Something I never really thought about was the fact that news releases are good and bad for a newspaper. They are helpful because they give you a lead for a story but at the same time they often promote the interests of the organization that handed it out.
First of all I learned there is more then one type of news release. Silly me for thinking things were simple!! There is the announcement of coming events which is an attempt at free publicity. Next there is the cause-promoting release which is community oriented and like it sounds seeks to promote a cause for example raising funds. Finally there are the image- building releases which are pretty self explanatory, they promote the image of the candidate and are thus self serving.
Also, dont be fooled! News releases usually have missing information, so don't turn into a slacker when you get handed one of these releases,your job as a reporter is just beginning! After you finish the reporting you are to rewrite the story to make sure it follows AP guidelines and also to maintain integrity and professionalism.
Some other things to remember are to read the release carefully, check the accuracy of cite studies, polls or surveys and possible bias and throw out any information you can't confirm. When rewriting make sure to present the information clearly and objectively.
The book outlines how to handle a news release very clearly, I found it pretty helpful. I was reminded to read the information that appears on the top of the release form, check the AP news style, fill in missing information by doing some of your own reporting, watch for self serving bias, and look for other possible news stories that can be triggered by the release.
In the end I found the chapter to be pretty cool. After reading the story by Judd Slivka, I thought his quote was pretty clever. It really summed up how news releases can make the most important story of your life. "I hate news releases. Most of them are blasted out to lists of reporters without any thought about who's on the receiving end, and thus are wastes of time. But another truth is that I read them,hoping to find a diamond of a story in the rough unsolicited press releases."
While reading the chapter on speeches, news conferences, and meetings I really learned the importance of preparing before such an event. Like the book said, failure to get enough background information on the speaker and the speech almost gurantees failure at writing a comprehensive story.
I also learned that preparing and attending for the event is not enough. You have to make sure you get the content correct, record accurate quotes, and note the mannerisms of the main participants. Also when covering the event make sure to check out the audience size and reactions, and make sure to get there early and hang around afterward. You never know what insider information you can get, you may even find the golden nugget for your story. In other words one key tip to remember is to be sure to record what the recorder misses - gestures, facial expressions etc.
I realy liked the way the book simply and plainly stated that when you quote a whole speech you are not reporting it, you are simply recording it. The hard part is deteriming whats newsworthy!! The book really drove home the fact that even though covering routine meetings can be boring, part of your job as a reporter is to make it interesting for the reader! And even for common events like speeches, you are always expected to write well.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Clinton Cracking?
Actually I found it a little bizzare that the New York Times headline read "Laughing Matters in Clinton Campaign." Like the case where Rather cried on the Late Night show, I feel like reporters are picking on the emotions of people under pressure.
According to the article Clinton had just finished a serious speech about abortion rights and tried to find common ground with her listeners by connecting woman to woman. However, offstage she was immediately grilled by reporters about her own pro- choice decision. Thats when she " let loose a hearty belly laugh." To the reporters who thought they had missed a joke, it seemed that this time her chuckle was basically an eye roll.
Hilary's friends supported Clinton by saying it was her own sense of humor but was probably too sarcastic to share with the general public. After hearing both sides I'm not really sure about the origination of the laugh, but I am starting to find my self feeling sorry for the candidates. It makes you realize the type of political attacks and criticsm these people are under at every moment of their lives. She is the leading democratic candidate right now and I'm sure she has moments where she needs to maintain composure without seeming brittle, defensive, or weak.
However what the Times had to say was pretty interesting. After analyzing her other "cackles" they concluded that there were certain times where she was able to force it or fight it off. To me however it seems like maybe her agents are trying to sway her serious reputation to show the public that she really is a "joyful" person.
Like me, Clinton advisers themselves think the "concentration on Clinton's laughter is a little laughable." According to the site, the advisers are "bemused and irritated by questions that say Clinton is less then genuine" - such as whether her use of laughter is used to avoid or undercut a particularly controversial or difficult question.
After laughing and then being confronted at a news conference, Hilary said, " You guys keep telling me to lighten up,be fun. Now I get a little funny, and I'm being psychoanalyzed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/politics/28web-healy.html?8dpc
In another article by the Washington Post, there were several jabs made by other presidential candidates but none by Clinton. According to the article she "smothered every question with a blanket of condition responses, so reluctant to take a stand that she frusterated Tim Russert, the designated questioner."
The Granite Star Poll released before the debate that Clinton drew 43 percent of the support, with Obama, Edwards, and Richardson trailing with 20, 12, and six percent respectively. However, I'm curious to see if Clinton can maintain her lead without "making waves."
To me it seems that Clinton is just trying to coast right now and ride out her lead, boost her personality ratings and stray away from anything too controversial that could jeperadize her lead in the race. Perhaps thats a good game to be playing. It is evident she is playing defense and taking safe stands. Maybe thats a good strategy for her right now... but it could also be pretty risky!! As the Post headline exemplifies, Clinton is playing "dodgeball." Time will tell if it will take her through the next couple of months still as the top dog.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801341.html
According to the article Clinton had just finished a serious speech about abortion rights and tried to find common ground with her listeners by connecting woman to woman. However, offstage she was immediately grilled by reporters about her own pro- choice decision. Thats when she " let loose a hearty belly laugh." To the reporters who thought they had missed a joke, it seemed that this time her chuckle was basically an eye roll.
Hilary's friends supported Clinton by saying it was her own sense of humor but was probably too sarcastic to share with the general public. After hearing both sides I'm not really sure about the origination of the laugh, but I am starting to find my self feeling sorry for the candidates. It makes you realize the type of political attacks and criticsm these people are under at every moment of their lives. She is the leading democratic candidate right now and I'm sure she has moments where she needs to maintain composure without seeming brittle, defensive, or weak.
However what the Times had to say was pretty interesting. After analyzing her other "cackles" they concluded that there were certain times where she was able to force it or fight it off. To me however it seems like maybe her agents are trying to sway her serious reputation to show the public that she really is a "joyful" person.
Like me, Clinton advisers themselves think the "concentration on Clinton's laughter is a little laughable." According to the site, the advisers are "bemused and irritated by questions that say Clinton is less then genuine" - such as whether her use of laughter is used to avoid or undercut a particularly controversial or difficult question.
After laughing and then being confronted at a news conference, Hilary said, " You guys keep telling me to lighten up,be fun. Now I get a little funny, and I'm being psychoanalyzed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/politics/28web-healy.html?8dpc
In another article by the Washington Post, there were several jabs made by other presidential candidates but none by Clinton. According to the article she "smothered every question with a blanket of condition responses, so reluctant to take a stand that she frusterated Tim Russert, the designated questioner."
The Granite Star Poll released before the debate that Clinton drew 43 percent of the support, with Obama, Edwards, and Richardson trailing with 20, 12, and six percent respectively. However, I'm curious to see if Clinton can maintain her lead without "making waves."
To me it seems that Clinton is just trying to coast right now and ride out her lead, boost her personality ratings and stray away from anything too controversial that could jeperadize her lead in the race. Perhaps thats a good game to be playing. It is evident she is playing defense and taking safe stands. Maybe thats a good strategy for her right now... but it could also be pretty risky!! As the Post headline exemplifies, Clinton is playing "dodgeball." Time will tell if it will take her through the next couple of months still as the top dog.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801341.html
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Beyond the Pyramid
Usually my writing style screams feature so let me tell you I was pretty excited to read this chapter about narraration and telling a story to build a climax instead of giving it all away in the FIRST sentence. I know there's a need for it to save reader's and listener's time but its simply not entertaining to alwaysss use the inverted pyramid!!
One of my favorite things to do is to help the reader "see." I think it so important to write a scene by capturing the five senses. Throughout the chapter I learned the most important things to move a story along. You must create vivid scenes, let the actors speak to each other through dialogue, foreshadow important events and relate memorable anecdotes. And let me say that doing all of those things successfully is not easy but its what makes a story.
Foreshadowing is the technique of giving hints about whats coming. Just like in a movie, its a tease. It's so crucial to a story that it often determines if the reader will read on and its usually the most inticing. The ultimate "treats" are the anecdotes or the stories embedded in the stories. As the book says you are most likely to remember the anecdotes more than anything else in the story. However often they are sometimes hard to draw out of a source. The best tip I got was to phrase your questions to get stories.
When you use all of these elements you usually move out of the structure of the inverted pyramid. One way to use it is service journalism- MY FAVORITE! It refers to the "news you can use" and are usually sections like travel, food, and entertainment. Another really cool way to write is using the focus structure which "offeres the writer a powerful method of reducing statistics to a level readers can relate to and understand." To me this is also something I like to do because as a reader myself, I know that ten million deaths dont mean anything to me unless I'm emotionally connected somehow.
Writing the set up can be tricky because there are so many components. It consists of the transition to the theme paragraph, the theme paragraph, foreshadowing, the "so what" and the to-be-sure. If you dont present them efficiently you risk losing your reader early on. The "so what" tells the readers exactly why they should care, its the impact, its the relevance. The to-be-sure is also to be added to a story. Writers should acknowledge that there are two or more sides to a story. Then you must move onto the body.
When writing the body I learned its essential to maintain your readers interest with frequent examples to support your main points. By mixing the facts and the story line together you can keep your readers paying attention. I thought it was pretty clever to think of your story infrastructure as an interstate highway. Its a thread that moves you from one location to another and if you have to exit to introduce other ideas and information, they should be smooth just like transitions!
Lastly, I hadn't thought about it this way but stories should end, not just stop. Tie backs help complete the story and make it go full circle. Anecdotes, dialogues, scenes and good quotes all can wrap up a story quite well so I am hoping to learn to take advantage of that technique in my stories.
After reading this chapter I'm really excited because I know there are a lot more uniqe ways to write besides the inverted pyramid which can be stiffling for writers like me!
One of my favorite things to do is to help the reader "see." I think it so important to write a scene by capturing the five senses. Throughout the chapter I learned the most important things to move a story along. You must create vivid scenes, let the actors speak to each other through dialogue, foreshadow important events and relate memorable anecdotes. And let me say that doing all of those things successfully is not easy but its what makes a story.
Foreshadowing is the technique of giving hints about whats coming. Just like in a movie, its a tease. It's so crucial to a story that it often determines if the reader will read on and its usually the most inticing. The ultimate "treats" are the anecdotes or the stories embedded in the stories. As the book says you are most likely to remember the anecdotes more than anything else in the story. However often they are sometimes hard to draw out of a source. The best tip I got was to phrase your questions to get stories.
When you use all of these elements you usually move out of the structure of the inverted pyramid. One way to use it is service journalism- MY FAVORITE! It refers to the "news you can use" and are usually sections like travel, food, and entertainment. Another really cool way to write is using the focus structure which "offeres the writer a powerful method of reducing statistics to a level readers can relate to and understand." To me this is also something I like to do because as a reader myself, I know that ten million deaths dont mean anything to me unless I'm emotionally connected somehow.
Writing the set up can be tricky because there are so many components. It consists of the transition to the theme paragraph, the theme paragraph, foreshadowing, the "so what" and the to-be-sure. If you dont present them efficiently you risk losing your reader early on. The "so what" tells the readers exactly why they should care, its the impact, its the relevance. The to-be-sure is also to be added to a story. Writers should acknowledge that there are two or more sides to a story. Then you must move onto the body.
When writing the body I learned its essential to maintain your readers interest with frequent examples to support your main points. By mixing the facts and the story line together you can keep your readers paying attention. I thought it was pretty clever to think of your story infrastructure as an interstate highway. Its a thread that moves you from one location to another and if you have to exit to introduce other ideas and information, they should be smooth just like transitions!
Lastly, I hadn't thought about it this way but stories should end, not just stop. Tie backs help complete the story and make it go full circle. Anecdotes, dialogues, scenes and good quotes all can wrap up a story quite well so I am hoping to learn to take advantage of that technique in my stories.
After reading this chapter I'm really excited because I know there are a lot more uniqe ways to write besides the inverted pyramid which can be stiffling for writers like me!
Giuliani Takes a Stand
According to the LA Times, Republican nominee Rudolph Giuliani has renounced his anti-gun positions he took when he was mayor of New York and has asked the National Rifle Association to support his candidacy. Now immediately first hearing this I got weary that he was simply trying to gain supporters but perhaps he has had a change of heart.
This appears to be a crucial step for Giuliani because he has now reassured his loyalty with the social conservatives who make up a large percentage of his backing. However, I'm curious to see how he's going to handle his upset New Yorkers and "reconcile his anti gun stands" he had previously pledged.
After the Sept. 11 attacks Giuliani created many lawsuits against reckless gun manufacturing marketing in his agressive effort to end crime in the city. I think it's a good idea because perhaps after these attacks it makes us realize we DO need guns more then ever in the event that an occasion might arise where we need self protection. Although I do realize that sometimes the wrong people get their hands on guns and could use them for harmful purposes like the Virginia Tech tradgedy but for the most part those are rare occurrences.
Although the NRA clearly supported his new stand, John McCain who has been a longtime opponent of gun control took several knocks at Giuliani during his speech saying that we are equipping potential violent criminals with dangerous weapons which could cause harm in the long run. Although I half agree with both of them, I suppose there needs to be some happy medium. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-guns22sep22,1,2440090.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo
After reading the story from another source, the New York Post I was stunned to see that the headline was dramatically different then that of the LA Times. This time the headline was "Bad Call By Rude Rudy." Apparently in front of the same NRA crowd, Giuliani interupted his speech to take a phone call from his WIFE!!! First of all I immediately thought of our exercise in class with Dan Rather and Letterman. It made me realize how some news associations included Rather's crying in the lead, some included it later on and some didn't include it at all thinking it was just a minor detail. To me this is the SAME situation! I thought how funny it was that the LA Times didn't even mention it and here in the Post it was the lead!!! Anyway, I think this was a bad call on Giuliani's part because as he had already supported gun control, he walked into the speech with all eyes on him. Then he dared pick up his phone call- I think maybe he was doing it to be funny and lighten the mood but many people could have been outraged by his rudeness.
Too many of the audience members it echoed the fact that he didn't take the group seriously and to others it was just a weird joke. To me I think it was inappropriate and could have lost him supporters who were turned off by his unprofessional attitude. I don't think any president would do that. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09222007/news/nationalnews/bad_call_by_rude_rudy.htm
Time will tell if this stunt could have affected his run for the White House. Winning support of the pro-gun group could put him in a good position as the Republican candidate, it could make or break his chances as becoming the next Preident of the United States. Although I genuinely like Giuliani and half support his new position on gun laws, I'm looking on the bright side and hoping his on the spot decision to take the call can show that he has strong family values.
This appears to be a crucial step for Giuliani because he has now reassured his loyalty with the social conservatives who make up a large percentage of his backing. However, I'm curious to see how he's going to handle his upset New Yorkers and "reconcile his anti gun stands" he had previously pledged.
After the Sept. 11 attacks Giuliani created many lawsuits against reckless gun manufacturing marketing in his agressive effort to end crime in the city. I think it's a good idea because perhaps after these attacks it makes us realize we DO need guns more then ever in the event that an occasion might arise where we need self protection. Although I do realize that sometimes the wrong people get their hands on guns and could use them for harmful purposes like the Virginia Tech tradgedy but for the most part those are rare occurrences.
Although the NRA clearly supported his new stand, John McCain who has been a longtime opponent of gun control took several knocks at Giuliani during his speech saying that we are equipping potential violent criminals with dangerous weapons which could cause harm in the long run. Although I half agree with both of them, I suppose there needs to be some happy medium. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-guns22sep22,1,2440090.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo
After reading the story from another source, the New York Post I was stunned to see that the headline was dramatically different then that of the LA Times. This time the headline was "Bad Call By Rude Rudy." Apparently in front of the same NRA crowd, Giuliani interupted his speech to take a phone call from his WIFE!!! First of all I immediately thought of our exercise in class with Dan Rather and Letterman. It made me realize how some news associations included Rather's crying in the lead, some included it later on and some didn't include it at all thinking it was just a minor detail. To me this is the SAME situation! I thought how funny it was that the LA Times didn't even mention it and here in the Post it was the lead!!! Anyway, I think this was a bad call on Giuliani's part because as he had already supported gun control, he walked into the speech with all eyes on him. Then he dared pick up his phone call- I think maybe he was doing it to be funny and lighten the mood but many people could have been outraged by his rudeness.
Too many of the audience members it echoed the fact that he didn't take the group seriously and to others it was just a weird joke. To me I think it was inappropriate and could have lost him supporters who were turned off by his unprofessional attitude. I don't think any president would do that. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09222007/news/nationalnews/bad_call_by_rude_rudy.htm
Time will tell if this stunt could have affected his run for the White House. Winning support of the pro-gun group could put him in a good position as the Republican candidate, it could make or break his chances as becoming the next Preident of the United States. Although I genuinely like Giuliani and half support his new position on gun laws, I'm looking on the bright side and hoping his on the spot decision to take the call can show that he has strong family values.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Random Tidbits
After reading the Poynter Online E- Media Tidbits I definitely saw a really cool side of journalism. The author of the story said that the best thing about syndicating content via an RSS feed is that you never know what will happen to it. I thought this was pretty interesting because once journalists delivers the news, which is their job, it's pretty telling to see what the public does next. If one syndicator has enough power to bring whole communities together simply by linking people with similar interests, thats cool journalism.
The Power of a Blog entry was really fascinating too because last year I read a Google text with Prof. Williams and we learned the value of categorizing the search engine to determine which links show up first on the results page. Like this example, it is evident Google has a lot of power in what they do because they can ruin someone's reputation or job for that matter with their search engine! I never really thought about the impact Google had on the lives of people but it can make or break a company, an organization or a person's life by revealing damaging material or perhaps demoting companies further down the list which only hurts the company's sales by decreasing the viewers!!!
Another random tidbit I learned was how using a timeline can affectively tell a story and improve the ease of developing and reading online journalism. In today's society it is crucial to make things quick, and easy and online journalism is making news easier to read with each passing day. The time line package example was really neat to see how journalism comes in many different forms, not just long passsages of words. Clearly, I could "read" a story by looking at the timeline, and although this is relatively new and innovative it is exciting for journalists and readers alike to see what the future brings to help present the news more effectively.
Finally the best advice I got was from Chapter 4 In Their Own Words. As a reporter you never know whats going to be quoteworthy until you actually develop an ear to search for it and seek it out. After that it becomes easy. After a lot of practice I feel I will be able to devlop my skills and in the end ultimately improve my story.
Direct quotes really add color, make a story come alive, and give stories a breath of fresh air to break up a lot of text. While these are all good things, a bad quote has the potential to ruin a story by making it unclear, dull, or just stupid. Therefore I think its crucial to understand when to summarize, when to use partial quotes or direct quotes and how to properly attribute - once you got that down, its safe to say your story will come alive.
In general I learned to follow these guidelines: use direct quotes when something is unique, someone says something uniquely, or someone important says something important. It should say something significant and meaningful to spice up your story.
One of the most important things is to get the quote exactly word for word. Sometimes this is the scariest thing for me because once someone says something unique they will never say it again. They won't even remember what they said so they can repeat it for you. So basically you get it the first time or you don't get it at all - you gotta be on your feet in this profession !!
Finally, some other tips to remember are to verify and clarify or you basically run the risk of ruining your story by making it false and unclear. Also, it is usually better to paraphrase or to use full quotes rather then confuse your reader with partial quotes. Another thing to keep in mind is that you CAN correct the grammar of a speaker. Last but not least handling information on and off the record can be pretty tricky. Usually you are advised to avoid anonymous sources so as not to damage credibility, risk being sued if you ever have to name that source, and risk the fact that your source may be lying to test the waters.
Although a lot of information appears to be common sense, they are all definitely pieces of advice that are crucial to a story. I'm glad I took notes!
The Power of a Blog entry was really fascinating too because last year I read a Google text with Prof. Williams and we learned the value of categorizing the search engine to determine which links show up first on the results page. Like this example, it is evident Google has a lot of power in what they do because they can ruin someone's reputation or job for that matter with their search engine! I never really thought about the impact Google had on the lives of people but it can make or break a company, an organization or a person's life by revealing damaging material or perhaps demoting companies further down the list which only hurts the company's sales by decreasing the viewers!!!
Another random tidbit I learned was how using a timeline can affectively tell a story and improve the ease of developing and reading online journalism. In today's society it is crucial to make things quick, and easy and online journalism is making news easier to read with each passing day. The time line package example was really neat to see how journalism comes in many different forms, not just long passsages of words. Clearly, I could "read" a story by looking at the timeline, and although this is relatively new and innovative it is exciting for journalists and readers alike to see what the future brings to help present the news more effectively.
Finally the best advice I got was from Chapter 4 In Their Own Words. As a reporter you never know whats going to be quoteworthy until you actually develop an ear to search for it and seek it out. After that it becomes easy. After a lot of practice I feel I will be able to devlop my skills and in the end ultimately improve my story.
Direct quotes really add color, make a story come alive, and give stories a breath of fresh air to break up a lot of text. While these are all good things, a bad quote has the potential to ruin a story by making it unclear, dull, or just stupid. Therefore I think its crucial to understand when to summarize, when to use partial quotes or direct quotes and how to properly attribute - once you got that down, its safe to say your story will come alive.
In general I learned to follow these guidelines: use direct quotes when something is unique, someone says something uniquely, or someone important says something important. It should say something significant and meaningful to spice up your story.
One of the most important things is to get the quote exactly word for word. Sometimes this is the scariest thing for me because once someone says something unique they will never say it again. They won't even remember what they said so they can repeat it for you. So basically you get it the first time or you don't get it at all - you gotta be on your feet in this profession !!
Finally, some other tips to remember are to verify and clarify or you basically run the risk of ruining your story by making it false and unclear. Also, it is usually better to paraphrase or to use full quotes rather then confuse your reader with partial quotes. Another thing to keep in mind is that you CAN correct the grammar of a speaker. Last but not least handling information on and off the record can be pretty tricky. Usually you are advised to avoid anonymous sources so as not to damage credibility, risk being sued if you ever have to name that source, and risk the fact that your source may be lying to test the waters.
Although a lot of information appears to be common sense, they are all definitely pieces of advice that are crucial to a story. I'm glad I took notes!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Maybe There Is No Match for the "Clinton Machine"
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich offered a gloomy prognosis on the Republican party's chance of winning the White House in 2008. Gingrich said that in order for Republicans to have a chance, they must break with Pres. Bush and "seperate themselves from the current state of the political system... none of the candidates have done that just yet." As the Washington Post pointed out Gingrich believes, along with many other Republicans, that Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/14/post_72.html
After speaking with awe over her campaign so far and labeling her and her husband Bill the "Clinton Machine" it made me really take a look at the presidential race. It is so interesting for me to hear someone predict this early in the race whose got the best chance but at the same time I am beginning to wonder if maybe he's right. Bill Clinton was on Oprah the SAME day Hilary was on the Ellen Degeneres show, and to others that may be nothing but if you consider it, it is something, the "Clinton Machine" wants it. Bad.
He did offer a sense of hope to the Republican party by suggesting she can be defeated, but he did say that none of the potential nominees are running a campaign just yet thats got what it takes. Although I dont know if its the best decision for Republicans to break with Bush because that could jeperadize their chance in the first place by upsetting his loyal supporters and conservative backing, I do think many Republicans realize his plan isn't working and its time for change.
Even though Gingrich had hopes of at once entering the 2008 Presidential race, it seems that now he believes his chances are very slim for making the big jump into the political waters. It could definitely spice up the race if he did!!! Even though I dont think he stands a chance, I think his ideas are pretty much on target because he does have a lot of good ideas for reforming the government. I also found it pretty interesting that a Republican would bash his own party- he's gotta be pretty certain and passionate about the fact that the nominees aren't making the right campaign moves. I completely agree with his impression of the Clinton campaign. I truly believe right now she proves the one to beat, and even though Obama and Edwards are working hard as well, like Gingrich, Clinton has impressed me too.
After reading the Reuters article it made me reconsider how Gingrich is able to say that Republicans need a "Clean break" from Bush when he is a republican himself. Wasn't that a direct hit against his party and to Bush himself? Even though Gingrich said it wasn't a direct attack at Bush it makes me question what his motives are if he isn't even supporting his own party and instead attacking it!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1446262920070914?pageNumber=2
Until Gingrich decides if he is going to run in 2008, we are left with wary predictions and various reports from other news orgranizations urging republicans to make a clean break from Bush. Lets see if the nominees will take his advice and step up their game!!!
After speaking with awe over her campaign so far and labeling her and her husband Bill the "Clinton Machine" it made me really take a look at the presidential race. It is so interesting for me to hear someone predict this early in the race whose got the best chance but at the same time I am beginning to wonder if maybe he's right. Bill Clinton was on Oprah the SAME day Hilary was on the Ellen Degeneres show, and to others that may be nothing but if you consider it, it is something, the "Clinton Machine" wants it. Bad.
He did offer a sense of hope to the Republican party by suggesting she can be defeated, but he did say that none of the potential nominees are running a campaign just yet thats got what it takes. Although I dont know if its the best decision for Republicans to break with Bush because that could jeperadize their chance in the first place by upsetting his loyal supporters and conservative backing, I do think many Republicans realize his plan isn't working and its time for change.
Even though Gingrich had hopes of at once entering the 2008 Presidential race, it seems that now he believes his chances are very slim for making the big jump into the political waters. It could definitely spice up the race if he did!!! Even though I dont think he stands a chance, I think his ideas are pretty much on target because he does have a lot of good ideas for reforming the government. I also found it pretty interesting that a Republican would bash his own party- he's gotta be pretty certain and passionate about the fact that the nominees aren't making the right campaign moves. I completely agree with his impression of the Clinton campaign. I truly believe right now she proves the one to beat, and even though Obama and Edwards are working hard as well, like Gingrich, Clinton has impressed me too.
After reading the Reuters article it made me reconsider how Gingrich is able to say that Republicans need a "Clean break" from Bush when he is a republican himself. Wasn't that a direct hit against his party and to Bush himself? Even though Gingrich said it wasn't a direct attack at Bush it makes me question what his motives are if he isn't even supporting his own party and instead attacking it!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1446262920070914?pageNumber=2
Until Gingrich decides if he is going to run in 2008, we are left with wary predictions and various reports from other news orgranizations urging republicans to make a clean break from Bush. Lets see if the nominees will take his advice and step up their game!!!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The Nature of News, The Changing News Business, and Interviewing
One of the most interesting things to me is how we decide what news is. As stated in the book, the critera editors and reporters use is relevance, usefulness, and interest. But to me all of those things depend on the audience. What I think is interesting may not be interesting to my best friend,what's useful to me may not be useful to my grandmother, and what's relevant to me may not be relevant to my neighbor. I know these are broad guidelines but I feel the hardest thing for me right now as an aspiring journalist is to decipher what is news and whats not. Hopefully that will come with practice.
The book says that there are additional elements to help find a potential story: impact, conflict, novelty, prominence, proximity, and timeliness. I realized that one of the greatest challenges for a journalist is to make a dull important story sound interesting. And right now more then ever prominent names are making the headlines, and sometimes they are replacing stories that are have actual usefulness. Paris Hilton and the likes of Hollywood have been stealing the headlines and to me I'm a little concerned with this. Trust me I'm no different, I crave the hot juicy gossip about Brat Pitt and Angelina Jolie but sometimes it's a little bit overwhelming because it shows we have nothing better to do then pester the lives of others.
Sensational stories are getting a lot of coverage today, almost more so then the Iraq war. Just because they are big names, doesn't mean they should share the front page with global warming issues. But what I have to remember is that as the book says " journalism has been described as a culture's conversation with itself," and I guess it makes sense to think we are just talking about our culture, and celebrities are a big part of our culture today.
Another important thing I learned was how new technology changes how news organizations present the news. Journalists need to be practiced in all mediums and know which medium to use to present that piece of news the best. Whether it's sports scores or breaking news which can be put out the quickest on tv or online, or long articles that have a place in newspapers, journalists have to be multimedia journalists in our day and age.
Lastly, I learned that interviewing is the key to writing a story. It's the difference between mediocre reporting and good reporting. Because most fact gathering is done before an interview, interviews are best used to get reactions and emotions for your story. I realized that a lot of work goes into conducting a good interview because you must complete many steps before, during, and after interviews to ensure success. However, when it's all done it can "make" your story.
In the end, I think journalists need to be cut some slack. They have many responsibilites and right now they are getting criticized sometimes rightfully so but sometimes wrongfully so. Journalists are watch dogs, navigators, agenda setters, they monitor power, they uncover injustice, they sustain communities, they entertain and they inform us with information. Yes some changes need to be maid but we must put faith in our journalists because they are the reason we know what we know.
The book says that there are additional elements to help find a potential story: impact, conflict, novelty, prominence, proximity, and timeliness. I realized that one of the greatest challenges for a journalist is to make a dull important story sound interesting. And right now more then ever prominent names are making the headlines, and sometimes they are replacing stories that are have actual usefulness. Paris Hilton and the likes of Hollywood have been stealing the headlines and to me I'm a little concerned with this. Trust me I'm no different, I crave the hot juicy gossip about Brat Pitt and Angelina Jolie but sometimes it's a little bit overwhelming because it shows we have nothing better to do then pester the lives of others.
Sensational stories are getting a lot of coverage today, almost more so then the Iraq war. Just because they are big names, doesn't mean they should share the front page with global warming issues. But what I have to remember is that as the book says " journalism has been described as a culture's conversation with itself," and I guess it makes sense to think we are just talking about our culture, and celebrities are a big part of our culture today.
Another important thing I learned was how new technology changes how news organizations present the news. Journalists need to be practiced in all mediums and know which medium to use to present that piece of news the best. Whether it's sports scores or breaking news which can be put out the quickest on tv or online, or long articles that have a place in newspapers, journalists have to be multimedia journalists in our day and age.
Lastly, I learned that interviewing is the key to writing a story. It's the difference between mediocre reporting and good reporting. Because most fact gathering is done before an interview, interviews are best used to get reactions and emotions for your story. I realized that a lot of work goes into conducting a good interview because you must complete many steps before, during, and after interviews to ensure success. However, when it's all done it can "make" your story.
In the end, I think journalists need to be cut some slack. They have many responsibilites and right now they are getting criticized sometimes rightfully so but sometimes wrongfully so. Journalists are watch dogs, navigators, agenda setters, they monitor power, they uncover injustice, they sustain communities, they entertain and they inform us with information. Yes some changes need to be maid but we must put faith in our journalists because they are the reason we know what we know.
Is Thompson's Late Entry a Good Strategy?
After just declaring his Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential campaign, former senator Fred Thompson seems to have some slack to pick up. Was it a good strategy to commit so late in the game? It seems to me like he was on the fence and then all the sudden woke up one morning and on a whim gave it a shot. No matter what happened, he's definitely added a little twist to the game.
The Washington Post believes Thompson entered the race at a good time because " the state of the campaign is unsettled and many republican voters appear less than fully satisfied with their choices." This good be a good thing because although it is later in the game, the Post seems to think that most voters havent' even turned their attention to the race yet. Maybe he's just in time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602358.html
On the other hand, The Washington Times predicts that " Late entry could doom Thompson," and I'm tending to agree. I feel that even though the public hasn't come close to making their decisions about the campaign, they are certainly watching whose out there traveling the country, meaning they know who really wants it. It seems to me that he has some serious catching up to do to get his name out there, let alone to gain some support in the polls. It's not like he's a returning canidate who aleady has a loyal group of dedicated voters - he has to build a credible campaign in a short amount of time. I'm curious to see if he can do it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/NATION/109070078/1001
The New York Times said that his main strategy right now is to " win over conservatives who are disheartended at their current choice of republican candidates by positioning himself as the ideological and stylistic heir of Ronald Reagan." To me that sounds like he is just trying to bash the other republican nominees and use the strategies of a late president simply because he was receieved so well by the public. What concerns me is that he is simply not acting himself if he is trying to act like someone else. America doesn't need that in our government right now.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/2008-the-thompson-strategy/
What's also ironic is that as the Washington Times pointed out, it took Reagan three tries to win the election. Even though he is a new guy which means he will get lots of media attention I just don't think its possible to sway that many voters that quickly when it takes months for Americans to connect a name with a face.
While it seems that Thompson is just getting started, other republican candidates are out in full force. Giuliani is spending the day in Florida trying to gather support from the Cuban Americans while Romney is proposing a plan to eliminate taxes for families making an income under 200,000 dollars. It seems that Thompson is loosing ground every minute, because in the world of politics every minute counts. He has to know declaring this nomination so late was definitely not an advantage, his rivals have been working tirelessly for months now. I just don't know what he was thinking? Maybe he wasn't thinking?
When it comes down to it, I will give him a chance because he does appear to be doing pretty well in the polls early on. Perhaps Americans are just bored of the existing republican candidates and are giving him a chance as well. One things for sure, he's got a lot more impressing to do.
The Washington Post believes Thompson entered the race at a good time because " the state of the campaign is unsettled and many republican voters appear less than fully satisfied with their choices." This good be a good thing because although it is later in the game, the Post seems to think that most voters havent' even turned their attention to the race yet. Maybe he's just in time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602358.html
On the other hand, The Washington Times predicts that " Late entry could doom Thompson," and I'm tending to agree. I feel that even though the public hasn't come close to making their decisions about the campaign, they are certainly watching whose out there traveling the country, meaning they know who really wants it. It seems to me that he has some serious catching up to do to get his name out there, let alone to gain some support in the polls. It's not like he's a returning canidate who aleady has a loyal group of dedicated voters - he has to build a credible campaign in a short amount of time. I'm curious to see if he can do it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/NATION/109070078/1001
The New York Times said that his main strategy right now is to " win over conservatives who are disheartended at their current choice of republican candidates by positioning himself as the ideological and stylistic heir of Ronald Reagan." To me that sounds like he is just trying to bash the other republican nominees and use the strategies of a late president simply because he was receieved so well by the public. What concerns me is that he is simply not acting himself if he is trying to act like someone else. America doesn't need that in our government right now.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/2008-the-thompson-strategy/
What's also ironic is that as the Washington Times pointed out, it took Reagan three tries to win the election. Even though he is a new guy which means he will get lots of media attention I just don't think its possible to sway that many voters that quickly when it takes months for Americans to connect a name with a face.
While it seems that Thompson is just getting started, other republican candidates are out in full force. Giuliani is spending the day in Florida trying to gather support from the Cuban Americans while Romney is proposing a plan to eliminate taxes for families making an income under 200,000 dollars. It seems that Thompson is loosing ground every minute, because in the world of politics every minute counts. He has to know declaring this nomination so late was definitely not an advantage, his rivals have been working tirelessly for months now. I just don't know what he was thinking? Maybe he wasn't thinking?
When it comes down to it, I will give him a chance because he does appear to be doing pretty well in the polls early on. Perhaps Americans are just bored of the existing republican candidates and are giving him a chance as well. One things for sure, he's got a lot more impressing to do.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The State of the News
Despite the fact that the State of the News Media 2007 said that the newspaper isn't dying just yet, my personal belief is quite different. The way I see it, the newspaper is dying within my generation, and for right now thats all that matters because in the future our generation is going to be the ones either keeping it alive or laying it to rest.
It's obvious circulation is declining within the newspaper industry and even though many people consider this to be a bad thing, people are still reading the news, in just a different medium, the internet. More people then ever are turning to their computer for up the minute stories and to me I see that as an improvement. Before this Americans had to wait until the next morning to get breaking news, now we a we have greater opportunities to stay connected with whats going on in the world. Even though the newspaper industry may feel the decline in readership, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and label it a bad thing because after all, people are still reading the news and isnt the idea of a newspaper to give people the news? Now we are doing that task a lot better, and a lot quicker, so we should consider this frightening and exciting transition a positive thing instead of a negative thing.
Although the big snag still remains, making money. As a journalist naturally I'm scared of where the industry is going. If newspapers cant keep up their circulation and online news sources can't make enough money to make ends meet, where does that leave me as an aspiring reporter?
My hope is that as more students start graduating from college and joining the industry, there will be a greater group of people specialized in online reporting and ready to take on ushering our industry and our fellow generations into an online media. I don't think that newspapers should view the Web as a threat but instead an asset, a medium to fall back on incase of eventual failure, and more optimistically a complement. If both the Web and the newspaper viewed each other as a threat, they would both fail trying to outdue the other and compete until one or the other falls short.
Even though it is still too early to tell because lets be honest newspaper companies are still surviving, they just aren't thriving, both industries should be hopeful that with the coming years we will learn to reverse the current declining trends in readership and at the same time attract online readers yet still make a profit. In the end though the most important concern is to look out for the public and make sure that we put them first and get them the news the best way we can. The stage is set for the coming years to make a big change and hopefully some big success.
It's obvious circulation is declining within the newspaper industry and even though many people consider this to be a bad thing, people are still reading the news, in just a different medium, the internet. More people then ever are turning to their computer for up the minute stories and to me I see that as an improvement. Before this Americans had to wait until the next morning to get breaking news, now we a we have greater opportunities to stay connected with whats going on in the world. Even though the newspaper industry may feel the decline in readership, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and label it a bad thing because after all, people are still reading the news and isnt the idea of a newspaper to give people the news? Now we are doing that task a lot better, and a lot quicker, so we should consider this frightening and exciting transition a positive thing instead of a negative thing.
Although the big snag still remains, making money. As a journalist naturally I'm scared of where the industry is going. If newspapers cant keep up their circulation and online news sources can't make enough money to make ends meet, where does that leave me as an aspiring reporter?
My hope is that as more students start graduating from college and joining the industry, there will be a greater group of people specialized in online reporting and ready to take on ushering our industry and our fellow generations into an online media. I don't think that newspapers should view the Web as a threat but instead an asset, a medium to fall back on incase of eventual failure, and more optimistically a complement. If both the Web and the newspaper viewed each other as a threat, they would both fail trying to outdue the other and compete until one or the other falls short.
Even though it is still too early to tell because lets be honest newspaper companies are still surviving, they just aren't thriving, both industries should be hopeful that with the coming years we will learn to reverse the current declining trends in readership and at the same time attract online readers yet still make a profit. In the end though the most important concern is to look out for the public and make sure that we put them first and get them the news the best way we can. The stage is set for the coming years to make a big change and hopefully some big success.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Clintons Teaming Up for 2008 Campaign
I knew Hilary Clinton was going to use every means possible to get elected as president. But, she's pulling out the secret weapon, her husband Bill a lot quicker then I thought.
Earlier today Hilary and Bill stepped out in New Hampshire to connect with potential voters at the Hopkinton State Fair. I found it intriguing that Hilary is already using every means necessary to get into the White House. Although her strategy to use Bill is advantageous, she definitely has one up on the other candidates who don't have a connection and a path of followers already.
The Concord Monitor online quoted residents as saying that some only came out to the fair to see Bill, not Hilary. Although I don't think Bill is trying to steal the spotlight, I genuinely think he is trying to help her in any way he can, I think Hilary is no dummy, she is definitely using that as a way to one up other candidates who don't already have loyal voters. Regardless who the fairgoers came to see, people's first agendas might have been to see the former president and then listen to the potential candidate. It's certianly obvious she's going to get the listener's ear first and receive more attention by voters because Clinton is already a household name. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/FRONTPAGE/709030369
While other candiates in the race like Barack Obama have to prove to the voters that he deserves their undivided attention at such events, Hilary has an automatic right to passage and decent credibility because of her last name. I thought it was funny how some foreign newspapers covered the story- the Turkish Press didn't even mention Hilary in the lead when she's the one running for president!! http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=192455&s=&i=&t=Bill_Clinton_turns_back_clock,_Hillary_winds_it_forward
It's nice that Bill is using his celeb status to set the stage for his wife but she definitely has had an easier time gaining the spotlight in the news which is sometimes all it takes for voters to listen. Her opponnents have had to build their own reputation - Hilary already had one thanks to her husband who despite his affair which tarnished his image had captivated the United States as a great president. And to some people who know little about politics that might be all it takes. 'If Clinton was good, then this Clinton will be good.' So when Americans go into the voting machine they might realize they know little about the campaign and instead fall back on what they remember. Therefore the trust and faith they had in Bil could transfer to Hilary and increase her electability. Like the New York Times said, " Mr. Clinton's words carry weight, even if his bias is obvious" people are going to listen.
What is boils down to is that other campaigners are going to need to work even harder to get their name buzzing around town or the country for that matter. Eventhough I almost feel that it is cheating to use Bill as a means to gain voters, I suppose during the race for presidency you pull out all the stops. You can't play nice in a cut throat race with only one winner.
Earlier today Hilary and Bill stepped out in New Hampshire to connect with potential voters at the Hopkinton State Fair. I found it intriguing that Hilary is already using every means necessary to get into the White House. Although her strategy to use Bill is advantageous, she definitely has one up on the other candidates who don't have a connection and a path of followers already.
The Concord Monitor online quoted residents as saying that some only came out to the fair to see Bill, not Hilary. Although I don't think Bill is trying to steal the spotlight, I genuinely think he is trying to help her in any way he can, I think Hilary is no dummy, she is definitely using that as a way to one up other candidates who don't already have loyal voters. Regardless who the fairgoers came to see, people's first agendas might have been to see the former president and then listen to the potential candidate. It's certianly obvious she's going to get the listener's ear first and receive more attention by voters because Clinton is already a household name. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/FRONTPAGE/709030369
While other candiates in the race like Barack Obama have to prove to the voters that he deserves their undivided attention at such events, Hilary has an automatic right to passage and decent credibility because of her last name. I thought it was funny how some foreign newspapers covered the story- the Turkish Press didn't even mention Hilary in the lead when she's the one running for president!! http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=192455&s=&i=&t=Bill_Clinton_turns_back_clock,_Hillary_winds_it_forward
It's nice that Bill is using his celeb status to set the stage for his wife but she definitely has had an easier time gaining the spotlight in the news which is sometimes all it takes for voters to listen. Her opponnents have had to build their own reputation - Hilary already had one thanks to her husband who despite his affair which tarnished his image had captivated the United States as a great president. And to some people who know little about politics that might be all it takes. 'If Clinton was good, then this Clinton will be good.' So when Americans go into the voting machine they might realize they know little about the campaign and instead fall back on what they remember. Therefore the trust and faith they had in Bil could transfer to Hilary and increase her electability. Like the New York Times said, " Mr. Clinton's words carry weight, even if his bias is obvious" people are going to listen.
What is boils down to is that other campaigners are going to need to work even harder to get their name buzzing around town or the country for that matter. Eventhough I almost feel that it is cheating to use Bill as a means to gain voters, I suppose during the race for presidency you pull out all the stops. You can't play nice in a cut throat race with only one winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)