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 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.