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!