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?

Edward R. Murrow in 17 pages

Writing for radio and TV: something I personally think sounds repulsive, but hey, if you're George Clooney in "Good night and good luck" then yes, it does seem glamorous. Now, before reading this chapter, I'm going to assume it talks about things like why radio and TV are better outlets for certain types of news. Why print news can't cover things as completely sometimes seeing as how there are no visuals and no voice. Also, that the news comes across shorter and to the point on TV and radio, while print is better for longer stories. Let's see how right I am...

Chapter 19: Writing for TV and Radio
9/11 was brought to the public first mostly by TV, online, and radio media outlets. Print has deadlines and set times they print; TV does not. TV, radio, and online media can go "on the air" pretty much when they need to. TV and radio, therefore, start with details that they know and have to add on later as they find out more. The print issues the next day will have had full accounts of what happened.
Criteria for deciding on news for TV and radio are different (ish) than for print. -timeliness, information, audio visual impact, and people. This means the same thing as before, but now to take into account the medium. If it's TV, one has to keep in mind what sound clips can be used or what video they have. For radio, it's mostly sound clips and quotes. The tense is also different: TV and radio news is often heard more immediately than print news, so it's mostly in the present tense. Conversational style is also important so viewers can feel like the host is talking to them and they can easily understand what is going on. Because there are often time restraints, sentences need to be tight without worthless words and flowery language.
To attract the viewer/listener's attention in TV and radio, it's more imperative that the lede stand out. Because people tend to have the news in the background, it's harder to grab the reader. Usually hosts "cue in" meaning they tell the audience what is to come, then proceed to telling them the news. Then, to be sure the audience knows you're done with that story, it's important to have wrap-ups, or short conclusions before you go on to the next story.
The format is boring and we did it in Intro to J. Carrying on...
It is a good idea to attribute quotes before you present the actual quote, merely because it is being heard and not read and you don't want to lose the audience.

Good night... and good luck.

I want to be Richard Belzer

I will start out by saying, I will never become an investigative reporter and never want to. However, if I had to choose a job in this realm (at gunpoint) I would choose Richard Belzer's. He gets to drink coffee while the other main detectives on SVU figure stuff out. He gets to harass the badasses and question the perps. IF... IF I ever went into this investigative stuff... I'd be him.

Now, as of 10/30 on the website, investigative stories under the main section are as follows:
1. Donors to campaigns are getting around finance laws by making them in the names of their young children. The laws currently do not restrict someone from donating based on age. Donors from those who consider themselves "students" have dramatically increased in the past few years.
2. Santa Clara county has more "toxic cleanup sites" involving pesticides than any other county in California. They have only been exposed due to recent development of the area.
3. Detroit's Hardship Committee has been investigated due to possible abuses of the program. This program gives millions in tax exemptions for the poor. The committee keeps no notes at meetings and does not verify applicants' claims. It has so far not been audited. The Detroit News found that some tax exemptions were given to property owners of multiple homes, not considered poor in any way. One of the committee members was removed after being caught giving a tax exemption to her lawyer.
4. Apparently weight gain in athletes can lead to major health problems. The example given is high school football players, whose average body mass indexes have shot up since 1988. They say that if these athletes keep up their weight after playing their sport, they run the risk of leg and back issues, on top of strokes and other heart problems. I am sorry, but isn't this also just common sense? No one should gain weight by daily protein supplements. It's just not healthy.
5. The state of Illinois ranks 49th in the country in terms of disciplinary actions against its teachers. The state education system has no plan in place of investigating teachers accused of misconduct. The interesting part about this story is that the newspaper covering the story actually put together its own database of information, instead of relying on outside data.

The "in the news archive" section simply listed topics with resources for those who wanted to investigate subjects under the main ideas. I, however, do not, so... moving on.

The "beat guide" is actually fairly intriguing. If I worked at a newspaper, as I laugh out loud because lord knows I am no good with pads of paper and those funny reporter hats, I could use this system. To CHEAT. I'd put in my beat title. I chose, for experimentation purposes.. FOIA. Because I have no idea what it means. Let us find out... Want to hear something funny? It never tells me what it is. I had to look it up. It's Freedom of Information Act. So ya know. Now that I know, let's try... disasters. Why not. Did you know that there is an internet disaster information center? It literally has an archive of disasters that happen everywhere. I don't know why this would be helpful... unless your beat were really just naming disasters.

Chapter 18: Investigating things
HA. Okay I am sorry but the first picture that they show is a man in the office sitting at a desk COVERED in papers. Wow do I not want to be him. It seems like the book would want the student (me) to WANT to become a reporter. However, the student in this case (me) is even more turned off by it than usual. Good marketing skills, The Missouri Group.
I actually really enjoy that they say that reporters wear the term "muckrakers" with pride. Um, wow no. It's just not a good name. So anyway, a good "muckraker" would be good at observation, in-depth reporting and interviewing, as well as the skill of analysis.
In order to begin an investigation, there's got to be something to investigate. Unless there's reason to be suspicious of something, most of these stories are unplanned. The reporter (i think we have established by now that this is not me, therefore the reporter is an unnamed person, not me) would come up with a claim. The investigation goes about proving or disproving that claim. This is done by finding sources, reports, records, and such. This includes digging in public records and any database available. Then unnamed reporter must make sure everything gathered is accurate, or else he is screwed. After checking with the paper's attorney (? weird) the reporter can then finally write the story.

I want unnamed reporter to start investigating the large number of resignations at the College lately. Suspicious, eh?

Facebook... stop telling me to vote for Colbert

Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report" recently announced that he will indeed run for president... but only in his home state of South Carolina. What does this mean? It means that he's not really running for president. He is, however, appeasing his fans. I have gotten at least 12 invites from Facebook asking me to join events or groups based on this new fake Colbert campaign. I think the main issue here is that most people don't realize that it's fake.

I saw Stephen Colbert at Cornell Friday, and it brought to mind... Why are so many people obsessed with his fake campaign? I wrote about this briefly before, but it really struck me Friday that even he thinks it's a joke. He began the night by declaring that he is a fake. He is a fake politician, and he is a fake newsman. He is, however, an intelligent comedian. Even Colbert admits to this and tells the audience that they are ridiculous for spending so much time and effort on his campaign.

The real question, then, is why do we care so much about a celebrity running for president and not nearly as much about the actual candidates?

First of all, I'm no politics genius. My other political blogs are clearly about Law and Order and Oprah, not about Fred Thompson and Barack Obama. I care about politics, because it affects me. I do not, however, care to write about it. I am not a writer. I am an observer. I observe things and they make me laugh and I may jot them down in this blog from time to time. I have no claim to be an expert and no delusions of grandeur. I do observe, though, that this fake campaign is taking over the vote from his target audience and it's a sad sad thing for our country the day that a character on cable can beat out actual politicians.
The Associated Press covered Colbert's announcement to run as a hard news story. To me, this is not a news story. This is a hilarious story that the entertainment section should take care of and should be a funny feature in Entertainment Weekly. To the AP, Colbert "tossing his satirical hat into the ring of an already crowded race." To crowds of Colbert fans around the world, he gave them something to make Facebook groups of and petitions. To me, he gave me something to observe and laugh at. Colbert is running for president... in one state. Therefore he is not running. He has no campaign and no platform. He has no experience and no plan for our country. Mostly because Stephen Colbert is a comedian and a character.
What people do not realize is, he is mocking them. Out of character, he told the audience at Cornell that his fake campaign merely reflects our generation's downfall. Years ago, people rioted in the streets to bring an end to war. Today, we write about it. This generation is softening, Colbert said. And the mere fact that we care more about a candidate for president that will never be says something about us.
It says that we want celebrities, not real people. We want to watch people make us laugh and screw up, not fix our country. Politics are hard, but celebrity is hilarious.
Most people in my age group will never learn what Hillary's health care plan is or what Obama wants to do to get us out of Iraq. They will, however, memorize Colbert's editions of "The Word" and repeat them daily.
My problem with this idea is that then we complain about health care and Iraq. We have right to complain if we never look into what we're whining about. And yes, I do say "we" because I include myself in this generation and therefore take responsibility as a member of it.

So, what I call for is a strive for intelligence about this upcoming election, because it is important. And not because a celebrity is running for fake president, but because the leaders that we bring into power will affect our lives directly.

Criminals and Civility

Chapters 8 and 9 from the website "Covering Crime & Justice" were about reporting on criminal and civil court cases. Chapter 14 in the book, however, was about covering a beat in general. You know... know what you're talking about, establish relationships, etc. But here's what I thought about chapters 8 and 9. Oh yeah, and for a little background, I just watched 300... where there is no law.

Chapter 8: Covering Criminal Courts
Like on Law and Order: SVU, covering of a crime and covering the court ruling on that crime often overlap. It also said that most of the felony cases of those who are convicted involve narcotics or property crimes. So... someone stealing someone else's meth lab. (Which, as we've covered in class, are quite popular in the Midwest.) A suspect can be arrested, indicted by a grand jury, or a prosecuting attorney may file a formal charge with the court clerk. Then there's a bond hearing and a preliminary hearing, which basically decides if the evidence is good enough to actually go to trial. Then the suspect (perp) is arraigned. He can then make a plea bargain, which is what resolves most criminal cases, or an out-of-court deal. (sidenote: I said 'he' there for a reason. Let's face it, most of these perps are dudes.)
Before the actual trial, lawyers do their things and get evidence or doctor evidence, whatever they choose to do. They gather more evidence, exchange the evidence, and get together their cases. High profile cases then involve many motions by the attorneys-in order to keep their high-profile clients out of the limelight, etc. The important ones for a reporter are the gag orders. They're there to limit the court's exposure to the public, on order for the defendant to save face.
Each step in the trial itself could be news (i.e. certain things revealed during the Michael Jackson case were on CNN all over). Mostly it's just drama that unfolds that makes the headlines, but other things can come out that can be newsworthy. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and the trial is basically set up around the attorney meeting this burden. After the jury is selected and the crazies are weeded out, the attorneys make their opening statements and evidence is produced- here is a good time for newsworthiness ("and she held out her hand with Mrs. Smith's GUN!!! :gasp:). After they bring people on the stand and question and cross examine them, the attorneys make their closing statements and the jury can deliberate (yes it is a word used outside America's Next Top Model). The jury cannot actually be interviewed until after the trial, but they may be good people to talk to since they may be the ones deciding the outcome. Then sentencing comes, another time to take notes. In more serious felonies, there may be appeals which take forever and most likely will go nowhere.

Chapter 9: Covering Civil Courts
Civil lawsuits tend not to put people behind bars, but either make someone pay or change history. (i.e. Roe v. Wade... only mentioned in every Law and Order episode and most feminist movies). Oh, but wait, maybe the website can say it better:
"For many court reporters, the civil court is the stepchild of the criminal courts."
HA I mean yes, that completely makes sense. Please go on.
Basically they are somehow trying to say that criminal courts decide on single cases whereas civil courts impact lots of people. Civil proceedings are like vintage clothing stores- you have to dig to find news, but when you find it, it's huge.
Many lawsuits are frivolous and mundane, but some end up being historical landmarks, so it's important to at least check into these things. It begins by someone filing a complaint/petition. The one who brings the suit is the plaintiff, and the one who is blamed is the defendant- kind of like on judge Judy shows. The judge has to decide how to deal with the complaint and how he will treat it. Pre-trial stages aren't as newsworthy here because there's no real evidence or motions, it's really just preparation for trial. Evidence discovered during the trial, however, is often historical. For example, evidence against tobacco companies was a big deal. The trial is popular if it involves high-cost lawsuits or high-profile people losing money. Lately, the number of jury trials in civil cases has declined because there are more settlements and judges choosing to solve disputes themselves.
In civil cases the plaintiff still has the burden of proof- meaning the defendant doesn't have to testify or prove his innocence. Settlements of civil cases can be secret, but it's up to the judge to decide whether it can be public. They can also appeal in civil cases. Other court cases involve divorces of high-profile people that may be in the news, and other small issues of child custody (Anna Nicole anyone?).

Chapter 14: Covering a Beat
"On any beat, you must be there."
Wow, so I actually have to show up to these things? Bummer.
As a beat reporter, which, let me remind the readers, I do not ever want to be, one must be prepared for anything in their field. In order to be prepared, one must read up on any background that can be found on the topic or issue. So, the beat reporter should know his options and where to start (a network of people, websites, etc.). Like the crime reporter, it's good to have a bunch of people at your disposal so you can better understand what went down. With the right people, you can ask and get answered the right questions.
Next: be alert (be ready for anything to happen). Think fast and listen to what everyone says in order to catch a slipup or problem.
The point of these things is to keep the public in the know about what's happening in your beat. When you're writing it online, it's easy to update what you reported on constantly. You're able to get more points of view and more details online. Locally, these beats tend to be things like the government and the school systems, or the court or crime beats. Things like religion or the environment are touchy and I'd avoid them.

Blogs I talked about

1. http://moirasnewsblog.blogspot.com “I feel like I've been reading about crime for 827382 days...”
2. http://lauraswanson.blogspot.com “Broadcast Blitz”
3. http://pierulesyou.blogspot.com/ “Gay marriage”
4. http://bryannews1.blogspot.com “Bush endorses… Clinton?”
5. http://kaylasnewsblog.blogspot.com “$5,000 per baby? I wonder how much for twins…”
6. http://brianaword.blogspot.com/ “Let’s try something new…”
7. http://devonhaley.blogspot.com/ “Sept. 12th entry
8. http://newsreportingandwriting.blogspot.com/ “Sept. 22nd- The Petraeus Deal”

"Covering Crime & Justice" ...1 page at a time

Below I will attempt to convey what the website "Covering Crime and Justice" tried to tell of crime journalism, etc. in chapters 1, 5, and 7. I started off slow, but then the Across the Universe soundtrack came on my iTunes, so it picks up.

Chapter 1 covers "The crime beat."
Apparently, writing about crime "has it all: greed, sex, violence, comedy and tragedy."
So... it's a tabloid in 400 words. This is perhaps why crime reports, apparently, seem to have the most initiative a knack for finding sources. It says those who don't pass the crime beat/deadline test are most likely destined to be a feature writer (fun fact: Dave Krahasnfkgjudbhsk appears to think this is an insult. Um... no.)
So far, it seems as though the crime beat is a respectful place to be- much like out book tried to tell us the obit page was.
I was somewhat surprised that some crime beat-ers are also required to write long-form pieces like features and analyses, thereby making them incredibly busy and probably quite bitter.
History- crime has really always been a part of the public's "need to know" and fascination. We have always wanted to know who is doing what wrong and who is getting busted for it. Why do you think Paris Hilton's one stretch in jail was all over CNN? Crime- defined either as civil or criminal, turns into stories because of its interest. In civil, if someone important is being sued or is in trouble, we care. In criminal, if someone notable has violated a law, we care. For example, if Donald Trump commits commits fraud or tax evasion (like he would really need to), we would care.
Background: meet the people you will need to later hit up for info. Call cops, follow them around, maybe even interview the janitor.
Getting arrested- er, um, I mean other people getting arrested. One can only be arrested with probable cause, so basically if the police is fairly sure the person is guilty. Once they're arrested, they must be read their miranda rights. (What they say on Law and Order when the scumbag gets booked). The "perp" is then questioned, booked, and arraigned. Here is where you can mess up: be carefulw hat you say or else you can make the perp appear guilty.
I enjoyed this: "A crime reporter from Cleveland offered a common sense answer a few years ago when he was asked why crime stories were so popular. He replied, "Because people like to read them." "
Ohhhhhhh Ohio.
Of course people enjoy reading them- it's like an action movie in a few hundred words. There's the appeal in these stories. Infamy results from the news media emphasizing one crime issue for a long period of time: OJ, Lacey Peterson, unabomber, etc. Why do you think the stories went waayyy longer than they should have? Because people watched/read them.
Sources are vital - especially since I refuse to breaking into crime scenes and bothering policemen at the station. This is why you would call the captain and create a relationship ahead of time. Get a source you can trust, too, since many will try to lead reporters astray or ignore them.
When it comes to writing, you'll want to add the most important items of the story. Aka, why would the public actually care? Does it even affect them?
HAHAha... haha. "Journalists are sometimes arrested while on the job." Why? Because they do stupid things. Don't do stupid things.

Chapter 5: Don't be a victim.
Interviewing victims for their side of the story is necessary for most crime stories. It also helps to give an overall view of the story, not just a certain aspect. News media can help the public by giving information about the crime so that it may not happen again and people can be aware of their safety. For me, it would also be important to confirm the victim's story, so as not to make out the wrong person as the harmed one.
When speaking to victims, don't be an idiot. Be nice, be gentle, and don't accuse them of anything. Carrying on...
Getting outside information is also helpful, like witnesses or neighbors. They may provide information that the victim and police couldn't give you. Sexual assault victims are the most difficult becuase they most likely do not want to speak with anyone at all, let alone a stranger/reporter. Names of these victims must be secret for their own sake. This makes it harder to interview them, as well. People are beginning to think that this rule is outdated, but that's ridiculous. It's simply not fair to print their names, for their own safety. News isn't worth it.

Chapter 7: Courtship
The goings-on in the courtroom are of interest to the public: exhibit A- COURT TV.
The courts take part in many aspects of our lives, therefore cases in the courts are important and of interest because they affect so much of us.
Court rulings are public events. Reporters can go and report on everything that happens there- reactions of witnesses, etc. While the reporter is in the court, it's important to observe everything, but mostly just sit and waaiit. Boring, but again... Robert Redford can do it, so why not me?
Reporters have to read the documents that go along with the case- they are libel-proof, so you can't get busted for reporting on what they say. Docket sheets are some of these documents- they tell you what has been brought before a judge and who is involved. Court systems also have important sources to contact- clerks, assistants, etc. Lawyers, not so much, because they scare me.
Before the trial itself, a reporter needs background information- facts about the crime, who is involved, hearing results, etc. The trial may be high-profile and high-impact, in which case the people involved are important to know. People- like the judge.

Giuliani: "um... 9/11."

Let's quickly run through the list of things Giuliani has going for him during this election.
1. 9/11.

Well, that was lengthy.
In an opinion column ("Rudy Finds a New Topic") in the New York Times recently, Gail Collins brings up the fact that Giuliani just may have to realize that he cannot just keep saying "terrorism" and "9/11" throughout the entire election. Whether Giuliani fully realizes this, though, is another question. Collins contends that Giuliani has had to find another issue that republicans can latch on to easily. What is that for Giuliani? "Fiscal. Discipline." By doing this, he is really just bringing up actions in the past that he has done in NYC. All candidates will mention good acts they have done in their careers in government, but Giuliani must really be forcing himself at that podium NOT to say "September 11th." Instead, we find him mentioning taxes -- some taxes not even under his jurisdiction, but if they happened around him while he was in power, well then By George he started them.
Sidenote here that is interesting is that Collins compares Giuliani to his opponent, Mitt Romney. They both have amazing resumes, and they are strikingly similar. "Amazing how the two most opposite human beings in the world can look so identical on paper."
The issue here is Giuliani is big talk when it comes to the economy and government spending, but his plan in NYC will never work for the federal government.
"So what do you prefer, American voter, the guy who has a bold plan for controlling spending that is never going to work, or the one who would not say anything specific if you waterboarded him?
Welcome to campaign 2008."

I find it funny that even years after the tragedy that is September 11th, Rudy is still trying to use it as a political crutch and that one day (soon) it will catch up to him and he just may have to have some real plans for the country.

And now that is campaign is off and running, many things about Giuliani are catching up to him. Like, the fact that his speeches center around two towers falling, for example. Also, the fact that he is a confused version of a Republican is not helping his image with either party. "the prospect seemed a long shot for a Republican who supported abortion rights and restrictions on gun sales."

Let's now run through the list of things he has going against him.
1. He's a Republican.
1b. He's a supporter of Bush.
1c. He's a supporter of Bush's Iraq war policy.
2. His appearance on Saturday Night Live in drag (Rudina? really Rudy?)
3. Weak personal life. (he has been married 3 times and his children don't seem to like him much. If his own kids don't even know if they will vote for him, why would we?)
4. He's Roman Catholic.

With that, I'll leave with a lesson from Family Guy: when you're making a speech, don't talk about the issues or the changes you'll make. Just say words that will bring in the crowd. For instance: terrorism. 9/11. war. threat. In reality, it works for speeches -- but not for elections.

Firemen looking into the air

Before I begin, I must draw attention to the fact that the title of this chapter is "Other Types of Basic Stories" and the picture associated with this is... firemen looking into space. Maybe they're looking at a pole, but why this is, nobody knows.
Anyway, crime stories. Hard to prepare for, obviously, because crimes are not planned.. at least not that journalists are privy to. Sources for this story come from police (the most official way to get the info), victims (the most uncomfortable to get info), and witnesses (the most inaccurate way to get info). So, for example: what happened? what did you see? was anything unusual? personal information about people involved, and results of anything that went down. Then, check the morgue (figurative morgue in the news office, not real morgue unless absolutely necessary). Accident and fire stories go along the same path, but there may be more news value in them if they affect the community. Court stories just remind me of the scene from "All the president's men" where Robert Redford goes to court for the Watergate scandal information.
Carrying on, court stories are typically follow-ups to other stories (like the crime story about the crime they committed). The terms and actions in courts can be difficult, though, so only someone like Robert Redford should go in blind.
Crime stories work as a clear depiction of what happened when you tell it in chronological order. With this and court stories, accuracy is vital. One slip-up and the public panics or someone innocent gets blamed.
The book goes on to explain court room procedures and terms that I'll never understand.
Also important is court laws. For example, the press has a right to be there in certain circumstances. Unless you have a gag order, report on it fully. Also, like in CSI and Law and Order, the press gets a bad reputation. If you press officials and cops about what happened, they're going to want to tell you less and less.

Writing, Law, and MUCH MORE!

Many readings for this week, so where shall we begin?
The Book, that's where. Chapter 8: Writing to be read.
Quite simple really... write so that people may want to actually read what you have to say. What makes your opinion so great and important? Prove it. The example of Barbara Ehrenreich is actually pretty good because the book that I've read impressed me. She not only investigated poverty and the minimum wage in our country, but she also lived it. She worked a few jobs under minimum wage and learned what it was like to live on a few dollars an hour in tough jobs. This, in their example, is good reporting which leads to good writing. In her case, she lived it, so she knew the material she was writing about incredibly well. All advice here makes sense: be clear, be precise, etc. But the real thing, especially in feature writing, is the "show don't tell". Readers have to know what you are trying to get across to them, and the best way to do that is show it to them.

Chapter 22: Law. Don't commit libel. If you do, and you're sued or something, the book offers ways to defend yourself. If you're telling the truth, you have to be able to prove it. If it involves the government, privilege is another defense that a journalist can use by saying the information was government privilege. the actual malice test is basically a way to win if you can show that you intended no harm by saying what you did. Invasion of privacy will never be a problem for me because I definitely do not plan on trespassing on people's property to get a story. I simply don't want to know what the mother thinks about her son's arrest that badly.

George Orwell's "politics and the English language" was actually sort of interesting. Orwell talks about how because we have dumb thoughts, our speech comes out dumb... and vice versa. Many metaphors are now being used without any real knowledge of their meaning. Some people use big words simply because they sound intelligent, but have no knowledge as to what they mean or why they use them. He calls this "pretentious diction", which I like. He says to use the active when it's possible and to avoid the passive and to cut words out wherever possible. However, the next reading contradicts some of this.
In "five characteristics of scholarly prose" we are told to emphasize nouns rather than verbs (Why?) and use static verbs rather than action verbs (no??). My favorite is this: "The simple use of passive voice does not make a style academic - but it helps!" Wow... really? Why would one read a paper with all static and passive verbs? Wasn't the point of chapter 8 to "write to be read?" I doubt anyone would read what this paper advises me to write.
Lastly, the Three Mile Island disaster paper was about how the press handled the fiasco. I found it interesting how a good 500 people were covering the story at one point. And yet, the coverage was mostly by AP and a few media outlets. the New York Times alone had 8 reporters on the story. the story's importance was mostly in the "so what?" and the "what if?" emphasis about them. This is why the story was so huge.

The Church Rejects the Republicans?

During Kerry's campaign in 2004, the archbishop Raymond Burke refused to give communion to the senator. Now, he's speaking out about Rudy Giuliani.
This candidate is not only Republican, but Catholic as well. Kerry was a Democrat, which would probably explain by itself why the church may not like him and his way of thinking. But Giuliani is a Catholic - practicing or not. His reputation precedes him as maybe not such a nice guy. However, do priests in high positions have the right to deny worship to people they don't agree with? Wouldn't that be mostly everybody?

In terms of my own background knowledge, Catholic priests typically do not give communion to non-Catholics. This isn't an insult necessarily, it's really just tradition. If any Christian or non-Catholic would go to Catholic mass, they would just not get communion as they would in their own place of worship.
Int his case, the archbishop has decided to deny communion to those politicians with policies he does not agree with. So with him, it's less about the religious traditions so much as the political thoughts of people. Which definitely falls into mixing church with state.
It is a bit of a stretch, obviously, but does this guy have the right to deny someone from their worship just because they favor the death penalty or abortion rights?

Giuliani responded to the archbishop by saying that this country has freedom of religion and the religious leader can say what he wants. The problem is, that this implies that religious leaders can have the freedom to do other things- like the preacher who decided to marry homosexual couples. Dangerous? Maybe.
But what is the real harm in priests choosing to deny Catholic members of the church who simply disagree with politics of the church leaders. The politics specifically with Giuliani - abortion rights.
Quick history lesson: many think that the Catholic church has always been against abortion. Not true.

Early in the church, abortion was okay. It was at one point preferred. Under Pope Innocent III, abortions were fine as long as the fetus made no movement yet. If it was early enough, the baby was not a "soul" and therefore there was no killing. It is interesting to note that this case was actually of a monk who wanted his lover to get an abortion.
Soon after they made very specific rules about how late it was okay to get an abortion. All in all, very early in the church abortion was officially tolerated by the Vatican. It was not until the 17th century that abortion became "murder".
So, now that the archbishop Raymond Burke doesn't want politicians who believe differently about abortions, how far are they taking this?

An anti-feminists vote for Romney

Mitt Romney, the token Mormon candidate in this coming election, got a surprising hit on Youtube recently with the clip of "romney's girls" as a response to "Obama's Girl". In an attack ad, the Romney girls attack Obama Girl for flip-flopping and not sticking to her... beliefs?
Seriously? Her beliefs? Her sway of the vote is really enough of a deal that we're making an attack ad out of it? Not only is the video ridiculous, but it's approved by... yes, that's right, 3 random blondes. This takes the completely worthless Obama video and doubles the catastrophe by giving it enough attention to attack it.
What is in this video? Nothing important... at all. News and TV clippings of how Obama Girl's idea wasn't original? Really? Who cares if it was original... and who is really fact checking? Then they claim that she hasn't decided who she is really going to vote for. She is a flip flopper. Yes, in Congress this may be dangerous... but a random girl off the streets who made a Youtube video? We're really going to attack her for not knowing who she will vote for in over a year? Okay, so far this has some sort of research to it. Oh, wait. Then throw in a clip from her on HOWARD STERN and in a bikini. Yes, let's really lend to her credibility.
So what does Mormon Mitt Romney say about this?
"'There’s nothing like getting a good spot on YouTube.'" (msnbc.com)

Ohh yes, that's publicity for you. Three blondes in tank tops saying that another chick is wrong. That really lends to Romney's character. To fully reduce this whole fiasco to ridiculousness...
"Then he made one of his charming asides about how he needs to get his wife Ann to stop putting on those 'hot pants.'" (msnbc.com)

Okay, so not only is Romney giving this fake fight legitimacy, he chooses to play along. Of all the candidates, Mitt Romney, Mormon from Massachusetts, is playing along. At least Obama has the sense not to get involved in this ludicrous situation. And it truly helps that on real network news choose to give it real air time, about how they question Obama's Girl's "integrity."
So the idea of putting a girl in a bikini from Youtube to the TV screen?
NONE WHATSOEVER.
What are they thinking? This is the kind of thing they need to ignore, they make a bigger deal out of. And Fox News' congratulated Romney for getting the publicity and the appeal to a demographic for his campaign.
Here's my question: what is this demographic?
18-24 year-old males, in college or reading Playboy, and searching Youtube under keywords like: "hot chicks".
All in all... Romney is attracting the college guys now so consider HIM a major force to reckon with.

Even the girls admit to the fact that they have no credibility, all they know is that the candidates are "like, cute and stuff", and that they don't really care so much.
So why do we?

News Team.... ASSEMBLE!

Okay so chapters 11 and 12 are news galore. Chapter 11, news releases, talks about how to write announcements and other business-like news pieces. Chapter 12, however, explores the exciting world of speeches, news conferences, and meetings.

Through personal experience, these three are now my least favorite things to write.
News releases, to start off, tell the community of upcoming events and promotions. The really exciting ones simply build up the image of a building or person. No offense, companies out there, but that's not my job. That's why we have commercials.
Next we have reporting for the news release. This is fairly logical. Report on the event. Get good quotes, follow up with the main head honchos of the meeting. Find out the main information and then figure out which is most important to the public. Write that.
The trick here is to decide what is news. What part in this release had any news value? Lead with that, and go with the boring stuff later on.

Next is the news conferences, speeches, and meetings. Preparing, I think, is most essential. Just knowing what's going to happen at the meeting and who is in charge can really help sorting out notes beforehand. I tend to write down the leader(s) and where the meeting is, along with possible topics that I could focus on. This is, obviously, only possible though if the group/speaker puts out information before the event or if you contact them.
Participants are always important, but sometimes it's a good idea to describe them in the piece as well. Facial expressions and body language are good things to pick up on. The next suggestion I think should be used incredibly sparingly. They say to pick up on tone and inflections in the speaker's voice. I think this is only important if they yell at someone important or if something really newsworthy goes down. If they happen to raise their voice for no particular reason, however, this isn't necessarily needed.
Another interesting fact to note is that the speaker isn't the only important role here. The audience sometimes makes itself newsworthy if they do something out of the ordinary. For example, the tazered kid at the Kerry speech or protesters at hearings.
Pay attention to other people's questions as well, because their answers may be the true newsworthy part of the event.
All in all, not a fan. I tend to be well prepared and try really hard to make news out of certain events, but sometimes there just isn't any. And that, to me, is why news can be so boring. Sometimes there just isn't any news.

Colbert '08?

Hey... they tried it with Robin Williams in "Man of the Year".

On the Stephen Colbert show a few days ago, he was talking about Fred Thompson running for president when Colbert asked for a sign to tell him whether or not he should run as well. The sign, of course, was a man with a hood and sword calling Colbert "my lord". This situation only brings up the fact that... what if he did? What's really stopping him at this point? He probably has just about as many followers as Obama or Clinton. For evidence I'd like to point out how many people he has wearing his "wrist strong" bracelets around the country. Lance Armstrong had an actual cause and some people wouldn't wear it... and yet Colbert has gotten Matt Lauer from the Today Show to wear it... ON AIR.
The power that this man alone wields is, to me, quite interesting. Not because he is powerful, because he's hilarious so why shouldn't he be? Dane Cook is, for Christ's sake. The weird thing to me is that it's not even really Stephen with all of this power. It's his character. What shows up on Comedy Central after the Daily Show is not really Stephen Colbert talking; it's the character he has created. What's fascinated about this is that he never breaks character. He interviews people using his attitude and arrogant exterior, while it's not his true nature to do so. He's said in interviews before that what the audience sees is not his real self, it's the man that he brought from the Daily Show that made a huge splash in that demographic.
So, if this isn't even a real character showing up nightly, why would people want him to be their leader? Well, they have done less. There are animals named after him, not to mention a bridge in Europe. Oh, yeah, and unofficial websites for his candidacy.
The first website, Colbertocrat.com, a group explains why Colbert would be a good president and why people should vote for him. They have even started an online petition asking Colbert to run in the election.
Another site is run by bloggers who think that he should run and want to be prepared when he announces so. This includes articles such as "Colbert: Not a Witch" and "Super Colbert to the Rescue?". The latter even includes a comic of Colbert as the Hulk which everyone should probably check out.

In the wider scope of things, however, one has to look at what Stephen Colbert as president would accomplish. How would a comedian/news man do at leading the country? My guess is not well. No offense to Robin Williams, but "Man of the Year" didn't pan out so well either. Colbert is an educated, intelligent, eloquent guy, but doesn't exactly have the experience or qualifications for the job other than the fact that people like him. Of course people like him. It's the same reason that people love Jon Stewart. These two are intelligent citizens who bring a sense of humor to the news because they're educated enough to understand that our system is RIDICULOUS. Real news men have to report what happens, while Stewart and Colbert can add their opinions with humor because they're, for the most part, correct.
These two are allowed to add in their two cents with these stories because they're not supposed to be taken seriously. People are supposed to know that what they say isn't necessarily 100% true. But do they?
Many appear to think that what appears on their TVs is the real Stephen Colbert, and what Jon Stewart says is the definite truth, like in the real news. The problem here is... they're dead wrong.

While I'm a fan of Colbert, I think that people need to quit focusing on his fake campaign and maybe start looking at the possibilities of our real candidates. The petitions and websites are only going to hurt this next election, because people will ignore the real issues and instead continue pleading that Colbert should run and represent their generation. Problem: their generation won't get represented if they never understand or support the candidates that may actually win.

Dead People blog????

Okay, so I know that if... IF I ever chose to go to work for a newspaper... I would have to go in as an entry level worker. This means I would have to write menial things like obituaries. And yet... when I opened up the book looking for chapter 10, I was speechless. An entire chapter devoted to writing about the death of other people. Not only morbid, but a little weird. I was in shock for about a minute, then told my roommate, then double checked my syllabus. Oh yes, this is indeed the chapter I should be reading. Let us begin.

Part one: Crafting a lead: "Oh how he loved to laugh" -- look up Patton Oswalt's joke about this, it's way better than part one. Anyway, it says to basically write about the main facts of the story. And by story I mean death. Again -- weird. Important information does go into this part, though, like about the funeral services. Another little sidebar they have here is basically just to double check all of the information. It would be pretty horrible to spell the deceased's name wrong and get angry calls from the the guy saying he's not dead. Anyway, it seems pretty creepy and odd to craft a lead about a dead person I never met, so i'm going to stop there.
Part two: Choosing your words. This makes perfect sense. Use few euphemisms and avoid sensitive topics. Someone, for example, didn't "give up after a long fight cancer"... they "fought the whole way."

Apparently, there's a form for "obits" that are conveniently inaccurate and not complete. These, I guess, are good forms of information. Also, thorough research does for a better obit. But I would feel weird looking into a person's life that I had never met, because how much information can be interesting or even accurate? And I am definitely not talking to people's family members because that's a whole new form of creepy. It's not that I won't call strangers, because I definitely could. It's the weird factor that comes into play when I am a stranger calling about someone's recently deceased mother.
This goes to the section called "interviewing family and friends". I am not doing it.

Sidebar: The lady who enjoys "bringing life to obituaries". Weird. I have never known anyone to make their living off of obits. Shouldn't she be gaining in her career and maybe become an actual reporter? In order to give someone a voice or an "essence" they could probably do better by being alive. I'm just saying.
And then, after the whole thing is written... you've contacted the family and had an awkward conversation, you looked into an old lady's past and her cats' names... what happens? The newspaper cuts half of it. Policy dictates what goes into each one. Meaning? Meaning if they committed suicide... don't write that. If they write about donations or flowers... lobbyists pop up? What???
Last but (oh my goodness) not least... don't include embarrassing information. Wow. Yes please? If I pop open an obituary that tells everyone that my favorite show was Rock of Love with Bret Michaels... I'd faint immediately.

I read a book once that took place in the 1950s. A young woman getting into the newspaper biz moved to Miami, only to find that her job was just to take care of the obits. She eventually rose up and got a beat, but this didn't make the newspaper business look any better to me. I read the book and took from it that I never want to work for a newspaper. I don't like to write news. Or about dead people.

Fred Thompson: SVU

Fans can breathe a sigh of relief. Just because Fred Thompson is officially now running for president doesn't mean he will be off the air entirely. His show, Law and Order, will remain on cable stations even though he is no longer allowed to appear on NBC.
His role on the show is the New York district attorney who rules over some dark-haired lady and the guy from "Great Gatsby". According to the above article, NBC will have to pull the re-runs of over 100 episodes that Thompson appeared in. His character, Arthur Branch, was actually fairly important and reoccurring person on the show (seeing how he was in charge).

Why pull these amazing episodes? That bully the FCC. NBC is worried that if they allow him to stay on, they will have to allow equal airtime for all of Fred's opponents. And, quite frankly, John McCain just isn't as convincing as a "bad cop" in the streets of New York City. So, because NBC is worried about these rules and really has no power over them, they chose to pull his beloved episodes (even the one where the guy from those financial ads almost quits).
Why is Fred even running? Well, he spent 8 years in the Senate. ... So why not?
What I wanted to know is... what's up with the FCC?
Well, turns out... they had outdated laws that mean nothing to anyone nowadays. Technically, it's called the Fairness Doctrine, and was created in 1949. Even though this was rejected by the FCC in Reagan's time, it still holds in some obscure ways. The equal times ideal still stands in many news outlets and channels on air. Because his appearances are not in the context of news and "public affairs", his episodes would be banned in the equal time rule. If he had appeared on news shows or something along those lines, it (for whatever reason) would not be rejected and would be allowed to re-run.

As well as no longer being on NBC reruns, Thompson has also asked to be free of later commitments with the show. This means no more Law and Order episodes, but also commercials that some actors are required to do once signed with NBC. The same problem popped up when Reagan ran in 1980 and when The Arnold ran in 2003 (and losing out on Kindergarten Cop was a loss to us all, let me tell you).

The bright side? First of all, TNT can still show his episodes because they do not follow the same rules as NBC, regarding the FCC. Also, the guy from Great Gatsby (aka Sam Waterson) got an on-air promotion. He will now be taking Thompson's role as district attorney (cleverly written into the script, like when someone gets preggers or has a dispute over who's prettier).

Lastly: why I think Fred Thompson would be a good president (even though I will not be voting for him). First of all, he's been a leader. Making decisions for those dark-haired women who come and go so fast I haven't gotten any names can't be easy. And Sam Waterson has quite a mind of his own... Do these people sound familiar? People leaving a lot and a guy with a strategy you can't comprehend or follow? Let me be more specific: He leads a headstrong man and a group full of people who keep RESIGNING and LEAVING the "administration", we'll call it. You go ahead and take that however you want to and then you'll understand why he's well-prepared to be our next president.

Online Prodigies

In Michigan, there is is a group that created a personalized website for Michiganites (Michiganians, Michiganers?) who want to read about environmental stories. They basically find relevant stories and link to them on their website, allowing people to tag certain topics they are looking for. So, a group could create a profile, tagging their interests, and this website would know to send them stories relevant to these tags.
After they find the link to a good story, this website "Michigan's Echo" also provides a short summary of each article.
To me, this is great for readers and news-lovers in general. This means that Google could potentially select out news stories for you based on your interests and choices. I'm sure the technology is out there, but the need is probably questionable. It may be a good idea to get people reading news first.
For this specific website, subscribers can select their topics, but also regions. So a Western Michigan story involving bikes and fish would be tagged to show the readers just that.
The lucky thing is that this is located on a very local database. Meaning that all the stories are about Michigan environmentalism, therefore all the readers would be from Michigan or in Michigan, interested in environmental stories.
On a larger scale, like the Google News of the world, this would be far more difficult. The subscribers would be more spread out and the interests and tags would be much harder to narrow down. Nonetheless, I still think it's a good idea and by George I'll make it happen.

The other story on this website (E-Media Tidbits) is about the danger (or power) of blogging. The story is about a guy who made fun of a colleague of his on his weblog.
It just so happens that this colleague worked for a major news outlet at the time, and made a small (but important) mistake with numbers regarding Chinese Internet users. Rogers, the blogger, made fun of him on his blog. Next thing he knew, Google was using his blog as the first result when someone searched for the news man. As hard as the news organization tried to make their website first, it wouldn't work (due to the crazy and seemingly random system of the Google algorithm).
Because of this, the first entry was not so much a pleasant image of the news man, and the blogger was begged to take down the post. According to Rogers, it is never the policy of any blogger to take down a post unless ordered to do so by a court. However, he chose to take it down.
This is a huge topic lately because of the unknown power of blogs and bloggers. Not only are members of media organizations blogging, but so are Joe Shmos from Wisconsin. Not saying that Joe is not an expert on foreign policy, but their blogs may not be as reliable as, let's say, an actual expert's website.
The problem is that very little distinguishes their website from another site of actual credibility. It's up to those who can reason it out to figure out which sites are better. And let me tell you Americans are the geniuses to do it.

Smaller and less thought-provoking article was about the use of timelines to aid information and articles. It basically said that to use them is to do so at your own risk. It's only worthwhile if you use it to tell more than just dates and events. For example, the one they use is about war and when and where attacks occurred. It is interesting, however, that one can look at these types of stories online now and do interactive things with them like with this one.

Side note: chapter 4 in the book is about how to use quotes and how not to plagiarize. For a brief summary of this chapter, I'll provide my favorite part: Deleting obscenities. I don't want to. I think they make the quote better. The end.

Haven't we read this before?

Chapter 1: news is new. Write what people want to know.
Chapter 2: Newspapers are going online.
Chapter 3: Be a good interviewer. Be prepared and know what you're talking about.
Haven't we read this before??
Answer: Yes. Yes we have. Well, at least, most of us have. Williams' class last year this exact same book... but it was yellow. So reading these chapters was a huge deja-vu experience for me, let me tell you. However, the folks of Missouri had a few good things to say.

1. News is what people care about. Don't write about common knowledge... it's a waste of a reader's time. News should be relevant to your reader. Again... makes sense. If I read a story that hits close to home, I would enjoy it way more than a far-off, hard to understand story. And make sure your readers will have some kind of interest in the story. Headlines make the story, so if it's an interesting headline... you'll get readers.
This section also talks about the role of journalists and how important it is to be accurate and fair. This is where I am going to veer off course. I'm a bad harassing reporter. I hate the idea of hounding someone or standing outside their homes to get a story. I don't want the story that badly. I want the story where I can call them and talk things out- find out new things. When it comes to ethics, it's rarely grey to me. Veering back on course, I think that objectivity is therefore impossible. A reporter can try to be as objective as possible, as in not putting their own opinions in a story, but other than that it's just not going to happen. Everyone has an angle and that alone shows POV.

2. Multimedia is making news and the news industry drastically change. Like the article last week said, convergence in the news media is happening all over. The main idea is that organizations are the same (reporter, editor, managing editor) but the outlets are different. This applies for magazines and other publications too. What applies more to me and my cohort is that because of this convergence, more careers and different opportunities are arising.

3. Interviewing is a strange topic, because to me it's just talking to learn something more than just a rehular conversation. The book says to build to the point, focus on one issue at a time, etc. This is all well and good... but it reminds the person that they're being interviewed. I find that by keeping it professional, I get way better answers when I treat it more like a conversation. I do like the part where they say to be honest and clear. If the interviewee doesn't feel comfortable, you're not going to get anything from them. I think it's a weird psychological thing, too, that the way you phrase questions changes the answer you may get.

All in all, good review.

Oprama?

When a professor asked me who I'd like to be, if anyone (alive or dead)... I answered "Oprah". To me, it's simple. She has more power than most people in the country. She tells her audience to buy a book, the next day the copies are sold out. She says no more beef, no one's eating it. This lady's ridiculous.
At a fundraiser for Barack, Oprah invited celebs and over 1500 guests. In order to keep costs in the campaign legal limits, tickets to attend were $2,300. Celebs of all kinds got to go: Stevie Wonder, Chris Rock Cindy Crawford.... But here's my favorite part: "Members of the media were barred from the event." (nytimes.com)
WHAT? How does this make sense? She sent notes out to invitees that not only would they not allow cameras or recording devices... they would also not accept any gifts. From a political standpoint... a good idea. From Oprah's standpoint... stupid. Oprah wants celebrities to give Obama money, and clearly with this kind of event, she's going to get press coverage... but she avoids letting press into the actual party. And yet... Oprah's biggest talent is being her own media base. What she says goes.... and spreads.
In a show about mad cow disease, Oprah told people to stop buying beef. The beef industry was so affected by it that they sued her. ("No Beef with Beef"). If I went anywhere and told people to stop buying anything... no one would even listen, let alone start a defamation suit over it. This is because after she said it, the beef industry lost millions of dollars in sales. The thing is, whether she admits it or not, she has power over the country. She endorses anything - even, say, a political candidate - and people listen. They don't know why they listen, but they do. The fact that she has no credibility or political experience doesn't matter either.
To put it clearly, I don't like Oprah. I think that when someone of such little credibility has so much power.... nothing good can come out of it. Endorsing Obama is probably going to influence the election more than most people think. Not only does Illinois basically love him... they also love her. By endorsing him, she just won Illinois for him. She most likely also won all Oprah fans... which is an ungodly number.
All in all... I think Oprah and Obama should become the next Hollywood-Washington allies. If they're lucky, Oprah will get in with the Democrats, and Obama will get billions of dollars and millions of votes.
I suggest: Oprama. It's the next hot Bennifer of this election. As much as I don't like Oprah... it was political genius for Obama to accept this party slash fundraiser slash social ladder climbing appearance.

State of the Media insight and such

The articles online were actually pretty interesting, in terms of where experts say newspaper and the news in general are going. It's pretty obvious that newspapers are declining, but the industry itself isn't so much dying out. I was surprised at how little online versions of papers bring in as in revenue. A small fact form the article is that a lot of the loss of readership of the big newspapers is because they switch to the online version of that same paper. Online, there tends to be less depth of subject, but in newspapers the stories are well-written at least. In the book it says that using "concrete detail" and creative observations, a story can become more than just facts. I agree with this, but the online stories we see today are often just the bare facts. Another main fact from the book, which I think actually goes along with stories on the Web, is to be precise in everything. This makes sense, but I feel like more readers just want the main story. They want to know briefly what happened and why. This isn't necessarily good, but it's true.
Going along this idea, the article also talked about how the online redesigns have prompted people to rethink newspapers' design. (http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_newspapers_intro.asp?cat=1&media=3)

To me this sounds like every paper will become a dumbed down version of itself. The price of papers has increased, so why not the quality of content? The one thing I feel like could work for the online newspaper is the idea of showing instead of telling. Sometimes people want to feel like they are at the scene of a crime or a big event. To bring the reader in, it's necessary to use the senses to engage the reader to keep going.
I think the most positive thing I read was that there was a stop to circulation-padding. For instance, everytime I go to a hotel and there is a USA Today at my doorstep, that counted as part of its circulation. Most of those people never read the paper, or even wanted it, but it somehow counted.
In terms of where the news is today in general, I think newspapers are going to have to rethink who is really buying them to read the whole thing- most want to see a specific section or a certain story. The revenue they will get is from the mature, educated audience who wants to read the New York Times front to back.

Obama's Girl

The video all over YouTube for awhile, "I got a crush on Obama," is basically insane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
The entire thing is essentially the star, Amber Lee Ettinger, showing off her body and singing (or lip-synching) to badly written lyrics. While it at first glance appears to be a political video, it is simply a racy music video to a bad song. What is odd to me is that other media outlets have covered it as a girl endorsing a political candidate. In reality, all she ever says about Barack Obama is that he would be a good president and that she has a crush on him. Now, she pops up at seemingly political and journalistic settings, like the YouTube debates.
http://www.barelypolitical.com/obama-girl-blog/
In her blog, she talks about how excited she is to be at these events and become a star (she was also featured in People magazine).
This, all in all, is taking politics to a whole new, weird, level. The election is about more than which candidate is cuter. However, there has been a large outcry for the youht vote. But when young, uninformed voters get out there like this one, I'm not sure that we're better off.