Adrienne Saia Isaac
Newsgathering I
September 24, 2008
Rich, page 117
a) She felt bad about missing the school board meeting, but her editor fired her regardless of her excuse.
b) We will join together in prayer for the students who died in the shooting and we will fly the flags at half-staff.
c) It is all right if you miss class for a job interview. You can make up the test tomorrow.
d) We will divide the workload among three students.
e) The St. Joseph Board of Commissioners plans to submit a proposal for a bond issue to pay for road improvements. They hope that the election committee will reach a consensus to put issue on the ballot.
f) Each of the applicants will have a chance to discuss their strengths and weaknesses with the personnel director.
g) Based on your writing skills, it looks like you could be a good journalist.
h) Each of the students will receive a plaque with their diplomas at graduation.
i) She was embarrassed that she had fewer than five answers correct on the quiz.
j) After the boss read the report he gave it to Jim and me to rewrite. He said that it is due back by Monday.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Page 42 Assignment - REDUX
Study Shows Right-handed People Live Longer
The hand you write with might determine how long you are going to live.
A study released in today's New England Journal of Medicine suggests that right-handed people are more likely to outlive their left-handed counterparts.
Diane Halpern, psychology professor at California State University at San Bernadino, studied the death certificates and dominant hands of 987 residents of Southern California. She and her colleagues determined that left-handed people were six times more likely to die from accidents than right-handed people.
"The results are striking in their magnitude," Halpern said. She found that right-handed women outlive left-handed women by six years. Right-handed males tend to outlive left-handed males by 11 years.
Halpern offers a practical reason for the frequency of accidental deaths among left-handed people. "Almost all engingeering is geared to the right hand and left foot," Halpern said. She adds that, "there are many, many old left-handed people" and that her study "should not, of course, be used to predict the life span of any individual."
The hand you write with might determine how long you are going to live.
A study released in today's New England Journal of Medicine suggests that right-handed people are more likely to outlive their left-handed counterparts.
Diane Halpern, psychology professor at California State University at San Bernadino, studied the death certificates and dominant hands of 987 residents of Southern California. She and her colleagues determined that left-handed people were six times more likely to die from accidents than right-handed people.
"The results are striking in their magnitude," Halpern said. She found that right-handed women outlive left-handed women by six years. Right-handed males tend to outlive left-handed males by 11 years.
Halpern offers a practical reason for the frequency of accidental deaths among left-handed people. "Almost all engingeering is geared to the right hand and left foot," Halpern said. She adds that, "there are many, many old left-handed people" and that her study "should not, of course, be used to predict the life span of any individual."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Left-handed People are Weirdos and this is the Best Headline Ever
For this "blog," we were to complete the assignment on page 42 in Rich's book Writing and Reporting News. The following article is based on information given to us and is in no way meant to represent any factual news story. In the words of Norm McDonald on SNL - "And here's the fake news...":
Focus sentence: Right-handed people live longer than left-handed people.
Suggestion for visual: Bar graph with male left-handed people, female left-handed people, male right-handed people, and female right-handed on the horizontal axis. Ages in ascending increments would run up the vertical axis from zero. This is the easiest way to show the results of the study, minimizing variables and providing an easy-to-read chart.
The article:
Study Shows Right-handed People Live Longer
The hand you write with might determine how long you're going to live. A study released in today's New England Journal of Medicine suggests that right-handed people might outlive their left-handed counterparts.
Diane Halpern, psychology professor at California State University at San Bernadino, studied the death certificates and dominant hands of 987 in Southern California. She and her colleagues determined that left-handed people were six-times more likely to die from accidents that right-handed people.
"The results are striking in their magnitude," Halpern said. She also learned that right-handed women outlive left-handed women by six years. Right-handed males outlive left-handed males by 11 years. Halpern adds that "There are many, many old left-handed people" and that her study "should not, of course, be used to predict the life span of any individual."
Halpern suggested that individual health and fitness also influence life-span. She offers another practical reason for the frequency of accidents among left-handed people. "Almost all engineering is geared to the right hand and right foot," Halpern said. Halpern warns against trying to change the habits of left-handed children precisely as a result of the study. She adds, "some of my best friends are left-handed."
Monday, September 15, 2008
Power to the People
Rick posed a series of questions to us regarding the power of Weblogs and bloggers and their relationship to mainstream media. An example of my opinion can be found in an earlier post, HERE. In the interest of fully answering Rick's question (and, ahem, staying in mode with the title of this blog page), I'll expand on those ideas forthwith.
I dare say the Internet has the power in reporting the news. Bloggers aren't bound by the constraints of time and space, as are broadcasters. In some cases, we aren't bound by editors or people/agencies who pay our salaries either. That way, we're not like the LA Times bloggers who were restricted in their reporting about the Edwards affair - we're able (within the laws of libel) to write about whatever we damn well please and comment on news according to our beliefs. We gladly wear our bias on our collective sleeve, often eschewing the premise of objectivity altogether. People who follow us want salacious and opinionated writing; people have had enough of big media broadcasts, where stories are watered down and edited to the point of blandness. Consumers of news (and here I mean mostly educated and civically-active, on either end of the political spectrum) want first-hand reports that reek of legitimacy and not "old-guard" money and prestige. People want to trust someone who thinks like them - not a mass-produced, canned, and preservative-laden media who tells them what to think.
Bloggers are the spicy alternative to your boring old newscast.
As evidenced in the Rathergate scandal, bloggers enforce accuracy in mass media news. They examine mass media stories, mostly in accordance with their own political beliefs, questioning both legitimacy and objectivity from their own thinly veiled viewpoint. I do the same thing - I read a story from mainstream media and either agree or call "bullshit!" and write my own idea of what happened (either backed by facts or my own analysis). We, as bloggers, hold mass media accountable for what they are telling the American people. Bloggers draw ire because we criticize everything we hear without any claim to legitimacy in mass media (often one will hear "Who the hell is she to comment on this??). Therein lies the beauty in what bloggers do - we're just people with an opinion and an Internet connection (and, if you're reading good blogs, a propensity toward proper grammar and witty repoirte).
Bloggers pander to their own contingency of followers, both devotees and detractors alike, offering their own view of the story. We are the new watchdogs in an era of spin and cover-up. We're not the authority, but an alternative authority.
I dare say the Internet has the power in reporting the news. Bloggers aren't bound by the constraints of time and space, as are broadcasters. In some cases, we aren't bound by editors or people/agencies who pay our salaries either. That way, we're not like the LA Times bloggers who were restricted in their reporting about the Edwards affair - we're able (within the laws of libel) to write about whatever we damn well please and comment on news according to our beliefs. We gladly wear our bias on our collective sleeve, often eschewing the premise of objectivity altogether. People who follow us want salacious and opinionated writing; people have had enough of big media broadcasts, where stories are watered down and edited to the point of blandness. Consumers of news (and here I mean mostly educated and civically-active, on either end of the political spectrum) want first-hand reports that reek of legitimacy and not "old-guard" money and prestige. People want to trust someone who thinks like them - not a mass-produced, canned, and preservative-laden media who tells them what to think.
Bloggers are the spicy alternative to your boring old newscast.
As evidenced in the Rathergate scandal, bloggers enforce accuracy in mass media news. They examine mass media stories, mostly in accordance with their own political beliefs, questioning both legitimacy and objectivity from their own thinly veiled viewpoint. I do the same thing - I read a story from mainstream media and either agree or call "bullshit!" and write my own idea of what happened (either backed by facts or my own analysis). We, as bloggers, hold mass media accountable for what they are telling the American people. Bloggers draw ire because we criticize everything we hear without any claim to legitimacy in mass media (often one will hear "Who the hell is she to comment on this??). Therein lies the beauty in what bloggers do - we're just people with an opinion and an Internet connection (and, if you're reading good blogs, a propensity toward proper grammar and witty repoirte).
Bloggers pander to their own contingency of followers, both devotees and detractors alike, offering their own view of the story. We are the new watchdogs in an era of spin and cover-up. We're not the authority, but an alternative authority.
I'd Rather Be Accurate!
In September 2004, before the Presidential election of that year and before the 3rd anniversary of 9/11, CBS's "60 Minutes" news program ran a story claiming that they had obtained records proving that President George W. Bush had skated through his National Guard tenure. Dan Rather sat at the helm, providing gravitas to the damning news report. Disclosure of these documents seemed to legitimize the deepest thoughts of Democrats and liberals - this president lied, was a son of privilege, and didn't deserve to be in office.
However - when the broadcast was over, shit already started to fly.
Right-wing bloggers grabbed hold of the story and images of the documents and immediately refuted their authenticity. CBS and its esteemed anchor flew into the defensive, backing the accuracy of their report. This proved difficult, as the author of the documents was long dead and they only had one source who provided the documents and claimed them as real. Eventually, it could not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the documents were real. Rather resigned his post in November 2004 under the shame of possible political slander. It no longer mattered if the documents (or the information contained therein) was indeed true - the story itself had been made illegitimate by hasty reporting and shoddy fact-checking. Now America would never know the truth.
So... where does this leave us as consumers of news? Well - it leaves us in a precarious position, as the need to question each and every story has been put front and center. We can't trust the mainstream media because the importance of ratings (and being "the first" to break a story) has superseded accuracy in reporting. We also need to be careful of the pundits who analyze the news for us. In the case of "Rathergate," the bloggers in question were members of the Republican Party or apparatchiks to Bush himself. Nary existed an unbiased source. Without absolute authority - the author of the documents, in this case, since their authenticity could not be proven by a third party - the argument would never be even and the public would never know the truth. The only truth remaining is that the public can't trust anything they hear and their fact-checking resources are as biased as the news stories themselves.
Bleak. I know.
As a voter... well... my opinions as a voter and participant in American political life would seem odd and depressing to some. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 and even if he were the most capable member of the Texas Air National Guard, I still wouldn't have voted for him. It didn't take a newscast to persuade me that his views and my views stood at odds with each other. However, I'm not most Americans - I am generally skeptical of mass media and those in positions of power (Republican or Democrat). I wish everyone could be hyper-critical, but they're not. Some people, among the struggles (or nirvana!) of everyday life, choose not to question their perceived figures of authority. I question everything - always have and always will. It's the only power, as an American voter and citizen of the world, that I feel I have left: the ability to think for myself.
As a student of journalism (and of life), I realize that everything said or written be interpreted as an indictment or an untruth. It's important to be transparent and to closely examine all sides of an argument, if only to know how to address both admirers and detractors. It's also easier now to hide behind a computer, citing others and blogging my own opinion than it is to report "news." Being a commenter resolves one from claims of slander or libel and is protected by the First Amendment (if one believes that still exists). Rathergate proves that it's a dangerous time to report the news, if only because there are armies of people ready to pounce on a story deemed slanted or, worst of all, untrue. This happens with both left and right wingers, so no one is really safe (if you need an example, just look at the Internet claims of retarded baby Palin not being Miss Sarah's and actually belonging to her knocked-up daughter - that's the only reason her pregnancy was addressed by the Palin camp - because bloggers were supposing an even greater transgression that necessitated repudiation).
Check, double-check, and triple-check everything you print and broadcast. Play devil's advocate with yourself so you can address every argument against you. Be ready to defend your statements, but never pretend to be ironclad. Know your sources - and be prepared to take their pitfalls as your own. The reporter is the mouthpiece of the whistleblower, and reprinting or broadcasting their story (especially on a long-running national newscast) is legitimizing their word. No longer do people view news as unbiased - even if one is reporting a matter of public record - if an authority figure (especially one with as much money and influence as G. W. Bush) undergoes a character assassination. Someone is going to find a crack in your story and you had better be ready with the superglue when that time comes.
For further reading and to see where our reference articles for this piece were, click HERE.
However - when the broadcast was over, shit already started to fly.
Right-wing bloggers grabbed hold of the story and images of the documents and immediately refuted their authenticity. CBS and its esteemed anchor flew into the defensive, backing the accuracy of their report. This proved difficult, as the author of the documents was long dead and they only had one source who provided the documents and claimed them as real. Eventually, it could not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the documents were real. Rather resigned his post in November 2004 under the shame of possible political slander. It no longer mattered if the documents (or the information contained therein) was indeed true - the story itself had been made illegitimate by hasty reporting and shoddy fact-checking. Now America would never know the truth.
So... where does this leave us as consumers of news? Well - it leaves us in a precarious position, as the need to question each and every story has been put front and center. We can't trust the mainstream media because the importance of ratings (and being "the first" to break a story) has superseded accuracy in reporting. We also need to be careful of the pundits who analyze the news for us. In the case of "Rathergate," the bloggers in question were members of the Republican Party or apparatchiks to Bush himself. Nary existed an unbiased source. Without absolute authority - the author of the documents, in this case, since their authenticity could not be proven by a third party - the argument would never be even and the public would never know the truth. The only truth remaining is that the public can't trust anything they hear and their fact-checking resources are as biased as the news stories themselves.
Bleak. I know.
As a voter... well... my opinions as a voter and participant in American political life would seem odd and depressing to some. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 and even if he were the most capable member of the Texas Air National Guard, I still wouldn't have voted for him. It didn't take a newscast to persuade me that his views and my views stood at odds with each other. However, I'm not most Americans - I am generally skeptical of mass media and those in positions of power (Republican or Democrat). I wish everyone could be hyper-critical, but they're not. Some people, among the struggles (or nirvana!) of everyday life, choose not to question their perceived figures of authority. I question everything - always have and always will. It's the only power, as an American voter and citizen of the world, that I feel I have left: the ability to think for myself.
As a student of journalism (and of life), I realize that everything said or written be interpreted as an indictment or an untruth. It's important to be transparent and to closely examine all sides of an argument, if only to know how to address both admirers and detractors. It's also easier now to hide behind a computer, citing others and blogging my own opinion than it is to report "news." Being a commenter resolves one from claims of slander or libel and is protected by the First Amendment (if one believes that still exists). Rathergate proves that it's a dangerous time to report the news, if only because there are armies of people ready to pounce on a story deemed slanted or, worst of all, untrue. This happens with both left and right wingers, so no one is really safe (if you need an example, just look at the Internet claims of retarded baby Palin not being Miss Sarah's and actually belonging to her knocked-up daughter - that's the only reason her pregnancy was addressed by the Palin camp - because bloggers were supposing an even greater transgression that necessitated repudiation).
Check, double-check, and triple-check everything you print and broadcast. Play devil's advocate with yourself so you can address every argument against you. Be ready to defend your statements, but never pretend to be ironclad. Know your sources - and be prepared to take their pitfalls as your own. The reporter is the mouthpiece of the whistleblower, and reprinting or broadcasting their story (especially on a long-running national newscast) is legitimizing their word. No longer do people view news as unbiased - even if one is reporting a matter of public record - if an authority figure (especially one with as much money and influence as G. W. Bush) undergoes a character assassination. Someone is going to find a crack in your story and you had better be ready with the superglue when that time comes.
For further reading and to see where our reference articles for this piece were, click HERE.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat It! Beat it!
Today in class (actually, about 3 minutes ago), I chose my "beat" or area of interest for the semester. Naturally, I chose "crime" with a specific interest in drugs (mom, you can roll your eyes now). I decided to take this because Kylee chose sports and she sits next to me and got to choose first, but also because it's an area that interests me.
Here are some main issues that I plan to cover:
Here are the story ideas I've gleaned from these issues:
Here are some main issues that I plan to cover:
- new street drugs
- college life and crime
- laws
- drug culture
Here are the story ideas I've gleaned from these issues:
- NORML - activities and meetings
- Possession laws, local and state
- Snurf, khat, DXM, what the kids are taking
- Prescription drug abuse
- Treatment centers and programs
- Music festivals and drug culture
- April 20th celebrations (on campus and off)
- Steroids and athletic culture
- Violent crime in the city of Boulder
- Date rape statistics and reporting
- Crime rates during football season
- On-campus crime vs off-campus crime
- Medicinal marijuana
- The paraphernalia shops - economic impact
- Federal control of performance-enhancing drugs
Monday, September 8, 2008
Air Supply Can't Help Me Here: 5 Ideas Follow-Up - The Research Questions!
This post serves as an addendum to the "Making Love Out of Nothing At All" post on story ideas. My comments alert popped up today, reminding me that not only does my professor read my stuff, he also has the power to assign more work (regardless if I publish his comment or not!). Rick posed five research questions and gave 48 hours in which to find the answer. Below, in italics, are the questions. My answers - along with sourcing and an explanation of the research process for each - are included as well. Keith - I blame this on you (kidding).
The first place I decided to look for answers (for this and the other questions) is the CIA World Factbook. I had used it in high school and remembered that it had all sorts of info like GNP and population statistics. Being a government site, it's also trustworthy (fairly so, anyway) and frequently updated. There I was able to find my answer to question five regarding the numbers of media outlets (and do my own math of them in regard to population numbers. I also got some rough information on tourism's economic impact, but would have to search further for more concrete info.
I found my information on the internet, as I am far too lazy (and it is a little too cold) to go outside and drive to the library (yes - too lazy to drive to the library). I started with Googling ("world tourism statistics," etc) and found the information from there. One can find almost all the necessary information through either government-sponsored sites, NGOs, or other sources who are considered "credible" online. Basically, I'm too cold and lazy and stubborn to leave my apartment (unless it's to go watch football at the bar... which I will be doing in two hours). So - here goes. Note that all sources are cited after the question at hand (I'm also too lazy for endnotes).
1) How many tourists enter Cambodia in a given year?
2,015,128 international tourists visited Cambodia in 2007, up 18.53% from 2006
Source: Cambodian Ministry of Tourism
2) How many tourists enter Thailand in a given year?
14.46 million international tourists in 2007, up 4.65% from 2006
Source: Tourism Authority of Thailand
3) How much difference is the "impact" in terms of dollars or GNP?
Unfortunately, I was not able to find this exact number for neither Cambodia.
I was able to deduce the figure for Thailand by culling other figures. Here I found that the tourist revenue for Thailand in 2007 was 547,728 baht. I then converted this to dollars here; it equals $15,889.90. The GDP of Cambodia is estimated to be $245.7 billion. It would then seem that there is little revenue generated from tourism. I also think that one should not depend on my math. Something about this doesn't seem right, so, you know, go Google it somewhere else. One could also contact the embassy or consulate of the nation in question; I will bet that a press kit would have this information (if its flattering... we're not dealing with the most "open" societies here).
I did find the estimated number of US tourist dollars spent abroad (by region) and total GNP for each country.
4) Where do these countries rate in global tourist dollars?
Thailand ranks consistently high in global leaders in tourism (you can find a list of leading countries over the past decade here). Cambodia is not listed as a leader, perhaps because of its smaller size and "closed" society.
5) How many media outlets does Cambodia have compared to other countries (per capita in respect to the size of its population)?
For purposes of ease, I am eliminating the internet from this equation since the lack of true global location (as opposed to location of your host) causes some empirical inaccuracies.
Media outlets in Cambodia
- 2 AM radio stations
- 17 FM radio stations
- no shortwave radio stations
- 9 television stations (includes 2 relay stations which broadcast French and Vietnamese programs)
- Population = 14,241,640
- Media outlets per capita = 1 outlet for every 508,630 people
- Media outlets = 658 (combined AM/FM radio, shortwave radio, and TV)
- Population = 13,002,206
- Media outlets per capita = 1 outlet per every 19,760 people
Compare to the US:
- Media outlets = 15,987 (combined AM/FM radio, shortwave radio, and TV)
- Population = 303,824,640
- Media outlets per capita = 1 outlet for every 19,005 people.
Despite a far larger populace, the United States (arguably a free and open society) has more media outlets per capita.
Source for question #5 (population facts and media outlet statistics): CIA World Factbook - Cambodia, CIA World Factbook - United States.
Author's note: in retrospect, a trip to library might not have killed me. However, I still answered 4 out of 5!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The (Rich) American Voice
Our class was asked to read and respond to Nicholas Lemann's article "Conflict of Interests" in The New Yorker. It's a good thing that we were given some questions to guide us or else I simply might have answered "yes." Yes, interest groups do rule this country. Yes, one can only fight an interest group with an opposing interest group. Yes, neo-Marxism is alive and well (insofar as the ideas of the elite are still the ruling ideas - that's what I remember of The German Ideology). I would also argue that, yes, the only "voice" heard in American politics is the one with exceptional economic power.
This criterion is almost self-evident; examples of it occur nearly every day. We rarely see an electoral candidate in rags or a lobbyist sleeping in a cardboard box. If money weren't a key issue in being able to reach mass amounts of people, then we wouldn't hear the phrase "campaign finance reform" being batted around as a hot-button issue (at least it was until 2007 - beware of bias, but you can find information on the FEC closure here). The influence of rich lobbyists and individuals also reared its head in the form of lavish parties at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, despite Obama's attempt to prohibit such contributions. It seems that no matter what a particular candidate tries to do, the interest groups with big money will still find a way to use their money to get their agenda heard, or at least to grant their people access to the candidate himself.
In terms of the media, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 stands as the clearest victory of the wealthy in ruling over what is now deemed "news." Under this, media corporations began to buy other media corporations and create "conglomerates," thus homogenizing the news outlets of the nation. In 1997, only ten companies (including Viacom, Time Warner, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation) rounded out mass producers of media within the US (McChesney 19). According to Robert McChesney in Rich Media, Poor Democracy, "there have been pressing concerns that these concentrated markets would inhibit the flow and range of ideas necessary for a meaningful democracy" (12). Again - special interests with money diminish the power of the "masses." The wealthy again paralyze the "average Joe" in the realm of mass opinion.
Rarely has mass opinion - in the form of strikes, riots, or protest - ever accomplished major governmental change without the guidance of a wealthy, respected figurehead (e.g. the Bolshevik Revolutions of 1917 had Lenin and Trotsky, the American Civil Rights movements in the 1960s had MLK Jr). I want to believe, unlike Arthur Bentley, that the mass will of the people still affects American politics. In a way, the reactionary period after 9/11 stands as the most recent evidence of the will of the people; a country demanded retribution and got it as the President attacked Afghanistan. It could be argued that the upper echelons of government took advantage of a frightened populace in order to achieve their own elite economic goals (e.g. oil interests, private military contractors). How you view it depends on what you believe to be true about the power of the masses; I want to believe that the people still have power. Without that belief, I have no say in my future as an American citizen - and where is the hope in that situation?
Citation:
McChesney, Robert. Rich Media, Poor Democracy. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999).
News Belongs to the Bloggers
Thanks to the blogging and independent media on the internet, I was able to post Sarah Palin's statement about her knocked-up daughter before People.com and CNN reported it. Of course, other bloggers posted before I did - and absolute kudos to them!! And shame on the Palin camp for releasing on a national holiday, presumably under the guise that it would be a dead-news day... and that no one would report it. They obviously forgot about us in "new media."
Another example of the people taking back the conduits of information. Internet bloggers have the power of timeliness and don't shut down on Labor Day.
Boo-YAH, traditional media!
Posts on Palin's newest "scandal":
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
