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/
Sunday, November 25, 2007
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.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Obama is bringing it on...SERIOUSLY!
Last week I noted how Obama said he is going "to get down and dirty" with Clinton. And he is. But the issue now is that he is attempting to do so while still maintaining his original intention of relaying hope for a better America. Essentially he is trying ot balance the negative and positive aspects of his campaign at the same time. It is hard to show your positive side when you are continually trying to point out the faults of your opponent. All the point that he makes against Clinton are all definitely legitimate. He shows courage by confronting in front of national televiiso like he did on the debates in philly..and on SNL where he spoke to a disguised CLinton. My mian fear that soon he will become the one who spent all his time discrediting his opponent and forgot to focus on his policy. I'm afraid that the public will become too interested in what he is saying against Clinton rather than what he is for himself. He said in the article that Clinton was conducting a textbook campaign and that her campaing provides suggesstions on how to win the election rather than focusing on how to brig th country tgether. I understand that bringing the country together is his primary goal..but will this goal be overshadowed by his decision to fight CLinton upfront...like the article said.."only time will tell"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3818282&page=1
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3818282&page=1
real journalism....?
When I thought of journalism, I always thought of the profession that uncovers the truth. I always thought of someone who goes beyond comfortable standpoints to show what is really going. Whether it is being present in the heart of a war zone, a disaster zone, a government coup, protests etc. For me investigative reporting is the true essence of journalism. On Oct. 24,2007. Alisher Siapov, an Uzbek reporter, was shot three times in the head and chest presumably by the Uzbek government's secret service. BBC described Siapov as the most outspoken Uzbek because "for Alisher, journalism was not just a job, it was a tool, an instrument to push for what he saw as desperately needed change." That is exactly the way I see journalism
Ch 18 focused on investigative reporting- the process, the results, etc. I actually was glad to find a description of the process to conduct investigative reporting. I particularly liked how they named the second part of the process as the "sniff". But the important thing is, like the book said, ACCURACY! Any inaccurate informatio can easily negate all the hardwork put in reporting the story. Generally, I prefer the hard lead, but when the topic of investigative style reporting arises, I like the anecdotal lead..because it humanizes the story on a personble level. The listing of "human" and "paper" sources also helped, athough I feel that human sources would be more emotionally revealing, paper sources could be more factually revealing...The most intriguing part of the chapter was part where the authors spelled out the various obstacles a reporter could face...I was most surprised that money was determined as the first obstacle...For me the first obstacle would definitely be red tape!
The IRE website was also fairly interesting but it mostly reminded me why I am disappointed in todas version of journalism...why is the fact that many Chinese workers ae dying while manufaturig American products not more important than Britney Spears' marriage problems...why is it not mainstream news? The links led to many interesting stories and those stories would have remained unread if not for the if not for the website. I especially liked how we could find he various links n the"find a beat " page. Although I feel many of the important websites were left out or maybe I just did not look well enough..where was the international monetary fund website..how about WHO, etc.
But on the whole today's reading was good.
Ch 18 focused on investigative reporting- the process, the results, etc. I actually was glad to find a description of the process to conduct investigative reporting. I particularly liked how they named the second part of the process as the "sniff". But the important thing is, like the book said, ACCURACY! Any inaccurate informatio can easily negate all the hardwork put in reporting the story. Generally, I prefer the hard lead, but when the topic of investigative style reporting arises, I like the anecdotal lead..because it humanizes the story on a personble level. The listing of "human" and "paper" sources also helped, athough I feel that human sources would be more emotionally revealing, paper sources could be more factually revealing...The most intriguing part of the chapter was part where the authors spelled out the various obstacles a reporter could face...I was most surprised that money was determined as the first obstacle...For me the first obstacle would definitely be red tape!
The IRE website was also fairly interesting but it mostly reminded me why I am disappointed in todas version of journalism...why is the fact that many Chinese workers ae dying while manufaturig American products not more important than Britney Spears' marriage problems...why is it not mainstream news? The links led to many interesting stories and those stories would have remained unread if not for the if not for the website. I especially liked how we could find he various links n the"find a beat " page. Although I feel many of the important websites were left out or maybe I just did not look well enough..where was the international monetary fund website..how about WHO, etc.
But on the whole today's reading was good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)