Random tidbits on becoming a professional

After reading Politics and The English Language by George Orwell I was stunned by his blunt tactics of conveying the downfall in prose. He definitely picks out some really good examples of how modern writing consists of "gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else," because it's pretty much easier to use ready made phrases. To me I've never really been told to copy any one else so this was interesting to hear.

I didn't really care for the reading I thought it was a little too loaded but I did agree with the fact that just as thought can corrupt language, language can corrupt thought- a bad usage can be spread like wildfire. I thought many of his points were pretty deep and I had a hard time relating and breaking down what he had to say. However, I did get the most out of these rules to avoid failure.

Never use a long word when a short word will do, never use passive when you can use active, and never use a foreign phrase/scientific phrase/jargon when an English equivalent will suffice. These were pretty good rules because its interesting that like me, he too must feel that modern writing has become too wordy, too messy and too obscure for no reason. You don't need to wow your reader because in the end you lose them.

The Five Characteristics of Academic or Scholarly Prose echoed that of Orwell. Prose uses more inflated writing, which is generally less effective than a direct style. After reading the examples, which differentiated the two, I began to prefer the direct style to the scholarly style. First of all, the academic style embellishes sentences more than necessary, uses static verbs, which are harder to follow, and uses long, complex sentence structures, which make it harder for the reader to abstract meaning.

To me this reading was interesting to see how the two styles are characterized and how they can tell the same story in such different ways. To me the direct style makes more sense because it gets right to the point and it made me realize how frustrating it can be for a reader to be bored by a sentence when a simple sentence would do. Now I know what not to do!!!

I found the reading on Three Mile Island to be really interesting. After writing the article we did on class and having no real background knowledge on the plant myself, I realized I was in the same boat as a lot of the reporters back then. Many of them were rather ignorant because back then they weren’t many beat reporters and this was something as foreign to them as it was to me.

It was also interesting that although it was a pretty big story, only the major news organizations turned out at the site forcing other dailies to rely on coverage by the main media outlets such as the two wire services.

I thought it was really interesting how the reporters broke down the different aspects that made this story newsworthy. It was very unique, it prompted fear, it had geographical importance, it had conflicting information since it was very complex, it had potential for catastrophe, it attracted the attention of the energy conscious and also was a huge coincidence to the release of a popular film the China Syndrome, which dramatized such an accident. By breaking down these aspects it helped me to see how Three Mile Island was such a huge story for reporters back then!!!

This article also highlighted some interesting things. How the reporters had to scramble for sources, how they handled confusing information, and how they covered accidents - inform the public about everything as soon as it happens. Lastly, it was really amusing to see how some reporters outright admitted to sensationalizing the story. They said it crept into the coverage because it was unnerving experience overwhelming a small town, and because the story itself was filled with “what if” questions which fueled drama.

I think this article really outlined the problems reporters came in contact and did a nice job on preparing better for future accidents. It was really cool to read!!!

After reading chapter 8 I realized the main point: good writing begins with good reporting. But what is good writing? It seemed to me to be a little broad. I learned good writing is precise, clear and concrete. It shows rather than tells and uses figures of speech.

By avoiding unbiased language, avoiding carelessness in word choice and increasing comprehension with numbers, a writer is able to be more precise and able communicate exactly what you mean. The book also highlighted some good tips on how to write clearly. I should remember to keep my sentences short and focused on one idea, avoid using too many numbers and prepositional phrases and use plain and simple words instead of jargon. Remembering these tips and also using correct grammar will help me keep my stories clear, simple and coherent for my reader.

Finally, I learned that clarity is in the details and that you should always be specific. One creative sentence I liked was that you should “chauffeur the reader through the scenes in your story.” This really drives home the point that you should include anecdotes and statistics to not only tell but also show information to engage and entertain your reader. Lastly, good writers know how to use literary devices such as analogies in order to “draw word pictures.” This is one aspect I know I need to work on as a writer!!

I know writing to be read isn’t easy but in the end I realized it can make or break the story for you AND your reader!!

The last chapter after a long day of reading was chapter 22, Media Law. All in the entire chapter was particularly boring for me because I hate law but I did learn a lot of new things here and there through the tedious reading.

In general I learned what rights I have as a journalist and what to do in specific situations regarding libel, invasion of privacy, confidential sources, access to the courtroom and copyright laws.

One thing that really scared me was libel. Ken Paulson outlined a few tips to avoiding libel, which really put me at ease. You should ask yourself: Have I reported fully, factually, fairly and in good faith? Paulson said if you can answer those questions positively and confidently then the law will take care of itself.

However, I learned the most about defenses to libel and slander and related concepts essential to journalists. I was really able to understand the difference between the two, see how we are protected under law, and what our constitutional privileges are. The three traditional defenses against libel are truth, privilege and fair comment and criticism. In addition to this I realized that with the invasion of privacy came the fact that you cannot trespass and you cannot portray someone in a “false light.”

I know I will have to review these again before I enter the real world because this chapter had a lot of important information for me to swallow!! Although I had read a chapter like this before in Intro, maybe it’s even the same one because it sounded familiar, I did take away some new things.