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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)