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.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
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)