Story Abstracts and Case Studies for Week 8

Story Abstracts for Week 8

 

            A reporter could put together the most well written, well-researched and well-sourced story, but no one would read it without a solid headline to attract attention to it. Along those same lines, a reporter could also write the most ignorant, biased, anonymously-sourced, insensitive and incoherent article, and everyone who picks up the newspaper that day will read it if it has a dramatic, catchy or hard-hitting headline. Headlines are a powerful tool. They are what draws readers into some stories, and pushes them away from others. Hardly any member of a newspaper’s audience reads the entire publication front to back, so the best way to assure that many readers will see your story is by giving it an interest-peaking headline. While it is true that headlines, in a sense, sell stories, a reporter must not sacrifice precision and accuracy in the name of clever or stunning headline writing. The best headlines give the reader not only an idea of what the story is about, but a glimpse into the literary genius of the reporter.

            The first article I read, Larry D. Larsen’s “1,000 Headlines in 460 Days,” takes a look at a long list of news story headlines. Some are good, some are bad, and some, in Larsen’s opinion, are downright ugly. The article was written to “commemorate the headline millennium,” and although it is predominantly a grouping of lists, it is still helpful to a beginning reporter to review. The best way to learn, especially in the news-reporting industry, is to read the work of others, and see what they did and what works best. Larsen’s personal favorites were predominantly full of alliteration, or heavy on the rhyming. Using either of these tactics while writing headlines usually draws in readers. Even the most bland, mundane stories can leap off the page with a sing-song headline. I enjoyed the list of obvious headlines, especially “Police find body in cemetery.” It seems obvious to state that a body was found in a cemetery, because that’s where dead bodies are kept. The link to the story was dead (no pun intended), but I can only assume the article was about a dead body found in the cemetery that was not supposed to be there, and not buried properly, but dumped on the grounds, which would constitute criminal activity. There is a news story here, but the headline makes it sound as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened, because this is where bodies are typically found. Nonetheless, seemingly obvious headlines can still attract some attention. There were several other groups of headlines, and even though some of them seemed inconceivably idiotic, they still did their job – they got my attention.

            The second article I read, Elinor Mill’s “Newspaper headlines lost in Web translation,” examined two important issues of journalism: The necessity of writing a good headline coupled with the desire to not lose readership when transitioning between a print and online medium. The article focused on the opinions of Stephan Spencer, president and founder of search engine optimization company Netconcepts, who determined “whether some historic and famous newspaper headlines would translate to the Web.” The concept of Web translation has become increasingly important in today’s newsrooms, as more and more publications are branching out onto the World Wide Web. There are some key issues to contemplate when turning a print story into an online one, and Spencer and Mills touched on one of the most crucial aspects – search engine optimization. Search engine optimization, or SEO, according to http://www.searchenginewatch.com, “means ensuring that your Web pages are accessible to search engines and are focused in ways that help improve the chances they will be found.”

            In order to optimize the chances of a news story being listed high on a list of search results, the headline of the story must overtly mention the subject and nature of the headline. Clever and catchy headlines like “Headless body in topless bar” and “Super Caley go ballistic. Celtic are atrocious” definitely attract attention when printed on a newspaper page, but when it comes to the online world, these stories would never surface in a search for the actual topics of the stories. When it comes to Web stories, the best plan of action is being as focused and descriptive as possible. The “Super Caley” headline, although rhythmically enticing, has nothing to do with the subject of the story, a Scottish Cup soccer game between Inverness CaledonianThistle and Glasgow Celtic. “Headless body in a topless bar” might go a far way on the front page of the New York Post, but on the Web, terms like “crime,” “murder” and “Manhattan” would be much more effective in bringing this story on a New York City murder to the top of a search engine results list. Spencer suggests, and I agree, that the best way to get the story to your readers in this technological format is including as many key words and phrases as possible in the headline. Reporters must abandon the cute and clever headlines when transitioning their stories to an online medium, and stick to words that would actually be found in the story.

            The final article I read, Diane H. McFarlin’s “What we mean when we speak of convergence,” further establishes the theme that journalism no longer revolves solely around a print medium. News multimedia is not a thing of the future, but the present for all journalists. McFarlin examines the debate over what is meant in the discussion of convergence, and provides her opinions on what this discussion and debate should be encompassing. I agreed with her views, and I believe any journalist, amateur or experienced, should familiarize himself with the concepts she discusses. Newspapers are no longer the only source of information in our high-paced, need-for-knowledge-now society. Television and the Web now both play a key role in providing audiences with up-to-date information, and newspapers are inevitably being forced to branch out into these platforms to remain viable companies in our technology-driven world. McFarlin offers three assumptions in an effort to further evolve the discussion of convergence.

            McFarlin first assumes that “convergence is practiced by the whole organization, not individual journalists.” She argues that the concept of convergence is hurt by the idea that “multimedia drones” are forced to churn out stories for print, online and television, and that in doing so, there is not enough time to “do any one of them well.” McFarlin believes that newsrooms thrive on specialization, and that while any journalist should have some knowledge of any given platform, and be able to contribute in some way to each of the three, no one person can be expected to excel in all categories. Instead of relying on one reporter to cover a particular beat for print, online and television, there should be a collaboration of reporters and editors providing their expertise in a number of different subjects to put together a better final product for all three platforms.

            McFarlin’s second assumption is “convergence is about doing more with more, not more with less.” Many newspaper publications have recently been forced to cut costs, by means of firing several of their employees, to meet the demands of the advertiser and publisher for a high profit. While convergence could be seen as an excuse to cut back the amount of reporters on staff in favor of a more profitable business and a better bottom-line, this practice would only hinder the quality and the amount of information given to the public. Because there are now more platforms to deliver the news through, there should be more reporters, not less. These media are too different in their nature to expect one journalist to provide the best-possible product for all three. The final assumption is “it’s not about us. It’s about them – the readers, viewers and users.” Instead of being seen as a means of cutting costs, convergence should be viewed as an opportunity to reach more people on more levels of news coverage. Some conventional news junkies will probably stick with reading the newspaper and the newspaper only, while other, younger readers will be much more likely to obtain the bulk of their news from Web pages, blogs and discussion boards. Still others have only enough time in the day to catch the 30-minute news broadcast on TV just before going to bed. News publications cannot assume that just because they have covered a story on one platform, everyone will see it. The news should be made available to as many people as possible, regardless of how the reader chooses to access it.

 

Case Study for Week 8

 

ACES Discussion:

            I read a discussion titled “Dead animals in sports II,” which dealt with a topic very similar to Jessica’s – the use of photos of animals killed by hunters in the sports pages of our newspapers. The discussion stemmed from a New York Times article with a teaser that read: “Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we love, collecting food for our families.” The debate was actually focused on two issues: Should hunters appear in the pages of the sports section with the animals they’ve killed? Are hunters traditionalists trying to feed their families, or killing enthusiasts who feed off (pun intended) the egotistical boost of murdering an animal?

            There seemed to be a majority opinion to each question. With regard to running photos of dead animals in the paper alongside the hunters who killed them, the argument was in favor of not running them, but for reasons one might not expect. The reasoning behind this argument wasn’t so much that the photos are too graphic or insensitive, but that these photos are a waste of space that could be better filled with more pertinent information. The idea seemed to be that if you’ve seen one dead deer, you’ve seen them all. When it comes to the question of sportsman or traditionalist, there was a resounding argument for the former. Nearly every post cited the belief that the majority of hunters do it purely for sport, not for the survival of themselves or their families. This argument is best made by the consideration that today, hunting is referred to as a sport, not a food-gathering tactic. There were a few opinions that I found interesting and worth noting.

 

• “People eat meat. Animals must be killed for people who choose to eat meat. We’ve come a long way from the family farm because populations have exploded. One can eat meat and still want an animal to be killed humanely and object to factory farms and their practices and condidtions (yes, this is how it was spelled in the post).” – Deadline Dame
• “Let’s face it. Some hunters just like to shoot things.” – Jim Thomsen
• “Some papers now make customers pay for extended obituaries or wedding and engagment (again, this misspelling was in the post) photos. Maybe we should make the mighty hunters pay to put their egos in print and see how that goes.” – Deadline Dame

 

This next one I just thought was really funny. I hope no one finds it offensive.

 

·        “Spotted recently on a bumpersticker: “Vegetarian: An Indian Word For ‘Bad Hunter'” – Jim Thomsen

 

 

The Newsroom Diversity Game:

            Bad news: I did not bring my newsroom into parity with my community. I only managed to increase the amount of minority reporters at my paper to 27 percent, just 3 percent shy of my diversification goal. I had mixed feelings about this game. I’m not trying to make any excuses for myself, and I’m more than willing to admit that diversifying a newsroom must be a very difficult task for any editor. However, there are many ways in which this game had nothing to do with the real-life situation of bringing more minority voices onto the staff. I guess, as it turns out, I am trying to make excuses for myself, but I believe they are valid.

            To begin with, I lost two or three points during the wild card portion of the game. This aspect of the game seemed more like something I might find on an interactive Price is Right Web site than on a Newsroom Diversity Game. I failed my goal partly because I had bad luck choosing a few cards. I understand that this was meant to represent the fluctuation of the industry, which I would also not have any control over, but nonetheless, I’d like to think that as an editor, I’d have at least some say in how these trends and changes affected my newsroom. My second complaint is that I was unable to answer all ten questions in the allotted amount of time, which also hurt my score. Perhaps the site should have offered a speed-reading course before it presented this part of the game. I understand that in the newsroom, editors and reporters are constantly under deadline, and on-the-spot decisions are often needed, but not within the span of a one minute (I hope). How can I decide on something I can’t even read? In spite of all of this, I did find the game informative and mildly entertaining, and believe it is at least somewhat helpful in training the aspiring journalist to take diversity issues into consideration.

 

“Grandfather charged in blaze that killed 3:”

            In comparison to some of the other articles we’ve examined in class for case studies, this one seemed to be more well-rounded and well-written. There were, however, a few glaring issues that should be addressed. The major issue involved is in the headline, not the story itself. The head states that the fire killed three people. In the story, however, it is revealed that the fire killed a man, a pregnant woman, and their 3-year-old child. Apparently, the writer of this headline did not feel that an unborn child should be considered a person. I would be willing to assume that you’d be hard-pressed to find one reader who did not have some stance on whether an unborn child, or a fetus, is a human being. While I have my own opinions on the subject, which would undoubtedly conflict with many others (hence the major debate), there is a simple solution to this problem. It is stated in the story that the man is being charged with three counts of first-degree murder and one count of intentional homicide of an unborn child. Why not just state this in the headline and avoid this very sensitive subject altogether? This debate has been going on for decades now, and will continue to do so long after any of us are writing or reading stories. I see no point in trying to settle it with a headline about a fire in which people died.

            Another issue noted in class is the stereotyping of the caste system, as the daughter of the man being charged married a man from a lower caste, and this is mentioned as the reason behind the man’s resentment of the couple, which apparently caused him to start the fire. There are probably a great deal of American readers who know little to nothing about the traditional caste system, and even though this information was made known in an official court document, there could be a tendency to misread into the values of cultures with caste systems without further detail. The last issue, though minor, that I noticed, is the use of the word “grandfather” in the headline. Even though many may not see this as a problem, I found it curious that the writer chose this option. The subject of the headline is also an Oak Forest man, and a father as well. I don’t understand why it was stressed foremost that he is a grandfather. In my opinion, there is a societal stereotype that grandfathers are kind, elderly men who love to spoil their grandchildren. Perhaps the decision to go with grandfather was made in an attempt to dispel this stereotype, but I feel more strongly that it was only an attempt to draw in more readers. Then again, that is the name of the game in the newspaper industry, so perhaps this is not an issue at all, but only a device used by writers to pull in the audience.

Story Abstracts for Week 7

Story Abstracts for Week 7

 

            We’ve all the heard the saying – a picture is worth a thousand words. But what if those words are offensive or obscene or insensitive? What if you were an editor and an amazing photo came across your desk, but the subject matter was such that it might disturb or alienate some of your paper’s audience? Would you still run it? The first article I read was Roy Peter Clark’s “You Be the Editor,” which focused on a series of photographs taken in Fallujah, Iraq, nearly four years ago. Many of the photos depict disturbing images of “charred and dismembered remains of American civilians” and Iraqis rejoicing over the carnage. These powerful images go a long way towards informing the public of the hostile, dangerous conditions in Fallujah, much more so than any written words could. The dilemma, however, is determining whether  these photos are fit to run in a publication viewed by mass amounts of people. Clark outlines three sets of questions any editor should ask before deciding on the use, placement and description of the images.

            The three major issues Clark tackles in his article are whether to run the image, how to run it, and the consequences of the decision. Each of the three has a subset of questions that follow it to further aid in the process of choosing what images should be run, where they should be run, and what will happen if they are run in the paper. While the questions he asks are specific to the Fallujah photos, the majority of the possible considerations can be adapted to nearly any questionable picture. I think this article was very helpful in guiding young editors in their decision-making processes. The desire to tell, or show, the truth has often butted heads with the goal of being sensitive and not causing any harm. The line between offensive and ground-breaking can be a thin one, and the answers to the questions Clark proposes could be crucial in determining which side of the line an editor stands on. The only issue I had with this article is that it offered no answers to any of the questions asked. Even though the title of the story encourages the reader to be the editor, I think it would’ve been more helpful if Clark included some input of his own. What would he do in a similar situation? The story is beneficial in that it promotes critical thinking, but lacking in that it offers no guiding contributions of its own.

            The second article I read was Keith M. Woods’ “Nicknames & Mascots: Complicity in Bigotry,” which also touched on the theme of providing “as much truth as possible while doing as little harm as necessary.” In the story, Woods proclaims his dislike of the use of Native American traditions and imagery as mascots and symbols for sports teams, both college and professional. He proposes providing coverage of these teams without using their Native American nicknames, and argues that a publication can still be accurate without mentioning these offensive monikers outright. In Woods’ opinion, the traditions of these universities and pro teams should not take precedent over the traditions of Native Americans, and the printing of the names Redskins, Savages and Seminoles is no less offensive than printing the n-word in a newspaper. He encourages journalists to address the issue as a matter of principle, not policy, and states that these nicknames should not be used at all.

In my opinion, Woods assesses the usage of Native American nicknames for sports teams as insensitive, insulting and uneducated. I agree, to some extent, that “nearly all [of these mascots] freeze Native Americans in an all-encompassing, one-dimensional pose: the raging, spear-wielding, bareback-riding, cowboy-killing, woo-woo-wooing warriors this country has caricatured, demonized, and tried mightily to exterminate.” It seems, however, that Woods is calling every student and athlete at every one of these schools, as well as the journalists who cover them, a racist. The teams he mentions have been using these names for decades, some centuries, and while the nicknames may have not been founded on the most sensitive ground, they do not define the current state of opinion at these schools. Essentially, Woods is arguing that any Florida State fan that partakes in the tomahawk chop is an offensive bigot. I think this is a very inaccurate portrayal of FSU (even though I passionately dislike the school). This brings me to my argument that, overall, the article was of questionable use to an editing student. Woods promotes one of the major tenets of journalism – being truthful while remaining sensitive to all members of the audience – but turns his back on another significant code of all journalists: remaining objective.HMMM, WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THAT ONE – FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY OBJECTIVE? He doesn’t take into consideration any viewpoint that might support the use of these nicknames, and writes them off as irrational and patently offensive. Because this is an editorial-style story, I think it is too opinionated and partial to educate young journalists on the importance of sensitivity. HMMMM, OK, BUT BY ITS VERY NATURE IT IS DIDACTIC.

The final article I read was not about accuracy versus sensitivity, but it still adheres to the theme of not publishing questionable material. In this instance, the question is whether newspapers should allow stories to run that involve some sort of conflict of interest. Edward Wasserman’s “The murky world of conflicts of interest,” describes a situation in which the Los Angeles Times opinion editor, Andres Martinez, decided to get “prominent outsiders to guest-edit Sunday sections” who would be charged with the task of trying to “come up with ideas, find writers [and] shape the final product.” The conflict of interest arose when it was made apparent that producer Brian Grazer, who Martinez slotted to guest-edit the inaugural run, was referred by a publicist whom Martinez’s girlfriend works for. The paper did not want to give the appearance that it had selected Grazer because of a connection between Martinez’s significant other and the publicist that recommended Grazer. The primary question in the article, or at least what I gathered it to be after sifting through some unclear language, is where to draw the line between an actual conflict of interest and a perceived one.

The argument seems to be in favor of throwing out stories that involve a conflict of interest, but running stories that have a perceived conflict of interest, so long as it is noted in the publication why this perception of conflict is not actually such. In simpler terms, a newspaper should not refuse to run a story just because it might look like there is some conflict involved. As long as this supposed conflict does not alter the accuracy and fairness of the story, it should be published. Instead of shying away from a story that might raise questions of a possible conflict of interest, a paper should publish it, along with an explanation of why there is no conflict. I believe this is what Wasserman is proposing, and if I am correct, then I agree with him. If I have misunderstood his argument, which is possible due to the occasional use of overly-elegant language and the poor formatting of the story, then I have provided my own stance on the subject. If a publication withholds stories because it fears what its audience might perceive, instead of taking the time to show why their readers’ perception of a conflict is understandable, but unreal, then that publication is not completely fulfilling its job as a fair and accurate informer of the public.

Story Abstracts for Week 6

Story Abstracts for Week 6

 

            The first article I read, Scott. M. Libin’s “Word Watch: Allegedly Innocent Suspects,” deals with the misuse of terminology in crime stories. Libin cites several instances in which an incorrect term may be used to denote a criminal activity or court finding, and then offers advice on avoiding these errors and how to more accurately describe the subject. The most common misuses he highlights are referring to a verdict as “innocent” instead of “not guilty,” writing that “suspects,” instead of “criminals,” commit crimes, and using the words allege and allegedly with no attribution. I think it is easy for reporters to get caught up in, and confused by, the legal jargon used by police officers and attorneys, and in an attempt to sift through the talk and get to the truth, many reporters often lose sight of what exactly it is that has happened, who exactly has committed the crime in question, and what is known for sure to be fact.

Libin writes that he understands “the instinct of journalists to translate turgid legal verbiage into clear language.” I agree with him on this statement, as I believe journalists see it as their responsibility to provide their audiences with an understandable and concise account of the crime in question without confusing the readers with lawyers’ lingo and police officers’ slang. Occasionally, however, a reporter will inadvertently mislead the audience by referring to a fact of the case as something it is not. In most instances, I don’t think this occurs due to a lack of reporting or any malice of the reporter or publication. More often than not, I believe it is simply a matter of forgetting the actual legal definitions of the terms used to define a case.

            I think this article would make a good reference for new journalists, especially those on crime beats, as well as more experienced journalists who may have unknowingly been misusing these terms for years. The article, however, only concentrates on a few of the issues of inaccuracy in terminology. A more comprehensive list of legal terms and their definitions would be helpful in avoiding any potentially harmful or untruthful accounts of a crime. Reporters must focus on being as accurate as possible, not only to avoid damaging the credibility or reputation of any so-called suspect, but also to protect themselves and their publications from any accusations of libel or falsifying facts. GOOD

            The second site I looked at was Regret The Error, which is not so much an article as it is a collection of corrections and apologies printed by newspaper publications across the country. A publication that falls victim to the mistakes mentioned in the first abstract might find itself on this Web site. Printing corrections, verifications and apologies is one of the best defenses a newspaper, or any journalistic medium, has against a defamation or libel suit. This policy is no substitute for accurate and truthful reporting, but journalists are human, and mistakes do happen, and it is better to fix an error that has already been made, and learn from it, than to just ignore the mistake altogether. This site could prove to be a good resource for journalists to learn from others’ mistakes. Certain errors are grammatical or typographical, and those cannot be avoided without focus and solid editing, but looking at what others have done wrong may teach writers what to look for when fact- and quote-checking their own stories.

While these corrections span the entire gamut of reporting errors, there are some that are more common than others. The most frequently occurring errors seem to involve misquoting sources, misidentifying persons, and misstating facts, especially those involving numbers. A few were just as simple as adding a letter or forgetting a space, like in the examples of the Los Angeles Times printing that the interaction between sleeping pills and alcohol is “more than just addictive” when it should’ve read “more than just additive,” or a Dow Jones wire story that cited Warren Buffet as saying the dollar would be “worthless” instead of quoting him as saying that it would be “worth less.” Whatever the error, this entire site should remind journalists that any mistake, even one as seemingly small as a slip of the finger on the keyboard, could have major implications if not caught and immediately retracted. It is impossible to be perfect 100 percent of the time, but reporters and editors must strive to flawlessly edit every story, brief, sidebar and profile that appears in print. The best way to avoid these mistakes in the first place, however, is to be certain of all the facts before doing any writing.

The final article I read was Kelly McBride’s “Before you publish a rape victim’s name…” This story fits into the theme of accurately reporting crime stories and avoiding harm whenever possible, but goes further into the dos and don’ts of covering a specific issue: rape. The primary question addressed in the article is whether or not a publication should print the name of a rape victim. This has been a controversial issue of ethics in reporting for years now, and will probably remain so for years to come. McBride cites an informal poll that “suggests that roughly one-third of newspapers have formal, written policies on the coverage of rape.” So what do the other two-thirds of newspapers do? Do they address this issue on a case-by-case basis, or do they avoid the topic altogether, or at least as much as possible? With her article, McBride attempts to alert journalists of the pitfalls and minefields of rape coverage, and teach them how to most accurately and sensitively cover this touchy subject.

It is written in the article that crisis counselors, nurses, high school educators and rape victims all feel that a publication should not report the names of those who have been sexually abused or assaulted, even if this practice turns these individuals into “nameless, faceless victims,” and the anonymity leads to “a lack of empathy among readers and viewers.” The biggest issue that McBride raises, in my opinion, is the lack of coverage of this horrible, tragic part of our society. She writes that often, only the most brutal and violent rapes get any kind of coverage in newspapers. While these especially heinous crimes are definitely newsworthy, they do not reflect the majority of rape cases. She focuses on covering trends of rape just as much as individual cases. I believe it would be more effective to cover trends than isolated crimes because rape is such a personal issue, and by covering a specific case, it can end up doing more harm than good for the victim. But by covering trends, a paper can still make readers aware of the all the causes and consequences of rape without singling out any one victim, which could bring more attention and publicity to someone who, most likely, is looking for anything but more coverage of this cruel, demeaning act.

While I do agree that counselors, nurses, educators, reporters and editors all have a legitimate stance on how rapes should be covered, I think the most important factor in reporting on the subject is the feelings and views of the victims themselves. Yes, it is true that after undergoing such a traumatic experience, rape victims may not be in the best state of mind to decide how their ordeals and identities are portrayed to the public. Nonetheless, I think too often everyone but the victim has a say in what goes into print. The best way to find out if a report might be damaging to the victim is to ask the victim for an opinion on the matter. We, as journalists, can use ethics codes, previous cases, and counselors’ statements all we want in determining what the right course of action is in a situation as potentially harmful as this. But in my opinion, the best way to get to the truth of the matter and the heart of the problem is by approaching the victim. Suppose he or she does want to share the story of what happened, or how it could’ve possibly been avoided, or how it affected the lives of the people connected to him or her. Many times, the victims will likely shy away from coverage and prefer to remain anonymous, but what’s the matter with just asking? So long as it is done in a tasteful manner, a reporter should always ask that extra question to make sure the most accurate version of the story is told, and this situation should be no different. Rape coverage can still be sensitive and informative, without further destroying the lives and reputations of the victims.

Case Study for Week 5

This week’s case study is a perfect example of how a reporter’s misuse of math can sensationalize a story to the point of misleading an audience. “Violent crime increases in Gainesville” is full of miscalculations, played-up figures and vague statements. The problems begin in the lead with the personification of the city of Gainesville. This also occurs in the sixth graf. Instead of saying “the citizens of Gainesville saw a 19 percent increase in violent crime,” it said “the city of Gainesville saw a 19 percent increase.” A city doesn’t see, but the public does. The story also jumps between Gainesville trends and national trends a couple of times, which can be especially confusing to readers in a story that involves as much math as this one. The majority of the remaining issues I have with this story deal with the uses and misuses of numbers.

            One major problem with this story is false information in the lead. Both percentage increases given were incorrect. No story should start out by reporting miscalculations, especially if they have to deal with something as serious as rising crime rates, which affects the entire population. According to the table on Gainesville crime given beneath the story, there was a 16 percent increase in violent crime, not a 19 percent increase, and there was a 57 percent increase in robberies, not a 59 percent increase. While these slight errors might not seem to have a significant impact on the story, they are still inaccurate figures and should not have appeared in the story. There is also an element of sensationalism that might misrepresent the severity of the problem of murders and arsons reported. According to the article, “murder and arson reports doubled” from 2005 to 2006. While this is true, it is making it seem like more of a severe problem than it really is. There was one murder in 2005 and two in 2006, and there were two arsons in 2005 and four in 2006. These figures did double, but they were at such low numbers to begin with that doubling them isn’t that significant of an increase. The story used percentages in instances when using actual numbers would be more revealing of the current so-called “trends.” Additionally, the story doesn’t take population increase into account, which could account for the rise in crimes committed.

            There is an important point raised in the story that “people are reporting crimes more than ever.” This seems like a better topic for the story, yet there is no insight as to why the number of crimes reported has risen. This aspect is instead buried deep in the story. Another quote I had an issue with was “it’s a trend that reinforces that, at all times, you have to be aware of your surroundings because crime can happen anywhere.” I think this trivializes one’s awareness of possible dangers, as if people don’t know what’s going on around them and that’s why they become victims. Another small but glaring error was the two spellings of GPD Sgt. Keith Kameg’s name. It is spelled as Kameg and Kaneg, which shows poor editing and a lack of focus. Overall, the story had several flaws, and further supports the theme of the story abstracts that reporters and editors should question the numbers so the audience doesn’t have to.

Abstracts for Week 5

The Bob Baker’s Newsthinking article “Math for journalists” addressed a fear of many journalists: simple mathematics. I would consider myself to be a part of this group of reporters who either don’t care much for math, or care, but don’t remember how to do it. According to the article, this phobia exists in even otherwise “smart reporters” who have mastered the usage of words but not the usage of high school math. The article also cites a remark published by several newspapers that quoted President Clinton as saying “every 12 seconds another woman is beaten,” and that at that ratio, it would equate to “nearly 900,000 victims a year.” Doing the multiplication shows that if another woman was beaten every 12 seconds, there would be about 2.6 million victims a year, which is more than twice what Clinton said. The point was no reporter or editor caught this mistake, and it would not have been overlooked if anyone had simply done a few easy calculations. Reporters and editors must never take for granted any numerical values that are thrown their way without first checking the accuracy of the calculations that produced these figures.

Beneath the article is a short section of tutorials on how to calculate percentages, ratios, rates, averages, means and medians, which I found to be very helpful, and a good reference for simple math calculations. These formulas comprise the majority of calculations any reporter would typically have to do when writing a story. Although figuring these numbers only requires knowledge of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, it is not hard for one to forget to process of steps to use when figuring something such as a percentage or average. This forgetfulness occurs especially when the processes are used very infrequently. Most journalism students, at least that I am aware of, are not required to take any substantial math courses while earning their degrees. This being the case, I can understand why many, including myself, would forget things we haven’t utilized since high school. Perhaps if journalism programs at universities offered courses like  Mathematics for Reporters or Numbers for Writers, today’s journalists would be more on-the-ball when it comes to math. If the University of Florida did, however, offer once of those courses, I’d curse myself for suggesting it and having to attend it.

The second article I read was the Steve Rushin article “A Billion People Can Be Wrong.” This article focused primarily on the common misconception that the Super Bowl is “an event watched by an estimated 1 billion people worldwide.” Rushin questions the validity of this estimation and, citing evidence from Nielsen Media Research, writes that the 2005 Super Bowl (the article says “last year’s Super Bowl” but was written in 2006) was viewed by less than 100,000 North Americans, which is not even one-tenth of the supposed 1 billion. He goes on to write that according to Initiative, a New York-based media research firm, 98 percent of the 2005 Super Bowl’s audience was based in North America, meaning that only 2 million people outside of this continent watch our nation’s biggest football game of the year. This leaves us well shy of the estimated 1 billion viewers.

Rushin writes that this myth is not a lie, but the definition of hype, and no one minds the drastic over-billing of the game. He also credits most sports fans with what Ernest Hemingway called a “built-in, shock-proof” ability to spot myths and exaggerations. In my opinion, Rushin is giving sports fans, and the public in general, too much credit. Although I have no actual figures to support this, I’d be willing to bet that at least a handful of every 10 citizens of this country couldn’t tell you within millions the population of the United States, or the world. Perhaps many people just accept this estimation, and refuse to question it because it’s not worth getting that worked up over if it’s invalid. Realistically, how many people would really throw a huge fit if they found out only 100 million people watched the Super Bowl instead of 1 billion? I don’t think that would stop anyone from watching or not watching it. Nonetheless, I think Rushin’s point should have been the public should always question statistics that are as extreme as the one given for the audience of the Super Bowl. For a football game, I think the audience could probably let this monstrous exaggeration slide, but for more important statistics such as crime rates or taxes, readers and viewers should be more skeptical of what the media tell them.

The final article I read was “Margin of Error” by Robert Niles, which I found to be more confusing than helpful. He made his point well at the end, but the bulk of the story was too mathematical for my liking, and not in the sense that the “Math for journalists” article was. The “Math” article provided useful formulas for commonly-used calculations, while “Margin of Error” used the vocabulary of scholarly mathematicians to explain what margin of error actually is. Niles cited an instance in which a false claim was made that Clinton’s advantage over Dole in the upcoming election was slipping because the margin of error in the poll used to make that assertion was not taken into account. I think Niles lost me when he started talking about standard deviations and confidence intervals. I wish he would’ve used simpler terms when describing how the margin of error affects comprehending poll results. I took the most out of this article from the final paragraph, in which Niles encourages readers to “never place too much faith in one week’s poll or survey.” He also writes the only way to get a good idea of what’s going on is by looking at several polls instead of only one. I think using polls in reporting can be a dangerous practice, especially if it is not explicit what exactly the poll is showing. If the sample was not random, or the questions were slanted, or the sample was not large enough, poll results could be very misleading.

Abstracts for Week 4

Story Abstracts for Week 4

 

            Covering crime stories can be a touchy subject for any journalist. It is important to keep in mind that in this country, according to our legal system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. There is a tendency, when all the evidence seems to be against someone, to come right out and say that he did the crime. Being a suspect in a crime, however, does not necessarily mean that the individual is guilty. Saying a man was arrested for killing his wife is not the same as saying a man was arrested on suspicion of killing his wife, or a man was arrested and is being charged with murder. It’s easy to get caught up in all the police report jargon, but a journalist’s main aim is telling what actually happened, not determining guilt. Therefore, it is crucial to stick to the facts and only report on what is known to be true.

            I found Al Tompkins’ “Smarter Crime Coverage” to be very helpful in guiding young journalists through the mucky waters of working the crime beat. Tompkins offers 11 tips on writing crime stories fairly and accurately. Following the advice he gives will not only make any journalist a more effective crime reporter, but will also help one avoid any sticky legal issues such as a libel or defamation suit. He stresses keeping the story in context, and covering trends as much as actual crimes. Additionally, he discusses the importance of writing about those who have been acquitted, not just the ones who have been arrested and found guilty. I think this is not seen nearly enough in today’s journalism, partly because the typical audience seems more intrigued with guilt than innocence. With the exception of very high-profile cases, how often do we as readers see stories about not guilty verdicts, or cases of mistaken identity. We constantly hear about the men and women that have been arrested on serious charges, but how often do these charges actually hold up? A person’s reputation is at stake when it is reported that he may have possibly raped three women or murdered his ex-wife’s lover or stole someone’s BMW at gunpoint. But suppose a witness comes forward and admits to being uncertain of what he saw, or an alibi arises later that clears the man’s name. Do we hear about this? Tompkins says to go beyond conventional wisdom, and find out the “so what” instead of just the “what.” If reporters focused more on the consequences of these crimes, and less on the grisly details of the crimes themselves, I think many inequalities, injustices and uncertainties would be revealed. It is for a court of law to make a judgment of innocence or guilt, not a journalist.

            Tompkins’ “Crime Story Resources” was a solid continuation of his article on smarter crime coverage. In this piece, he lists several different types of crimes and criminals, and how to go about reporting on them. He discusses juvenile offenders, prostitutes, coaches who prey on children, slumlords, speeders and women in prison, just to name a few. I think the point of this article was to call to attention certain aspects of crime in society that aren’t touched on as much as some of the more obvious story sources, like murders, rapes, kidnappings, robberies and white-collar crimes like fraud and tax evasion. While those subjects may stand out more to an audience, there are still several other issues to be covered.

We always hear about what gets people into prison, but never about what happens once they’re there, or how it affects their families, or what societal causes may have led them to be there in the first place. So often, these criminals become mere statistics on a bar graph showing the over-crowding of jails or the rise in a community’s crime rate. But what led these people to commit these crimes? What happens once someone is found guilty and thrown into the corrections system? Tompkins writes that journalists need to “find stories that expose the real truth behind statistics and commonly held beliefs,” and I agree with him. I’m not saying that drug addicts are great role models or good sources for flowery human interest pieces, but maybe there’s more to them than what meets the eye. Although we must not alleviate the responsibilities of these individuals for their actions, we should take into consideration some of the societal causes that may have led them to do what they did.

While the third article I read is not based on crime coverage, I did find that it slightly related to the other two in that it discusses another touchy subject in the journalism industry: the use of profanity. Gal Beckerman’s “What the F—k Are They Driving At?” was focused on one specific instance, but its subject lends itself to a broader look into the issue. The article is about a quote that the New York Times changed to omit an obscenity, which, according to Beckerman, turned “fury into mild exasperation.” Beckerman wasn’t arguing that newsmakers should include obscenities in their publications, but they should tell the audience when one is being omitted. Profanity, while offensive to some, is one of the strongest means by which a person can stress his point with heavy emotion, especially in print. Unless it explicitly states it, a reader would not know just by reading words on a page if what was said was done so calmly or violently or excitedly. Removing profanities can make a statement emotionless, but it is in good taste, so what should editors and reporters do? Saying “I’m mad at you” is not nearly as forceful as saying “I’m f—king mad at you.” Yes, there are several instances in which a reader, given the context, could determine the extent of my anger, even without the expletive. Nonetheless, removing any foul language could misrepresent an emotion altogether.

Take, for instance, the fictional quote “Investors need to get their money out of newspaper stocks, or their portfolios will be f—ked.” If we wanted to remove the profanity without changing any words or adding on words that weren’t said, the quote would have to be shortened to “Investors need to get their money out of newspaper stocks.” This doesn’t convey the urgency or power of the quote nearly as well as the entire sentence. But obviously, hardly any mainstream paper would publish this quote as is. So what should a good journalist do? Beckerman argues, and I agree, that it should be mentioned when a curse word is being deleted so the reader knows that this was said with such great force. Yes, it may not be very classy, but sometimes swearing is the best last-ditch effort one has in getting an important point across. It’s a touchy subject, but a good reporter would want to convey this emotion as effectively as possible, while still remaining decent and not offending the entire audience.   

“Cover Story: 20 Under 40” gives insight to the “20 people under the age of 40 who represent the enthusiasm, talent, hard work and innovation that’s needed to carry the newspaper industry into the future.” I scanned through the profiles of many of the winners of this prestigious honor awarded by the Newspaper Association of America, but the overall themes of this story package are best summed up on the first page. Each winner was asked the same five questions. What’s the most challenging aspect of your job, what’s the most rewarding part of your job, in what ways do you think your current position will change over the next five years, what’s the best career advice anyone ever gave you, and what three things would you change about the newspaper industry? While many of the responses were unique, most touch on very similar themes. Many newspapers are still hesitant when it comes to pursuing new ideas. Audience demand for local coverage is growing, but is often pushed aside in favor of negative national news. The industry needs to become platform independent, and not only think along the lines of print media anymore. Failure can teach us just as much success.

I think the two biggest trends in journalism today are the move to more interactive, in-depth coverage online, and the increased amount of locally-oriented publications that stray from the typical design, layout and function of print news. In order for a journalist to succeed in today’s ever-changing industry, an emphasis needs to be placed on thinking outside of the box. I also think it is necessary for reporters to continue trying new means of giving the readers not only the information that the publication thinks is important to them, but giving them the chance to weigh in on these issues themselves. The news media industry is becoming more of a give-and-take system, straying from the former concept of simply giving the information and calling it a day. Innovation is the key to the continued success of journalists in this country. If newspapers cannot provide the information that the audience finds most pertinent, then readers will go elsewhere for their news. I think Paul Provost put it best when he said “We have to be able to respond to our readers’ and advertisers’ needs in print and online, and we are all responsible for the innovation and continued development of our multimedia products, which at this point have not even begun to scratch the surface of their potential.” It will be interesting to see which companies evolve and continue to find new outlets for informing the public, and which will buckle under the pressure of successfully reaching out to readers outside of the slowly-dying print medium.

Abstracts and Case Study for Week 3

While I found “Skeptical Editing” to be a very well written article that touches on several crucial aspects of thorough editing, the first thing that really came to my attention was a fact error. I think it’s ironic that an article focused on then necessity of careful editing contains a misspelling of its author’s name. While it is not an issue of fabricating a story or making up sources, I still think the kind of flawless editing that is discussed in the article should be practiced on the article itself. According to the top of the story, the author’s name is Reid MaCluggage, while at the bottom, it is Reid MacCluggage. This error doesn’t detract from the importance of the issues raised within the article, but I always think it’s worth noting when editing stories are partially unedited.

            Beyond the misspelling, the article provided a reasonable and usable system of preventing “deeply flawed” reporting. According to the author, dishonest reporters aren’t as much of a problem as unchallenged information, and I believe this to be true. Many times a reporter or editor is too blinded by the chance to crack a major story before anyone else to go back and make sure that every fact is correct and every source is completely accurate. I like the idea of prosecuting a story to find any holes in the information. Making it someone’s job to try and shoot down the story should eliminate many of the falsified stories that make it to press. While it might seem like a waste of resources to assign a reporter or editor to be the “devil’s advocate,” or an adversary to the story, it would serve not only as a function of ensuring truth and accuracy in all reporting, but also as a safeguard for any publication against a libel or defamation suit. I think reporters and editors are often so caught up in having an exclusive story, that they assume every piece of information gathered is either completely true or completely false, and don’t take into consideration that which is uncertain, and not proven one way or the other. It is a journalist’s job to present the truth to the audience, but if the “truth” is unverified or uncertain, it should not be reported as such. Journalists seem afraid to say that they are unsure of anything, because the audience holds them to an expectation of knowing everything. If writers and editors would just admit, occasionally, that they do not have the answer to absolutely every question, it would give them a lot more credibility than making up an answer to an uncertainty.

            The second reading is a brief overview of the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which “authorized the formation of joint operating agreements among separate competing newspaper operations within the same market area.” These joint operating agreements allowed newspapers to combine business operations while maintaining separate newsgathering and writing operations, so that two different papers could be printed from the same press at different times of the day. By consolidating advertising and distribution departments, more papers were able to remain competitive and stay afloat in a society of decreased newspaper readership. I think these joint operating agreements were probably much more effective before the advent of the Internet and 24-hour-a-day news coverage television channels. Newspapers seem to be on the decline over the past few years, and will probably continue to lose readers as more and more news outlets arise given the rapid increase of information technology. It is difficult to argue for the necessity of two daily papers in the same market, unless that market is a very large city. Hardly anyone reads evening daily papers anymore, and it seems like instead of arranging an agreement between papers to stay separate, these operations would struggle less if they were joined completely, instead of just in the business department. I think in markets like these, the two newspapers should join forces, and print one paper per day instead of two. This consolidated paper would offer more complete coverage of local issues, have more staff to cover national and international issues, be able to cover a broader range of stories, and stand a better chance of survival in a market dominated by Internet and television news. If these papers continue to stay separate, I believe profits will sink lower and lower, until neither of the papers is able to continue.

            The next article was an interview conducted by USC Annenberg’s Online Journalism Review. The subject was Debbie Galant, a former columnist for the New York Times who now runs Barista of Bloomfield Ave., a site that covers a small town in New Jersey. The interview focused on yet another new medium in the journalism industry: a hyperlocal blogging publication. The publication and those like it have created new competition for the traditional local newspaper. As more people are turning to the Internet for their national and international news, a need has come about for more in-depth coverage of local issues on the Net. The Barista site provides an interactive means of informing the public in a relatively cheap and instantaneous manner. With a small staff of reporters and freelancers, the site has attracted many new readers, and has become a credible source for local news.

I like the idea of news blogging, because I think it encourages readers to become involved in the community. With an interactive news medium, the audience can weigh in on issues that will affect them personally, instead of just being told what is happening around them. The site also features live chats with public figures in the community. I think these interviews would be of more interest than a television news interview because the site probably asks several questions that the audience members themselves want answered, instead of just asking what the producer or managing editor of the television news program thinks is relevant. One major problem I see with news blogging such as this is establishing credibility for the site. Some readers may be more skeptical of news found on a blog site, even if it is in a professional tone, because anyone with any kind of opinion can have some input on the issue. In order for a site like this to gain credibility, it must stay focused on reporting accurately and effectively, and monitoring audience responses for false information or damaging, insensitive remarks. The other major issue I see in getting one’s news from a site like this is the lack of objectivity. Galant even admits that the site does have a point of view, and is somewhat subjective. I think so long as the readers are aware that there could be some slight bias in some of the stories, it is a viable means of staying informed. But if a reader expects a totally unbiased version of the news, he should look elsewhere. Interactive news media will inherently have conflicting view points, because no two people have completely like opinions and beliefs. Nonetheless, these types of sites will probably continue to flourish as people become less willing to rely solely on the big corporation news groups to supply them with their news.

I didn’t like the “’Potemkin Village’ Redux” article by Tom Grubisich as much as the article featuring the interview with Debbie Galant. While both stories focused on the new trend of hyperlocal blogging, the Galant interview lends some credibility to the argument that sites like these can flourish and provide solid news coverage. Grubisich, however, is quite unimpressed by these sites, and devoted most of the article to discussing the drawbacks and failures of the medium. He seems to be arguing that limited readership, faint economic success and untrained staff members make these sites just slightly more informative than spam e-mail. He mentions that many “professional journalists” have questioned how legitimate sites like these really are, and because these hyperlocal blogs are comprised mostly of “amateur” work, they are not very useful. I think the primary reason Grubisich wrote this article was to mock these attempts at providing a more interactive, audience friendly means of presenting the news. He uses demeaning, exaggerated language and an abundance of statistics to make his points, instead of discussing what these sites could do to get better. He assumes that the sites are useless because they are not very profitable, and have not completely caught on in all the major news markets. What he makes no mention of, however, is how skeptical everyone was of the Internet when it first saw commercial use in the early 1990s. Less than 15 years later, the Net has become the epitome of growth and success. While it is true that many of these sites have a lot of work to do before they are viewed as credible news sources, I don’t think it was necessary for Grubisich to spend an entire article tearing down the hard work that many of these sites have done in an attempt to further the mission of providing the public with an interactive means of getting news.

Doug Fisher’s “Common Sense Journalism” also focused on hyperlocal journalism. He also calls it “citizen journalism,” “participatory journalism” and “community storytelling.” He offers a much better explanation of this new trend than Grubisish does in his article. Fisher is much more positive about the integration of readers into the news process. He offers tips for up-and-coming blogging news sites, and believes that sites like these will continue to grow and multiply in the years to come. He says he believes that sites like these will increase the ability of local news providers to connect with their readers. The advice he offers includes being very particular when it comes to the details of the site, making the site readable and usable to the average person, taking the time and money to tweak the software, constantly promoting the site, and including many pictures and items that will draw an audience. This article seems mostly like a short self-help manual for start-up online newspaper organizations, and encourages the interaction between the writer and reader.

 

Case Study for Week 3

 

            It’s not often that an eagle comes swooping out of the air and snatches up a small family pet. Or is it? The reader wouldn’t know from reading the “Eagle Snatches Dog While Owner Watches” story from Valdez, Alaska. While the story is quite entertaining (unless you are a serious dog lover), it seems to lack many important features of solid newsgathering and writing. The first thing I noticed upon reading this short piece was the lack of concrete details and sources. The dog that was snatched up is described as “chihuahua-like,” and the dog’s owners are listed as “an unidentified couple from Georgia.” The only source utilized is Dennis Fleming, a gas station attendant who saw the dog-snatching take place. The quotes attributed to the owners of the dog are not substantial, and only what the attendant overheard. I do not consider “Oh, my God,” and “Yeah! Yeah!” to be strong or necessary quotations. No reporter actually spoke to the couple, so the details are based solely on the depiction provided by the attendant, who phoned in the story after viewing the odd occurrence. Single-source stories are dangerous because there is no verification of what actually happened, and the credibility of the story is lessened.

            As I mentioned at the beginning of the case study, there is also no supplemental information given. There is no mention of whether or not this happens often or seldom, or information on the eating habits of the bald eagle, or a follow-up of what happened subsequently. The story almost seems insensitive and callous, as if this was more of a joke than a hard news story. While it only really affects the owners of the dog, and apparently only the woman owner at that, it still made the story seem laughable instead of unfortunate. There were also some assumptions made in the story that weren’t really verified. For instance, the lead of the story says that “a bald eagle satisfied its hunger” when it snatched up the dog, but no one actually saw the dog being eaten, and if someone had, there is no realistic way of knowing that eating the dog actually satisfied the eagle’s hunger. The author of the story also claims that the husband “didn’t appear to take the dog’s departure too seriously.” This information must have been provided by Fleming, but there is no way of knowing if his assessment of the owner’s reaction was accurate. Also, many newspapers would not allow the word “damnedest” to go into print. Some may say that one shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. I would take this as meaningful advice if in the instance of just telling my friends a funny anecdote, but if I worked for a publication, read by many, I’d be a little more skeptical of printing a story before it was completely looked into and verified.

 

Reading Abstract for Week 2

Readings Abstract due Week 2

 

I’ve now heard it mentioned in my reporting, editing and advanced editing classes: the good reporters are ones who seek out their own stories, instead of waiting to be assigned the story ideas of others. In this week’s reading, “50 places to shop for story ideas,” the author refers to the reporters who seek out stories of their own as “story hunters,” and those who simply wait for an idea to be handed down to them as “perennial assignment receivers.” The primary argument is that story hunters find their jobs easier and more enjoyable because they have a constant bank of ideas to pull from, while perennial assignment receivers are often the ones who gripe and complain about how the stories they were told to cover are not newsworthy, or simply are not that much fun to write about.

Basically, the basis for a good story idea is curiosity. A good journalist should want to know about, well, anything. Within one’s own community, there is a great number of persons, places, events, ideas, occurrences and oddities to write about. The article lists 50 places where one might go in search of a solid, newsworthy story. While the list was quite comprehensive, I think the author might have saved some time and space by making the article one sentence long: anything you read, see or hear can generate a story idea if it’s interesting enough. The list didn’t offer much help (to me, at least), because it offered everything under the sun as the possible source of a story. I knew that before I started reading the article. Some of the ideas on the list were unique, such as hydro poles, tombstone inscriptions and barber shops. Many of the potential “places to shop,” however, seemed either obvious (the Internet, other newspapers, radio and television), or barely worth mentioning (graduation notices, anniversary notices and donation jars). The list was so expansive that it mentioned every single piece of writing or instance of human contact that I would encounter throughout my day, so I feel like I’m back where I started. The only places it didn’t mention as possible sources were at the family dinner table and in my sleep. This article was slightly helpful, but I think it might have served its purpose better if it was narrowed down to around 20 places, instead of mentioning every little thing that might produce a story once every blue moon.

Mark Glaser’s article, “Revamping the Story Flow for Journalists,” outlines the process of writing a story from the conception of the idea to the feedback from the reader. He discusses this progression in three separate sections: the past, the present and the future. In Glaser’s opinion, the future of story writing will be much more interactive between the writer, the editor and the audience. The basis of this interaction stems mostly from the increased use of the Internet in the news media field.

The old system consisted primarily of assembling story ideas from the writers and editors, or occasionally from a press release or letter. The idea is brought up and given the “green light,” then research and interviews are done, the writer gathers all the material, writes the story, and then gets feedback through calls and letters to the newsroom. The current system is almost identical, with the exception of utilizing the Internet, and especially blogs, in obtaining story ideas and gathering information. Glaser now also includes e-mail, along with phone calls and letters, as a means of corresponding with sources and getting feedback. The new system he outlines, or envisions, is much more interactive. It consists of highly networked groups for different beats, in which the audience has a large say in what stories are written, how they are covered, and what should be included. Every step he discusses seems to include involving the “community or social network.” While I agree that readers should have some say in what is covered, as a journalist’s first priority is informing the public and writing about what is of interest to it, I think Glaser wants the public to have a little bit too much of a say in the whole process. In the steps he outlines, it seems as if in the future, he expects the audience, and whoever else makes up the social network, to tell the writers and editors what stories to write, where to go for information, and what they might have left out. It seems to me that Glaser essentially wants this social network to do almost as much of the work as the writers and editors (the ones that get paid to do it). I’m all for people pitching ideas, but I do not think this social network needs quite that much say in every process of writing a story.

 

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!