statehouse, the 'corridor of shame' of dilapidated schools and the state’s racial history."
At least one S.C. politician -- thank God -- seems to have a sense of humor. The WPost reported that state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter told the committee Colbert could showcase the state "in a way that none of the other candidates on the ballot have been able to do."
"I think you're taking this a little too seriously," she said.
But Byrd wasn't the only one taking Colbert's candidacy "too seriously." The legality of Colbert's campaign had been questioned in recent weeks due to Federal Election Commission regulations that prohibit corporations from contributing to candidates, either through donations or in-kind contributions such as free use of goods or services. Colbert's campaign had been promoted by the Comedy Central network -- which airs his talk show -- and Doritos was his campaign sponsor.
Apparently, the FEC doesn't have a sense of humor. In the words of Lawrence M. Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission: "The real problem comes in the fact that he actually has his own show, talking about his campaign, paid for by a network," Noble said. "These are the kind of things on slow days you'd debate until the late afternoon at the FEC, but there are serious questions that come up. In theory, he could end up having some campaign finance problems."
Last week, the NY Times Editorial Board commented on the FEC's concerns over Colbert, saying "Since it’s hard to take Mr. Colbert’s campaign seriously — he has said he is willing to consider Larry Craig as a running mate — it’s a little hard to take the complaints seriously. But the thing is, they’re right in a way.If a television personality who is not a comedian were to run for President, it could be a serious candidacy (and we can think of a few we’d be seriously worried about), using the exposure given to him by his television network to campaign and win votes."
What was different about Colbert was that he wasn't just using his celebrity status to gain votes; Comedy Central was -- according to some critics -- actively promoting his campaign by allowing him to use his show, which the network finances, to talk about his candidacy.
S.C. Democrats have promised that Colbert will get his $2,500 filing free refunded.
The NY Times reported that Lumus Byrd, a member of the council, said he had been lobbied by three other members of the council who argued that Mr. Colbert would expose South Carolina to ridicule. From the NY Times: "'South Carolina has been the butt of so many jokes, and the folk here are a little sensitive about anything that a comedian who’s got that much airtime might say,' said Byrd. 'They were afraid he was going to talk about some of our dirty little linen,' he said, citing the Confederate flag, which flies on the grounds of the statehouse, the 'corridor of shame' of dilapidated schools and the state’s racial history."
At least one S.C. politician -- thank God -- seems to have a sense of humor. The WPost reported that state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter told the committee Colbert could showcase the state "in a way that none of the other candidates on the ballot have been able to do."
"I think you're taking this a little too seriously," she said.
But Byrd wasn't the only one taking Colbert's candidacy "too seriously." The legality of Colbert's campaign had been questioned in recent weeks due to Federal Election Commission regulations that prohibit corporations from contributing to candidates, either through donations or in-kind contributions such as free use of goods or services. Colbert's campaign had been promoted by the Comedy Central network -- which airs his talk show -- and Doritos was his campaign sponsor.
Apparently, the FEC doesn't have a sense of humor. In the words of Lawrence M. Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission: "The real problem comes in the fact that he actually has his own show, talking about his campaign, paid for by a network," Noble said. "These are the kind of things on slow days you'd debate until the late afternoon at the FEC, but there are serious questions that come up. In theory, he could end up having some campaign finance problems."
Last week, the NY Times Editorial Board commented on the FEC's concerns over Colbert, saying "Since it’s hard to take Mr. Colbert’s campaign seriously — he has said he is willing to consider Larry Craig as a running mate — it’s a little hard to take the complaints seriously. But the thing is, they’re right in a way.If a television personality who is not a comedian were to run for President, it could be a serious candidacy (and we can think of a few we’d be seriously worried about), using the exposure given to him by his television network to campaign and win votes."
What was different about Colbert was that he wasn't just using his celebrity status to gain votes; Comedy Central was -- according to some critics -- actively promoting his campaign by allowing him to use his show, which the network finances, to talk about his candidacy.
S.C. Democrats have promised that Colbert will get his $2,500 filing free refunded.
IRE Websites & Investigative Reporting
IRE Beat Source Guide:
I can see how this website would be useful, but only if you really know how to use it. IRE certainly isn't using the same search algorithm as Google. For example, I was surprised to find that my search for "murder" returned 0 sources. "Homicide," however, gave me some results. Same with "campus" (nada), and "college" (a few results). "Sport" didn't get me anything, but "sports" did -- that one was just annoying, really.
Also, it seems like the site expects you have to have a general idea of some of the institutions you may deal with while on your beat. When you conduct a search, the site gives you some recommended sources, but doesn't tell you much about what or who those sources are. This makes the site more useful for a veteran reporter.
What I did like: The simple search menu on the website was convenient and easy to navigate.
IRE's In the News Archive:
This is a really cool site. A lot of information is compiled here; the "related stories" section of each topic, especially, puts tons of useful information at your fingertips.
The site is, however, a bit helter-skelter. "Election resources," "Mt. St. Helen's," and "Tanker crash and fire" follow one another in the list of past breaking news stories, but have nothing in common. The list isn't arranged chronologically or alphabetically, either. I like this site, but would only use it if a) I was in the mood to troll around, or b) I knew what I wanted and was willing to go on a little treasure hunt to find it.
IRE's Extra! Extra!:
My favorite of the three IRE sites. It's easy to use AND arranged in a coherent manner -- most recent news first!
I also like that IRE devoted an entire page to investigative journalism. I think investigative journalism is what brings most journalism students to the major in the first place. Young, idealistic journalism students are just itching to expose corrupt politicians, or uncover an illegal sex ring operating out of a suburban PetsMart...or something like that.
Unfortunately, as the News 1 textbook has informed me, many news organizations are finding it difficult to keep investigative journalists on staff. Investigative pieces require a great deal of time, money, and human resources that editors aren't always able to be put towards one story. It's good to see that investigative journalism is indeed alive and kicking; journalists are still going out there, getting their hands dirty and pissing people off.
Investigative Reporting:
At the very beginning of this chapter, it says "[The muckrakers'] professional heirs today bring to their work the same commitment to exposure and reform." This caught my attention. Commitment to reform? The author may have been saying that many social and political institutions are reformed as a result of investigative journalism...but I read this sentence to mean that investigative journalists start a piece with the intent to reform. Is that OK? Should journalists begin the researching and reporting process with a desired outcome? I think many journalists do know what they want to come as a result of their work, but reporting for a desired result certainly makes it difficult to report objectively and without bias. So I think the book is right: Investigative journalists do have a commitment to reform. I was just surprised the author said this so plainly, considering the statement calls into question an investigative journalist's ability to report with the journalistic principles discussed elsewhere in the textbook.
I can see how this website would be useful, but only if you really know how to use it. IRE certainly isn't using the same search algorithm as Google. For example, I was surprised to find that my search for "murder" returned 0 sources. "Homicide," however, gave me some results. Same with "campus" (nada), and "college" (a few results). "Sport" didn't get me anything, but "sports" did -- that one was just annoying, really.
Also, it seems like the site expects you have to have a general idea of some of the institutions you may deal with while on your beat. When you conduct a search, the site gives you some recommended sources, but doesn't tell you much about what or who those sources are. This makes the site more useful for a veteran reporter.
What I did like: The simple search menu on the website was convenient and easy to navigate.
IRE's In the News Archive:
This is a really cool site. A lot of information is compiled here; the "related stories" section of each topic, especially, puts tons of useful information at your fingertips.
The site is, however, a bit helter-skelter. "Election resources," "Mt. St. Helen's," and "Tanker crash and fire" follow one another in the list of past breaking news stories, but have nothing in common. The list isn't arranged chronologically or alphabetically, either. I like this site, but would only use it if a) I was in the mood to troll around, or b) I knew what I wanted and was willing to go on a little treasure hunt to find it.
IRE's Extra! Extra!:
My favorite of the three IRE sites. It's easy to use AND arranged in a coherent manner -- most recent news first!
I also like that IRE devoted an entire page to investigative journalism. I think investigative journalism is what brings most journalism students to the major in the first place. Young, idealistic journalism students are just itching to expose corrupt politicians, or uncover an illegal sex ring operating out of a suburban PetsMart...or something like that.
Unfortunately, as the News 1 textbook has informed me, many news organizations are finding it difficult to keep investigative journalists on staff. Investigative pieces require a great deal of time, money, and human resources that editors aren't always able to be put towards one story. It's good to see that investigative journalism is indeed alive and kicking; journalists are still going out there, getting their hands dirty and pissing people off.
Investigative Reporting:
At the very beginning of this chapter, it says "[The muckrakers'] professional heirs today bring to their work the same commitment to exposure and reform." This caught my attention. Commitment to reform? The author may have been saying that many social and political institutions are reformed as a result of investigative journalism...but I read this sentence to mean that investigative journalists start a piece with the intent to reform. Is that OK? Should journalists begin the researching and reporting process with a desired outcome? I think many journalists do know what they want to come as a result of their work, but reporting for a desired result certainly makes it difficult to report objectively and without bias. So I think the book is right: Investigative journalists do have a commitment to reform. I was just surprised the author said this so plainly, considering the statement calls into question an investigative journalist's ability to report with the journalistic principles discussed elsewhere in the textbook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)