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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)