Plagiarism. The term in itself has too many definitions. I mean there is room for possibly every form of "copied work". i personally think that The Missourian's against Merrill were too harsh. Personally I would have gone with one of the options presented in, I think, the first link. I wouild have had Merril personallyl apologize to the editor of The Maneater, and apologize to the journalist involved, and apologize to the column. I think that The Missourian made a scapegoat out of Merrill. I mean I completely see where they're coming from...being hypocritical IS one of my biggest fears. The eidtor of the Missourian definitely made his point very clear. Just don't do it. Even if you are 83 years old a professor emiritus...don't do it. I do not agree with Clark when he said that he does not htink that what Merrill did was plagiarism. It clearly was a form of plagiarism. I also understand Merrill's defense and his use of the Categorical imperative...it was all in good intentions. But in today's world, who has time to look deep enough to judge the nature of the intention? My basic rule is that any unoriginal work used in my work should be attributed. What he did was wrong. The Missourian should have made a better choice.
That politics website was INCREDIBLE! I mean seriously wow. I actualy bookmarked that page. No joke. But it was also kind of scary. Mainly because it was so easy to find information...the really private information..like if the candidate has a permit, his tax records...etc. Is this same stuff about me out there as well? I mean WHAT? It also reminded of the power I have as a journalist. Regardless of this website, I have the power to access so much information and it is my job to make sure that I do justice to that access and to that information.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Sunday, December 2, 2007
And the female vote goes to....
"We have spent a long time and traveled a long road to get to this point. That doesn’t bring us to the place where gender becomes the only thing or even the most important factor determining our decision.” -- Kate Michelman, senior adviser to the Edwards campaign.
So true.
This NYT article talked about the possibility of Obama winning over the feminist side of society. The article featured many quotes from many feminists , who were struggling to choose between loyalty and reality. Loyality to the cause of feminism- equality for women. The reality that Obama is a lot more progressive than Clinton. Obama said in s peech that he knows and understands the strength of a woman. He spoke of his mother, a single mother who embodied woman empowerment. And he spoke of his wife who is strongminded and forthright of her opinion. But what really struck the feminists in the story was that Obama had the potential of moving beyond the pettiness of politics..beyond the partisanship and towards the betterment of the United States.
Author ALice Walker described Obama as "someone who honors the feminine values of caring for all."
And from what I have been reading Clinton seems to be surviving mostly on female votes while Obama has virtually equal support from both sexes. Obama has the potential of bringing our country forward because he understands that true democracy does not lie between the red tape of our politics. Unlike Clinton, who constantly moves closer nd closer to centre, Obama sticks to what he believes and that is in his HOPE. And Oprah will be joining him shortly on the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire caucus. Oprah NOW you have somehting to prove. I agree with your choice. Completely.
So true.
This NYT article talked about the possibility of Obama winning over the feminist side of society. The article featured many quotes from many feminists , who were struggling to choose between loyalty and reality. Loyality to the cause of feminism- equality for women. The reality that Obama is a lot more progressive than Clinton. Obama said in s peech that he knows and understands the strength of a woman. He spoke of his mother, a single mother who embodied woman empowerment. And he spoke of his wife who is strongminded and forthright of her opinion. But what really struck the feminists in the story was that Obama had the potential of moving beyond the pettiness of politics..beyond the partisanship and towards the betterment of the United States.
Author ALice Walker described Obama as "someone who honors the feminine values of caring for all."
And from what I have been reading Clinton seems to be surviving mostly on female votes while Obama has virtually equal support from both sexes. Obama has the potential of bringing our country forward because he understands that true democracy does not lie between the red tape of our politics. Unlike Clinton, who constantly moves closer nd closer to centre, Obama sticks to what he believes and that is in his HOPE. And Oprah will be joining him shortly on the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire caucus. Oprah NOW you have somehting to prove. I agree with your choice. Completely.
Audio Slideshows...the next big thing? or is it already?
Joe Weiss created the Soundslides program because of a "frustrated picture story." Sometimes the print story does not do justice to the story? Why because soemtimes words fall short of capturing the beauty of a moment. I quite like this idea of audio slideshows...seems simple and engaging. Well, I guess I will really f ind out how simple it is once I start working on my final project but for now from what the article pointed out, Weiss tried to make it as simple as possible. I especially liked his answer when the journalist asked him why he chose journalism. It was the "human to human" connections he could make. That concept was part of the reason why I chose journalism as well. Another thing, which I noticed was that hard news stories do not reall make it to the multimedia element. I thik this is probably because hard news is exactly what it sounds like: hard news. Not much of an engaging situation there. That is the reason why hard news ledes are generally boring and just factual. I also liked his idea of having a photojournalist work together with a reporter to create a story. but personally, I am for the independent media deal...I hope that at the end of my education at IC I will be armed with the appropriate tools to become my own independent media. Off to think about the final project.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
ELECTIONS'08 TMZ style: Clinton and Hasselbeck. Obama and Pot.
Hillary Clinton congratulated ElisabethHasselbeck, host of controversial show "The view", on the birth of her new baby. Hasselbeck is Republican. she said she might change her vote based on this random/rare/out of the blue congratulatory note. This why Hillary Clinton was in the news recently. A congratulatory to a Republican might gain her an extre vote.
Obama was in the news this weekend because he inhaled. Pot that is. Marijuana in official terms. The question was asked in reference to former President Bill Clinton's statement on pot where he said that he did not inhale. To that Obama said "The point was to inhale. That was the point.”
Obama did pot whn he was young. And THAT is the question that America is wondering.
Clinton congratulated the host of "ABC's all-female gabfest ". And she made the news.
Celebrity gossip could never get better.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202007/news/nationalnews/a_new_view_on_clinton_615745.htm
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/did-obama-inhale/
Obama was in the news this weekend because he inhaled. Pot that is. Marijuana in official terms. The question was asked in reference to former President Bill Clinton's statement on pot where he said that he did not inhale. To that Obama said "The point was to inhale. That was the point.”
Obama did pot whn he was young. And THAT is the question that America is wondering.
Clinton congratulated the host of "ABC's all-female gabfest ". And she made the news.
Celebrity gossip could never get better.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202007/news/nationalnews/a_new_view_on_clinton_615745.htm
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/did-obama-inhale/
What to do and what NOT to do..ETHICS and some online journalism
I thought that the book's presentation of ethics in journalism was extremely intriguing. I got the facts and I had examples to support or refute those facts (well maybe theories is a better word). In the sidebar I liked how they mentioned fair play as one of the values. Journlaism is about objectivity )at least ideally it is) so it is important to get both sides of the story regaardless of the situation. Generally I am not a fan of "formulaic nmodels" persay...like the Potter Box. But I do get what the model was trying to do...make it a little more easier for us in complicated situations. Over last weekend I happened to watch the movie "Never Been Kissed". The movie is a about a reporter who goes undercover as 17 year old and pretends to be a high school student and is asked to report on the school. Was that correct? I am not really sure. I think a reporter should go undercover if the situation concerned could affect the lives of the public. (A major pressing situation). And umm freebies....I don't know how I feel about that either. In one way it could be seen as an object given to anyone interested in the event. On the other side it cold be seen as a blatant bribe. Personally if I received a freebie...I think I would keep it and make it point to know that all the other journlaists got the same and that it would not affect my story. People really pay their sources? Ridiculous. Enough said. And should journalists give "full disclosure of their financial investments and memberships..." No. We are not public figures. Politicians are. We need to ensure that any story we do does not have a conflict of interest with out personal life. And if it does, the editor needs to be notified. I do not really that we should publish the rape victim's name without permission. And the information that you depart is based on your judgement, but it is important to realize that the editor knows all the information before you choose to take away any information.
NYM article decries Travis Fox of the Washington Post as a "globe-trotting hard-news yin ". I want to be him. Exactly. And he was so right in saying that online media should not replicate TV. Online journalism is synonmous with convergence in journalism. And I personally think the computer is becoming more and more popular than TV so it is veyr important o pay attention to the media feature online. I personally liked how Fox denounced the practice of print reporters to go on front of the camera in the online media.
The blog was interesting but the main thjing that I got out of it was the paragraph on curiosity. It is so easy to say "Eh justthe same ol'" But it can never be the same ol' stuff there always something new.
"it is a new and unsettling twist that compassion begins to fail with the mere addition of a second person" What? Sad but true. I do not really know what it is about horrific events, but the the point made in the CJR is true. For instance the Iraq war. The first death was front page news...slowly all deaths just became part of a large number. I know that journalism cannot make all the difference. But that is not the point. the point of journalism IS to make some difference..a little bit of change.
The online storytelling excerpt was very informative. I am personally a fan of clickable interactives and narrated slideshows. And someone in these four article had made the poit of print journalist tending to repeat the print version of their story on the online version. On the online version the print version needs a little twist. CONVERGENCE. that is what it is all about.
NYM article decries Travis Fox of the Washington Post as a "globe-trotting hard-news yin ". I want to be him. Exactly. And he was so right in saying that online media should not replicate TV. Online journalism is synonmous with convergence in journalism. And I personally think the computer is becoming more and more popular than TV so it is veyr important o pay attention to the media feature online. I personally liked how Fox denounced the practice of print reporters to go on front of the camera in the online media.
The blog was interesting but the main thjing that I got out of it was the paragraph on curiosity. It is so easy to say "Eh justthe same ol'" But it can never be the same ol' stuff there always something new.
"it is a new and unsettling twist that compassion begins to fail with the mere addition of a second person" What? Sad but true. I do not really know what it is about horrific events, but the the point made in the CJR is true. For instance the Iraq war. The first death was front page news...slowly all deaths just became part of a large number. I know that journalism cannot make all the difference. But that is not the point. the point of journalism IS to make some difference..a little bit of change.
The online storytelling excerpt was very informative. I am personally a fan of clickable interactives and narrated slideshows. And someone in these four article had made the poit of print journalist tending to repeat the print version of their story on the online version. On the online version the print version needs a little twist. CONVERGENCE. that is what it is all about.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
meh....same ol' same ol'
Lack of experience vs. lack of answers/ a stand.
"A poll driven campaign." That is the way Obama is decsribing Clinton's presidential campaign. At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, both CLinton and Obama took jabs at each other BUT indirectly. OOOH Politics...so very messy.
Ealier in the year, I compared politics to an afternoon soap and man oh man...t would be great TV. All the news talks about now is Obama and Clinton pointing out each others' faults. But indirectly. That is why we have political analysts. They identify the "indirect" recipient of a jab. Obama said Clinton is running textbook campaign and is not providing the public with answers about the way she would run the country. Clinton says that Obama needs experience. He's a rookie. And there is John Edwards, who said, "I watch the Republican candidates — Giuliani, Romney, McCain — and what I see is George Bush on steroids." What is going on? The media likes controversy so ofcourse it will cover these little indirect fights..but what about the real issues? I guess those who care will investigate further...but what about those who don't? Will they vote for the rookie, the old and experieinced, the guy with great or hair, or those who seem like "George Bush on steroids"?
Ha.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?ref=politics
"A poll driven campaign." That is the way Obama is decsribing Clinton's presidential campaign. At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, both CLinton and Obama took jabs at each other BUT indirectly. OOOH Politics...so very messy.
Ealier in the year, I compared politics to an afternoon soap and man oh man...t would be great TV. All the news talks about now is Obama and Clinton pointing out each others' faults. But indirectly. That is why we have political analysts. They identify the "indirect" recipient of a jab. Obama said Clinton is running textbook campaign and is not providing the public with answers about the way she would run the country. Clinton says that Obama needs experience. He's a rookie. And there is John Edwards, who said, "I watch the Republican candidates — Giuliani, Romney, McCain — and what I see is George Bush on steroids." What is going on? The media likes controversy so ofcourse it will cover these little indirect fights..but what about the real issues? I guess those who care will investigate further...but what about those who don't? Will they vote for the rookie, the old and experieinced, the guy with great or hair, or those who seem like "George Bush on steroids"?
Ha.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?ref=politics
wait...TV/Radio reporting...WHAT?
I'm so used to learning about print journlaism, practicing print journalism, talking print journalism that it felt a bot weird to learn about broadcast journalism. I attended a journalism workshop in 2005. While I was there, I indulged in radion andnewspaper reporting. When I look at my stories today, the difference in the print version of the story and th eradio version of the same is quite obvious. The radio version is simply "pat pat pat"...there was no ink wasted descrining anything. Sentences were short and to the point. And it almost was more fun because I had never quite created a radio report before. While reading this chapter, I recalled all the points that my mentors at the workshop pointed out to me.
The four criteria that defines broadcast journalism is not very much different from the criteria of print journalism, except for the part about audio and visual impact. It was interesting to see how the authors tressed on the use of present tense and the dire need to ensure "the story is happening right now" feel. It seems quite easy to write the way you talk...but it is quite surprising to find the many faults in the way we talk- the slang, the passive voice, the extra punctutatons etc. The most important aspect of both print and broadcast journalism is the need for clarity. It is true that it might be more imperative to be more clear while reporting for the radio and TV because the audience only has one shot to understand the core of the story. I actually quite liked the terms and abbreviations that the a radio/ TV story has : lead ins, wrap-ups, SDT, MOC, etc. The authors did a great job of speeling out what is necessary to successfully report for a radio/TV station. The other aspect of printvs tv/radio that never phased me was the quote attribution...in TV/radio, we attribute the quote in the beginning rather than the end/middle as we do in print.
I still like print.
The four criteria that defines broadcast journalism is not very much different from the criteria of print journalism, except for the part about audio and visual impact. It was interesting to see how the authors tressed on the use of present tense and the dire need to ensure "the story is happening right now" feel. It seems quite easy to write the way you talk...but it is quite surprising to find the many faults in the way we talk- the slang, the passive voice, the extra punctutatons etc. The most important aspect of both print and broadcast journalism is the need for clarity. It is true that it might be more imperative to be more clear while reporting for the radio and TV because the audience only has one shot to understand the core of the story. I actually quite liked the terms and abbreviations that the a radio/ TV story has : lead ins, wrap-ups, SDT, MOC, etc. The authors did a great job of speeling out what is necessary to successfully report for a radio/TV station. The other aspect of printvs tv/radio that never phased me was the quote attribution...in TV/radio, we attribute the quote in the beginning rather than the end/middle as we do in print.
I still like print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)