Was this article plagiarized? GOOGLE IT!

First of all, no; this article was not plagiarized.
Referring to the first article:
Sidenote: what exactly is a PRE-journalism student? You learn to theoretically maybe one day write something? Anyway... a columnist stole quotes from a PRE-journalism student's article for a school paper. First of all... what was this reporter thinking? Stealing from a student of all people? But nonetheless, if you don't get the quote, you can't act like you did. That's called logic. This guy lost his column after the incident -- which on one side is a shame because I'm sure he was a fine writer. And on the other side shows that an entire house of cards can fall in the matter of writing one sentence. (Oh God how I hope nobody ever wrote that before.)
According to the school, "Two issues are at stake: Whether the use of uncredited quotes is plagiarism, and whether the punishment -- public disclosure and cancellation of the column -- fit the transgression, a transgression Merrill called 'unintentional plagiarism.'" (see how I quoted that?)
So... 1- Can a reporter use another source's quotes without citing them? And 2- If someone who makes that mistake should get fired. First of all, I think that the simple "according to..." could have fixed this whole thing. I think as long as you attribute those quotes to where you found them, no problem. And no I definitely don't think a good writer should have lost his job over it, but punishment or probation was probably in order.
After all, isn't all news copied from another source anyway? "Hey I think I read that in the NY Times..." Yes. You probably did.

Referring to the second article:
"Careless" is questionable. Was John Merrill "careless" in forgetting to put the source of his quotes? Or did he simply just not say the source of his quotes? If he really did forget to tag that on to the sentence, then two things happened. Firstly, he wrote it in a hurry. Secondly, he never checked it over at all. Because any good reporter knows that you check your facts. However, the latter option is more logical to me. He knew that his "source" was an 18-year-old girl, and to attribute that would make him look bad. My solution: don't use the quotes. If you know they're not yours and you're not admitting your source, leave them out. It;s better to have an incomplete article than to lose your job.
In his defense, he is right in saying that the whole fiasco made him look bad. It did. Also, I agree with the "technical, not unethical" spin he puts to it. Though he clearly just wants his job back, this is a good point. He never meant to steal anyone else's words. He just made a technical error.
I must say, though, I cannot wait for his "book on plagiarism." It'll probably be great... if he writes any of it himself. (HEY OHH!)

Referring to the third article:
There are sure a lot of places to find politics information. How much does someone want to throw down that they all say the same thing????
p.s. one of them is called "Whack-a-Pol" -- HA!

Huckabee, Texas Ranger

So a commercial has recently been released about Mike Huckabee’s campaign.
What’s new with it? Well, total turn around. Chuck Norris is now endorsing
Huckabee! (?) Wow, um, lucky him? I don’t understand how this will help
anyone in any way. But in a Newsweek article, they seemed pretty pumped.
Apparently, not only is Huckabee in good shape now, he took the lead in
Iowa polls because of his new endorser. Wow, so that “18-22 year-old
college frat guy” demographic is way more important than we all thought, I
guess.
Not only is it in Newsweek, but it also shows up on the Newsweek Website -- complete with video. The story showed up on FOX news -- that video linked to from time.com. Why was this story so pervasive when there were clearly better things to talk about? And why were there no writers commenting on how ridiculous the entire endorsement system was?
Simple: Because news isn't interested in context or analysis. They simple reported on what they saw. And what they saw was hilarious.
The commercial itself seemed way more serious – but to the trained eye,
hilarious. “The ad opens with Huckabee deadpanning: ‘My plan to secure the
border? Two words: Chuck Norris.’” GENIUS, Mike Huckabee. Let’s put one
guy who hasn’t had a job in 2 years (okay, it was really more like 6
years, but I’ll go ahead and count in Texas Ranger movie for his benefit)
in charge of a major national issue. I’ll just ignore the fact that you
have no real plan for immigration, because Chuck Norris is just so
fantastic.
Putting aside the fact that this is a sub-Oprah endorsement, let’s look at
what Chuck Norris could do for Huckabee. Well first of all that’s not even
his real name. It’s Carlos. He is in the martial arts, not politics. But
wait, he has also given insane amounts of money to the Republican Party
and shown up on the FOX news network. He only gained popularity (again)
after some internet-crazy blogger published “Norris facts” aka random
information someone made up to prove that Chuck Norris is tough. Other
than being a judge in the movie Dodgeball, he has been a martial arts
actor since the 60s. Fun fact: he is SO OLD (67). Another fun fact: the
Newsweek article compares Norris to George Washington.
So, the question is, why with the help of a martial arts actor is Huckabee
doing so well? “Norris has emerged as a dream celebrity "get" on the
Republican side” WHAT? Dream celebrity? Don’t you have to be a celebrity
to be a dream celebrity?
But the article calls this a “political triple play” … why? Because on the
campaign trail any endorser is a good one. So what if he is now reaching
the Youtube 18-22 generation? At least he has that. And yet, for some
reason older people like him too for random things he has apparently done
(like advocate Bible study in schools and his 60s movie days).
So, as one that sees things with a critical eye, why am I the only "reporter" to look at this issue and see the bigger picture: celebrity endorsers only help campaigns if they make the news. And this one made the news. In the long run, will the Norris endorsement aid Huckabee's campaign enough to win? Of course not.

Feminist.... Obama?

In an article in the NY Times, it was noted that Obama thinks that, in terms of feminism, Hillary may not be the best bet. He thinks that, being raised by a single mother, he understands the problems of women and is committed to issues that affect them - "Because I know what it’s like to be raised by a single mom who’s trying to work and go to school and raise two kids at the same time, doesn’t have any support from the father. These are issues I’m passionate about.” It isn't just passion, though. It's also sheer political intelligence. Obama knows that getting the "woman vote" is very important, especially in the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton, however, has gotten a huge following among women. Many voters were pushed toward Hillary for the mere fact that she could be the first female president, but Obama's platform may look better for women voters. It's the same thing, though, with many ethnic minorities wanting to back Obama because he would be the first black president. The main difference is that this is not Obama's platform, but for Hillary, the gender card is. Either way, though, it isn't enough to vote for someone because of things they can't control as a general rule. Their history and ideas are what people should vote based off of, but many uneducated Americans are going to either ignore or not even look at the candidates' experience when they vote. Women may just vote for the woman because they think that naturally they will be represented. This isn't always true. Some of Hillary's platforms go against what most women and feminist voters would want.
Obama said that the candidate's gender shouldn't make a difference anyway, good or bad for him. There are many out there who agree, saying that sex alone cannot legitimize a campaign and it is acceptable for women, or feminist, voters to follow a male candidate. It's the same thing with Barack, though, with black voters. It's okay for them to want a white candidate and vice versa. His "black-ness" doesn't mean that black voters want him as their president, just as not all women like Hillary Clinton.
I think all in all, though, Obama's campaign has been the smartest of them all, winning over all of the main voting groups along with showing that he is not playing the "Washington game" that other candidates take pride in. For that reason, he has gotten a lot of slack from politicians and journalists in the field, but those aren't really the people who matter in this case. He has gotten a lot of positive feedback from voters about his new ideas for D.C. and for that reason he better do well in the polls and in the election. Hillary, though she can win over the woman vote just for being a woman, cannot convince people that she's human as well. At least Obama speaks the same language as voters.

Get to the Poynt

"Photos, Audio and the (Glorious) Struggle to Combine Them." Glorious? Really, Pat Walters? Glorious? See because to me, you're making an old-fashioned mash up. So by all means if you think you're making a remix to the Hallelujia chorus, be my guest, think whatever you want. But you do realize people have been doing this for... ever, right? Okay now that I've read the headline, let's move on to the story.
"...many of the collections created by one program. Soundslides." Again, Pat Walters, way to make this sound like Star Wars. Basically what he's saying is that small newsrooms are leading the way in innovation with audio slideshows. Joe Weiss, the creator of Soundslides, has worked as a photojournalist for over 10 years. The program was apparently inspired by Weiss's work with "The Mountain Workshop." (sidenote: this looks hilarious.) Carrying on, Weiss makes a good point about the value of images with a story. Video and still photographs invoke different responses in viewers and should be carefully treated with regard to news pieces. He also said that there haven't been many news pieces done in audio slideshow format, which I find odd because I feel like that it would translate the best -- especially for lazy newspaper readers who want the images and the story all together in one minute.
Also interesting: "Most of the people [who] are using Soundslides are not online journalists. They're people in print papers who want to see their work online." This I found odd as well because you'd think that people online would have the background and initiative to get this going to begin with. Weiss made a good point about the readers' perspective of the slideshow, too, saying that journalists should value the attention that the viewer is giving you, and to make sure that you are making the best out of it that you can. It's important to keep in mind what images they would want to see, not just shoot the best one still photograph that print papers would use. And keep in mind the time aspect, because too long of a show will lose readers altogether.
Another sidenote: this article has an obscene amount of typos and spelling errors.

Ethical Shmethical

Readings for this week were on ethics and how to tell stories differently (using video).

Guidelines quickie on page 502 is kind of a short intro to not being sued.
Responsibility- consider the public when telling the story
Freedom of the press- don't abuse it or you'll be the next Geraldo
Independence- it's important not to be loyal to anything but the public's interest
Sincerity, truthfulness, accuracy- be true or your readers won't trust you
Impartiality- don't editorialize when it's not necessary
Fair play- listen to both sides of the story; don't accuse someone without cause but don't trust both sides either
Decency- do not tell your readers to do something bad (i.e. 'it's cool to blow up houses')

Ethical Dilemmas + Problems
I must begin here that principled reasoning should guide you to make good journalistic decisions, but it tends to make me decide against what most publications would do. But anywho... Principled reasoning is how you decide what action is morally right to do. Get all the facts before making decisions or jumping to conclusions, this means consulting all sides of the story and getting the full background information. The rest of the list here isn't necessary, so carrying on...
Problems journalists run into is deceit, conflicts of interest, invasion of privacy (wow not me), withholding information, and plagiarism. Deceit is simple. Do not lie. Conflicts of interest include sketchy things like bribery and trusting a source a little too much, or taking freebies or paying for info. Things like participating in the story and getting too involved are big issues, since reporters should be objective observers. Advertising pressure is the most annoying to me because the sponsor should have nothing to do with the content, no matter how much money your station/publication needs. Invasion of privacy is something I'll ever worry about seeing as how I refuse to camp out on someone's lawn for the story about how their sister's dog was raped. I'm sorry, but those 400 words are not worth it. I also would have trouble with the withholding information part, because I may not want to publish everything I see or hear, considering some of it is worthless and some of it is private.

Websites:
Streaming: catchy headline, guys. Basically it's about how newspaper websites have looked to videos as a way to tell news on their own. Because the publications themselves are suffering, many are looking to innovative ways to rely on reporters and amateurs to tell the stories. Since it's a new idea, the quality is questionable sometimes but no matter, because it's just about the story. Mostly it's a new way to use an existing medium to get news to the public.
Video storytelling: So far I've gotten that I should copy good reporters. Be prepared: know your stuff and know how to use the latest technology so that you can improve. Be curious about what's going on around you, and notice the details in everything you see and hear. Basically make an active effort to be better.
Journalism can't do things?- WHAT???? Psychic numbing... people are numb to suffering. Kay...? So basically one person sufferings is not news. People, according to a study, respond to individual threats but not large groups in trouble. But journalism wants to get a "mass emotion" from the readership, so this brings about a problem. So this is a call to bring big picture stories to a personal aspect... WHICH IS THE THING THAT IS RUINING JOURNALISM. Good thinking, guys. Let's dramatize it more and make less sense out of it.
Stories via online- How to be a cyber journalist- "Online journalists must think on multiple levels at once: words, ideas, story structure, design, interactives, audio, video, photos, news judgment." It's a lot of aspects to cover, but it also gives a lot of opportunities. Clickable stories are good for readers to be able to find out more, and narrated slideshows give the basic info along with necessary graphics. This also includes blogs and games or polls.

Always rippin on Ohio...

Speaking of the 2004 election, The St. Petersburg Times opened like this: “Is Florida still the love of your life, or have the corn fields and mill towns of Ohio won you over?”
Excuse me? Mill towns and corn fields? Way to spread the stereotype, Florida. Just because they had one election where they didn’t matter as much as us farmers in our fields, they get angry. NOT COOL. Okay, so that election was left up to my home state, the glorious Ohio. After many debates about how to vote, which state to worry about, Ohio won out.
But what was the main issue clouding over this election? The method of voting. Since the mayhem in Florida in 2000, many worried about new electronic ballots and whether the old system would still work in some areas of the country. After Florida decided to ditch the chads and go for a electronic system, many states followed in their sandy footsteps.
According to an article in the New York Times, many states are fed up with the new system and want the next election to go back to the paper trail.
“Because of numerous glitches, breakdowns and failures with those machines, Florida’s governor earlier this year banned them from federal elections. And a Senator from Florida has just co-sponsored a bill in Congress to ban those same machines from the entire country, starting in 2012.” Florida also wants there to be a mandate that all 50 states have paper ballots by next year. A little aggressive? Also, a little reminder- just because they’re paper doesn’t mean they will definitely work.
Just because Florida had problems in the past doesn’t mean they should lead a rebellion against all electronic systems everywhere. Many states want to fit the electronic systems to have printers, and therefore paper trails to each of them. The setbacks are obvious- they could jam, maybe not print.
But since the voting problems in 2000 and 2004, how much has been done to make sure this upcoming election will be secure and efficient? Not all that much. Politicians are focusing on lawsuits and retrofitting machines instead of fixing the real problem at hand. We need a way to vote that people understand, whether it be electronic or with crayon. If our representatives are too hung up on suing people and making people conform to one system, we lose the time and energy to do what we need: fix the problem. The electronic systems are fixable. Why don’t we try to fix them?
Time is running out, people. We tried them years ago and had some glitches. So now we need to find those glitches and solve the problem. Politicians would rather ignore them and go back to hiring old ladies to count paper ballots by hand, which is fine. But when we have the technology at hand, why ignore it? We’re only going to look at it again years from now when new officials decide that the chads are useless. We have had since 2000 to really take a look at the election process. But not much is changing. People are proposing that we change the entire system, and have different states vote in different cycles each year. Newsweek showed a few new ideas for voting in our country that could work. So why are real issues like this being looked at last, when we have a major election coming up?
Because politicians are nervous, and don’t know for sure what’s going to happen in next year’s election. No one does. But change needs to happen soon, or else the next voting process will be far more confusing than it has to be.

Old Wivestales

The presidential candidates' wives got together Tuesday to talk about issues regarding their place in the campaigning. This forum, which has never been done before, was attended by five of the women. They talked about what it's like to be the right-hand side of the presidential hopefuls and what it's like to be a woman in the political world.
Hosted by Maria Shriver, wife of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, this forum took place in Long Beach, California. It was covered by many news stations as well as the satirical ones. Elizabeth Edwards, Michelle Obama, Jeri Thompson, Cindy McCain and Ann Romney attended to talk about their role in their husbands' campaigns. Judith Giuliani chose not to attend after bad publicity from her husband's history of marriage and his statement that he would want to have her present at cabinet meetings. For her, this may have not been the best decision because the forum could only have helped her. She could have been seen in a positive light as one of the girls instead of the bad PR she and her husband have gotten. She could have also dropped a few good points for Rudy, which Lord knows he needs.
Bill Clinton also didn't attend, which was my favorite part. This was a genius decision by him. The last thing he needs is to be compared with the women as the only "first husband." People have been questioning his position in Hillary's campaign and asking whether his stance is too strong, or whether he will be ready to be by her side. Appearing on this program would not have helped this opinion of him. The public and critics would only see a Clinton that wants to outshine his wife by showing up on more and more discussions and debates.
Besides, most of the discussion was worthless anyway. Thompson's wife discussed how she insisted on having a changing table on her campaign bus. Really, what do you think about the economy? Ann Romney rarely says anything controversial... or interesting. Hillary Clinton, however, has gotten a lot of criticism from John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth. Funny, how the last debate John was in he also criticized her. Conspiracy anyone?
I think personally that each couple has gone over what they're trying to accomplish, because they oddly enough have each presented the certain personality that their spouses have tried to convey. Michelle Obama presented a down-to-earth, "one of the people" kind of woman, which is the strength of her husband's campaign. Ann Romney was non-controversial and kind, which is - boring as it is - what Mitt tries to be. Elizabeth Edwards and her husband have presented a strong front, attacking their opponents (because they don't have much else to fall back on).
Mostly, though this was groundbreaking, I feel as though this was merely fluff. To me, most voters don't take into account the spouse that will be in the White House with the candidate. The spouse, okay, wife; may be support for her husband, but rarely do they impact much directly. But, I mean, hey, what's another useless debate where nothing is gained and nothing is learned? Throw a few more on TV... why not?