Well, it's Friday and I don't have to stress (too much...wait, I just realized I have a paper due Monday...never mind) for two days or so. So logically, I'm spending my first moments of free time in two weeks playing on my blog.
This is just for fun. If it actually works, I guess I could just say that I did it because it's "news related."
A great lesson on the risks of live televised interviews.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
It's Easy to Jump Into Politics Coverage
The 2008 elections are still a year away, more or less, but journalists have been reporting on the candidates and the campaign trail for months now...and we haven't even gotten through the party nominations! I think it's amazing that people are tuning in to election coverage this early--a little ridculous, but cool if you're a fan of the democratic process and all--but obviously not EVERYONE is too wrapped up in election discussion quite yet. It seems that journalists recognize this, becuase they're making it very easy for the news audience to pick up on what's going on and has been going on with the election "story." How? By providing ample context whenever they introduce new news. I'll show you what I mean.
Take the rather specific election coverage category "Republicans and immigration."
The NY Times reported on the Republican debate in Florida on Sunday, where candidates discussed immigration in front of a largely pro-immigration audience. The story goes through the different candidates and relays what they said, but before the reporters discuss Mike Huckabee, there is a small, one-sentence paragraph that says:
"The sudden rise of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was hardly considered a factor a month ago, has shaken up the race and thrust him into the center of controversies."
Now anyone who has been following the election even loosely knows who Mike Huckabee is. What this explanatory paragraph shows is that the Times reporters thought his amped-up presence in the race was new enough news that they should mention it for anyone who might not've been paying close enough attention.
Tom Tancredo is also given a little introduction: "One candidate, Tom Tancredo, who has based his campaign on heated rhetoric about illegal immigration, boycotted the debate..."
Apparently the reporters thought the important context was not only a) that Tancredo has a stern stance on immigration, but also that b) yes, he is a candidate. Poor Tom.
Well, maybe not "poor Tom"--he's not the only one being introduced, so to speak, to the public.
On Tuesday, CNN started an article about the Romney vs. Huckabee debate over illegal immigration with the words "Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney..." I may be looking at this a little too closely for my own good, but I just wonder: Why did CNN think it was important to tell me that Mitt Romney was a presidential hopeful? Just because it sounded nice, or because they actually thought I might not know?
The article goes on to tell me that: "Romney has taken a tough stance on illegal immigration during the campaign, saying he would strengthen border security and implement a system that would allow employers to verify whether a person can work legally in the U.S." Again, this just illustrates my point that appropriate context is crucial when covering election stories, especially. A discussion of Romney's past in regards to illegal immigration is a necessary component of this story.
My last example comes from blog coverage of the election -- a Huffington Post article on an anti-immigration activist who supports Huckabee:
"Huckabee has soared in the polls recently, jumping into the lead in Iowa where caucuses in less than a month launch the presidential nominating season."
Well this one's a two-fer, or three-fer depending on how picky you want to get. We are again told that Huckabee "has soared in the polls recently"; we are told that caucuses are held in Iowa, and we are told that they occur in less than a month. This context was important because the article discussed a new backer coming forward for Huckabee so close to the caucuses.
Context context context.
DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT IN ELECTION COVERAGE. I AM AWARE THAT CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT IN ALL STORIES. DUH. BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT REPORTERS COVERING THE ELECTION SEEM TO GIVE CONTEXT AT EVERY POSSIBLE POINT, EVEN WHEN I THINK THE INFORMATION THEY'RE GIVING ME COULD BE CONSIDERED GENERAL KNOWLEDGE. THAT HAS BEEN MY OBSERVATION OF A TREND IN ELECTION COVERAGE.
Take the rather specific election coverage category "Republicans and immigration."
The NY Times reported on the Republican debate in Florida on Sunday, where candidates discussed immigration in front of a largely pro-immigration audience. The story goes through the different candidates and relays what they said, but before the reporters discuss Mike Huckabee, there is a small, one-sentence paragraph that says:
"The sudden rise of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was hardly considered a factor a month ago, has shaken up the race and thrust him into the center of controversies."
Now anyone who has been following the election even loosely knows who Mike Huckabee is. What this explanatory paragraph shows is that the Times reporters thought his amped-up presence in the race was new enough news that they should mention it for anyone who might not've been paying close enough attention.
Tom Tancredo is also given a little introduction: "One candidate, Tom Tancredo, who has based his campaign on heated rhetoric about illegal immigration, boycotted the debate..."
Apparently the reporters thought the important context was not only a) that Tancredo has a stern stance on immigration, but also that b) yes, he is a candidate. Poor Tom.
Well, maybe not "poor Tom"--he's not the only one being introduced, so to speak, to the public.
On Tuesday, CNN started an article about the Romney vs. Huckabee debate over illegal immigration with the words "Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney..." I may be looking at this a little too closely for my own good, but I just wonder: Why did CNN think it was important to tell me that Mitt Romney was a presidential hopeful? Just because it sounded nice, or because they actually thought I might not know?
The article goes on to tell me that: "Romney has taken a tough stance on illegal immigration during the campaign, saying he would strengthen border security and implement a system that would allow employers to verify whether a person can work legally in the U.S." Again, this just illustrates my point that appropriate context is crucial when covering election stories, especially. A discussion of Romney's past in regards to illegal immigration is a necessary component of this story.
My last example comes from blog coverage of the election -- a Huffington Post article on an anti-immigration activist who supports Huckabee:
"Huckabee has soared in the polls recently, jumping into the lead in Iowa where caucuses in less than a month launch the presidential nominating season."
Well this one's a two-fer, or three-fer depending on how picky you want to get. We are again told that Huckabee "has soared in the polls recently"; we are told that caucuses are held in Iowa, and we are told that they occur in less than a month. This context was important because the article discussed a new backer coming forward for Huckabee so close to the caucuses.
Context context context.
DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT IN ELECTION COVERAGE. I AM AWARE THAT CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT IN ALL STORIES. DUH. BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT REPORTERS COVERING THE ELECTION SEEM TO GIVE CONTEXT AT EVERY POSSIBLE POINT, EVEN WHEN I THINK THE INFORMATION THEY'RE GIVING ME COULD BE CONSIDERED GENERAL KNOWLEDGE. THAT HAS BEEN MY OBSERVATION OF A TREND IN ELECTION COVERAGE.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Selected Readings
PLAGIARISM:
I agree with Ed Wasserman: using other people's quotes in an opinion column is "defensible," although obtaining your own information is preferable, and makes for a stronger piece, of course. The point of an opinion column is to show the true nature of someone or something, and to then comment on them or it. If another journalist got the perfect quote that would help you explain to the reader what is going on, or why you think the way you do, then you should be able to use that quote. I don't think the piece would be any less strong if you attributed that quote, and I would attribute that quote...I just do see that a journlist is more likely to use information another journalist gathered when writing opinion.
"Besides, what assurance does a column writer -- or a reporter -- have that the 'original' material is accurate or was obtained professionally or is, indeed, original? Should we teach our students to bank their bylines or their mastheads on a guess?" This is where I first really started agreeing with the article (which was making the point that using quotes without attribution is plagiarism, plain and simple). I wouldn't risk using source quotes that were artificial, or at least those that were obtained by a journlist I was unfamiliar with. I want my work to be credible; I want to be a source the public can trust.
CARELESSNESS VS. PLAGIARISM:
"I look on these short, directly quoted expressions from the two women in the news story as “news-facts” and see them as in the public domain." My journalism professors have told me that using a quote found in the NY Times would probably be okay, since if it's in the NY Times it could probably be considered general public knowledge. Perhaps I misunderstood my professors, but I believe I have been told that I could use quotes from a large, well-respected national newspaper such as the NY Times without attribution. If this is the case, then I see Merrill's point; albeit, he wasn't quoting a large national newspaper, but a small student-staffed campus publication.
When Merrill says that acting with good will is sometimes the best a person can do, and that he shouldn't be punished for simple "carlessness," I start to find his argument rather weak. Yes, of course, all we can do is our best -- but if our best isn't good enough, if our best causes harm, then we have to pay the consequences. I do not think that Merrill should have lost his column; I do think this act of plagiarism was an aberration in his long career. Merrill's editor probably didn't have any real concern that he would be accused of plagiarism in the future, but I see why some action had to be taken.
POLITICS:
"Of course, don't forget to look in state court for divorce filings." Ha, oh of course.
This list of advice spends a lot of time encouraging you to follow the money, as the saying goes. "Politics Money Sites" gets its own section, but the first bullet point of advice is still "see what the person earned" if he was a former businessman. Money = motives, I guess.
This list was kind of overwhelming, so I'll just say that I found it beneficial...and interesting. There were some tips on their that I never would have thought of. For example, check if "the candidate is a member of any club, lodge, or fraternal organization," and research that organization's core values. That's a very clever way of getting background information on the type of individual you're dealing with. I'm good at interviewing people and assessing their image in that way, but I need to work on researching news figures and sources in advance. That kind of information might show you more about their true character/political stance/motives than what an interview could reveal.
I agree with Ed Wasserman: using other people's quotes in an opinion column is "defensible," although obtaining your own information is preferable, and makes for a stronger piece, of course. The point of an opinion column is to show the true nature of someone or something, and to then comment on them or it. If another journalist got the perfect quote that would help you explain to the reader what is going on, or why you think the way you do, then you should be able to use that quote. I don't think the piece would be any less strong if you attributed that quote, and I would attribute that quote...I just do see that a journlist is more likely to use information another journalist gathered when writing opinion.
"Besides, what assurance does a column writer -- or a reporter -- have that the 'original' material is accurate or was obtained professionally or is, indeed, original? Should we teach our students to bank their bylines or their mastheads on a guess?" This is where I first really started agreeing with the article (which was making the point that using quotes without attribution is plagiarism, plain and simple). I wouldn't risk using source quotes that were artificial, or at least those that were obtained by a journlist I was unfamiliar with. I want my work to be credible; I want to be a source the public can trust.
CARELESSNESS VS. PLAGIARISM:
"I look on these short, directly quoted expressions from the two women in the news story as “news-facts” and see them as in the public domain." My journalism professors have told me that using a quote found in the NY Times would probably be okay, since if it's in the NY Times it could probably be considered general public knowledge. Perhaps I misunderstood my professors, but I believe I have been told that I could use quotes from a large, well-respected national newspaper such as the NY Times without attribution. If this is the case, then I see Merrill's point; albeit, he wasn't quoting a large national newspaper, but a small student-staffed campus publication.
When Merrill says that acting with good will is sometimes the best a person can do, and that he shouldn't be punished for simple "carlessness," I start to find his argument rather weak. Yes, of course, all we can do is our best -- but if our best isn't good enough, if our best causes harm, then we have to pay the consequences. I do not think that Merrill should have lost his column; I do think this act of plagiarism was an aberration in his long career. Merrill's editor probably didn't have any real concern that he would be accused of plagiarism in the future, but I see why some action had to be taken.
POLITICS:
"Of course, don't forget to look in state court for divorce filings." Ha, oh of course.
This list of advice spends a lot of time encouraging you to follow the money, as the saying goes. "Politics Money Sites" gets its own section, but the first bullet point of advice is still "see what the person earned" if he was a former businessman. Money = motives, I guess.
This list was kind of overwhelming, so I'll just say that I found it beneficial...and interesting. There were some tips on their that I never would have thought of. For example, check if "the candidate is a member of any club, lodge, or fraternal organization," and research that organization's core values. That's a very clever way of getting background information on the type of individual you're dealing with. I'm good at interviewing people and assessing their image in that way, but I need to work on researching news figures and sources in advance. That kind of information might show you more about their true character/political stance/motives than what an interview could reveal.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Romney the Mormon
Mitt Romney will give an address in College Station, Tex., on Thursday in which he will openly discuss his Mormon faith and address concerns about how religion would affect his decision-making were he to become president. The address will be called Faith in America.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Romney made the decision to give the address about a week ago, although his advisers were against it. Also last week, Mike Huckabee began running a television advertisement that dubbed him a "Christian leader." The NY Times reports that many Republicans saw this as a jab at Romney. I don't really see how that's a jab at Romney; this guy must be really self-conscious about his faith.
But perhaps his concerns are for good reason: Nearly every poll result shows that the majority of Americans are unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate.
Personally, I feel bad for Romney -- for once. As a Catholic, even one who wasn't alive when JFK ran for President, I can almost-kinda-sorta-so-very-distantly relate to Romney on this one. Faith shouldn't play a role in politics.
What I found especially interesting about this story (keep in mind that what's coming next is from Mormon advisers...and FOX news, I apologize) is that Mormon's "pride themselves on the separation of church and state." If that's true, I think Romney has a theoretical leg-up on JFK; concerns about the papacy's influence entering politics have historically dogged Catholics politicians.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Romney made the decision to give the address about a week ago, although his advisers were against it. Also last week, Mike Huckabee began running a television advertisement that dubbed him a "Christian leader." The NY Times reports that many Republicans saw this as a jab at Romney. I don't really see how that's a jab at Romney; this guy must be really self-conscious about his faith.
But perhaps his concerns are for good reason: Nearly every poll result shows that the majority of Americans are unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate.
Personally, I feel bad for Romney -- for once. As a Catholic, even one who wasn't alive when JFK ran for President, I can almost-kinda-sorta-so-very-distantly relate to Romney on this one. Faith shouldn't play a role in politics.
What I found especially interesting about this story (keep in mind that what's coming next is from Mormon advisers...and FOX news, I apologize) is that Mormon's "pride themselves on the separation of church and state." If that's true, I think Romney has a theoretical leg-up on JFK; concerns about the papacy's influence entering politics have historically dogged Catholics politicians.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Soundslides
Joe Weiss, the creator of Soundslides, wanted to develop a tool to help journalists "quickly and artfully" build audio slideshows. Makes sense to me: That's what I think of when I think of online journalism -- speed and creativity.
"There's a deliberateness in the editing [of still images], there's a deliberateness in the visuals." I like that Weiss pointed this out. An unedited video caputures everything that happend, simple as that; there is much more editorial involvement when a slideshow is created. The "storyteller," as Weiss calls journalists (he is talking particularly about mulitmedia journalists, it seems) has to choose which 10, 15 or 20 stills he can use in his show -- and which ones he has to leave out. Deciding what to include and what to omit gives journalists who use still slideshows much more control over not only what is being presented as news, but how it's being presented. Creative control is impossible in the cut-and-dry world of print news, and is more difficult with video.
"There haven't been a whole lot of ... hard news stories done in audio slideshows." I read this right after I wrote the paragraph above.
"The most important thing is not your photojournalism. The most important thing is not your audio journalism. The most important thing, overall, above anything else, amen, to the end of it, is the story and how well you communicate that to the human being who's on the other side of that computer." I think Weiss made a lot of good points in the "pitfalls" section of the interview. Most audio slideshows online are too long. Every picture should be meaningful; every picture should add something to the story. More pictures doesn't make a better piece -- good pictures do.
I also liked his discussion of transitions, and how photojournalists aren't trained in taking "transition" photos to show story progression. Having the perfect picture to backup your audio is crucial to a good audio slideshow, but it was comforting to know that Weiss believes quality narration can also backup your pictures; journalist can link the pictures with his words if there is no discernable link visually.
I'm excited about working with audio slideshows. Sometimes, when I'm writing the news, I feel like a parrot simply spitting back the sights and source quotes from news events. Weak analogy, but you get the idea. Anyway, I'm excited to try out this new medium and my abilities as a news storyteller.
"There's a deliberateness in the editing [of still images], there's a deliberateness in the visuals." I like that Weiss pointed this out. An unedited video caputures everything that happend, simple as that; there is much more editorial involvement when a slideshow is created. The "storyteller," as Weiss calls journalists (he is talking particularly about mulitmedia journalists, it seems) has to choose which 10, 15 or 20 stills he can use in his show -- and which ones he has to leave out. Deciding what to include and what to omit gives journalists who use still slideshows much more control over not only what is being presented as news, but how it's being presented. Creative control is impossible in the cut-and-dry world of print news, and is more difficult with video.
"There haven't been a whole lot of ... hard news stories done in audio slideshows." I read this right after I wrote the paragraph above.
"The most important thing is not your photojournalism. The most important thing is not your audio journalism. The most important thing, overall, above anything else, amen, to the end of it, is the story and how well you communicate that to the human being who's on the other side of that computer." I think Weiss made a lot of good points in the "pitfalls" section of the interview. Most audio slideshows online are too long. Every picture should be meaningful; every picture should add something to the story. More pictures doesn't make a better piece -- good pictures do.
I also liked his discussion of transitions, and how photojournalists aren't trained in taking "transition" photos to show story progression. Having the perfect picture to backup your audio is crucial to a good audio slideshow, but it was comforting to know that Weiss believes quality narration can also backup your pictures; journalist can link the pictures with his words if there is no discernable link visually.
I'm excited about working with audio slideshows. Sometimes, when I'm writing the news, I feel like a parrot simply spitting back the sights and source quotes from news events. Weak analogy, but you get the idea. Anyway, I'm excited to try out this new medium and my abilities as a news storyteller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)