There is a lot in politics and political coverage that I can (and have) criticized. From the unneeded emphasis on religion to superfluous character bashing, it’s a subject I've come to disdain from over-exposure and general ennui and cynicism. (Oh, hormones)
But there’s been one overarching trend that I’ve noticed in political coverage that is something I have little to no opinion toward. That is, that political coverage—hell, journalism in general—has begun to simplify every issue, every character trait into bite-size, easy to swallow formats. Take CNN’s election website “Election center 2008” for instance. Headed up with a section titled “meet the candidates,” each contender is broken down into his or her essentials: place of birth, current job, spending record, stance on push button issues, poll records, supporters, advisers. . . it’s all there in prettily designed boxes and non threatening portions. The same can be seen in Yahoo’s Election 08 page. Top stories are parsed out from stories about religion, social issues, and opinion an editorial pieces. Everything is categorized, classified, labeled.
Okay, maybe I lied. . . I do have an opinion. (Surprise, surprise.) While on the one hand, easy to read formats could encourage readers to learn the facts, the big picture. On the other hand, too often, readers only get one side of the story. Given the choice to click on what they wish, consumers too often create a self editorialized world of political journalism. Even reading a hard copy of Newsweek magazine, I found myself attracted to only certain displays of my favorite candidate’s faces and quotes. Dying are the sweeping political stories, which focus on the big picture of the entire candidate (or even better, the big picture of the political arena itself.)
Be this a fault in today’s readership or a fault in the field of journalism, I don’t know.
I just know that nobody except for you will read this, Prof Drew, because it’s far too large a block of text. Most readers need shorter statements, more pictures, more colors and a good deal less thought.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Overkill much?
To be labeled a plagiarist as a journalist is a death sentence. You become an untouchable--a member of that gollum-like class who will never see their name in print ever again unless Hollywood decides to make a movie about your giant screw up and cast Hayden Christiansen to play you (Shattering Glass, anyone?) This is why it's absolutely imperative that the word plagiarism be used with special care...because if thrown around carelessly, it can ruin lives.
Which brings me to the case of Professor John C. Merrill from the University of Missouri. Dismissed from his job and smeared as a journalist, the man's legacy of a journalistic career was blown to pieces due to a "plagiarism" scandal. The writing in question: a column in which he had not attributed a quote, originally collected by a student journalist.
Now let's consider. Was this a case of plagiarism? Yes, in the technical sense. Was it an example of plagiarism that warranted his dismissal? Not at all. Plagiarism is like any other crime...there are distinct levels of severity. A misdemeanor is not comparable to a conviction of manslaughter and should not elicit the same verdict. Essentially, Professor Merrill got sentenced to prison life when a couple weeks of community service should have done the trick.
It's a case of flagrant overkill, if you ask me. Why should someone be fired for quoting something someone said, simply because someone else heard it first, especially if it's an opinion piece? I know myriad professional columnists who do this on a regular basis. The only difference in this case was that the quote was drawn from a student publication. Strange double standard.
I myself have felt the tyranny of plagiarism nazis in the past. Asked to write a paper about a social issue, my senior year of high school, I pulled several paragraphs from my own past papers on anti-intellectualism. My teacher happened to have read a previous paper of mine and "confronted" me about it. I readily admitted to it, as all the work was mine and I felt I was safe in recycling my own hard-earned research. I got an F on the paper.
We live in a paranoid society, overburdened with the pressure to appear moral, rather than be moral. Far too often, we miss the point and castigate someone to form an "example" but all it ultimately does is scare the living daylights out of everyone. So now we're all huddling among ourselves, afraid to take a chance with our writing. And that, ultimately, is what is going to murder journalism.
Which brings me to the case of Professor John C. Merrill from the University of Missouri. Dismissed from his job and smeared as a journalist, the man's legacy of a journalistic career was blown to pieces due to a "plagiarism" scandal. The writing in question: a column in which he had not attributed a quote, originally collected by a student journalist.
Now let's consider. Was this a case of plagiarism? Yes, in the technical sense. Was it an example of plagiarism that warranted his dismissal? Not at all. Plagiarism is like any other crime...there are distinct levels of severity. A misdemeanor is not comparable to a conviction of manslaughter and should not elicit the same verdict. Essentially, Professor Merrill got sentenced to prison life when a couple weeks of community service should have done the trick.
It's a case of flagrant overkill, if you ask me. Why should someone be fired for quoting something someone said, simply because someone else heard it first, especially if it's an opinion piece? I know myriad professional columnists who do this on a regular basis. The only difference in this case was that the quote was drawn from a student publication. Strange double standard.
I myself have felt the tyranny of plagiarism nazis in the past. Asked to write a paper about a social issue, my senior year of high school, I pulled several paragraphs from my own past papers on anti-intellectualism. My teacher happened to have read a previous paper of mine and "confronted" me about it. I readily admitted to it, as all the work was mine and I felt I was safe in recycling my own hard-earned research. I got an F on the paper.
We live in a paranoid society, overburdened with the pressure to appear moral, rather than be moral. Far too often, we miss the point and castigate someone to form an "example" but all it ultimately does is scare the living daylights out of everyone. So now we're all huddling among ourselves, afraid to take a chance with our writing. And that, ultimately, is what is going to murder journalism.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The O-effect
O-bama was on O-prah last week and it's caused oh, such a great stir in the political world. Okay, maybe not a huge stir, but certainly some ripples. Though not usually active in the political world, Oprah has publicly thrown her support behind Barrack Obama, much like she does to the book of the week. The question now is whether it leads to "best seller."
An AP wire article stated that "A poll conducted in September, not long after Winfrey held a fundraiser for Obama, by the Pew Research Center found that 69 percent of respondents, or nearly seven in 10 Americans, would not be influenced by Winfrey's endorsement of a political candidate. On the other hand, 60 percent believed her support would help Obama, and only 3 percent said it would hurt him."
Calling on celebrities to campaign has always been hit or miss for candidates. In 2004, Bruce Springsteen lured 80,000 Wisconsins out to see John Kerry--a priceless voter-contact opportunity. On the other hand, a racy comment from Whoopie Goldberg during a Kerry rally caused as much damage as Springstein helped.
As former political speechwriter Marty Kaplan puts it, "celebrities are always one racy joke or DUI away from an embarrassment." Sorry Britney, no political campaigning for you today.
But many argue that Oprah is in a league of her own. Her advocacy could potentially affect over 9 million viewers and countless more through O Magazine and her website. Plus, thanks to an exemption from the equal time provision of the FCC, she can tout a politician's virtue as much and as often as she wants. (Of course, Oprah promises not to but you can see the potential power of celebrity.)
Oh, politics.
An AP wire article stated that "A poll conducted in September, not long after Winfrey held a fundraiser for Obama, by the Pew Research Center found that 69 percent of respondents, or nearly seven in 10 Americans, would not be influenced by Winfrey's endorsement of a political candidate. On the other hand, 60 percent believed her support would help Obama, and only 3 percent said it would hurt him."
Calling on celebrities to campaign has always been hit or miss for candidates. In 2004, Bruce Springsteen lured 80,000 Wisconsins out to see John Kerry--a priceless voter-contact opportunity. On the other hand, a racy comment from Whoopie Goldberg during a Kerry rally caused as much damage as Springstein helped.
As former political speechwriter Marty Kaplan puts it, "celebrities are always one racy joke or DUI away from an embarrassment." Sorry Britney, no political campaigning for you today.
But many argue that Oprah is in a league of her own. Her advocacy could potentially affect over 9 million viewers and countless more through O Magazine and her website. Plus, thanks to an exemption from the equal time provision of the FCC, she can tout a politician's virtue as much and as often as she wants. (Of course, Oprah promises not to but you can see the potential power of celebrity.)
Oh, politics.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Paying for an Edge
This section of reading mirrored a lot of what was covered in Journalism Ethics last year, but the one issue that came up that I hadn't thought about before was "checkbook journalism."
As far as I can tell, journalists are in constant competition, always poised on the proverbial blocks, waiting for a good story like a runner waits for the blast of the starting gun. So it makes sense that at some point in the game, journalists might have to pay sources for information.
"It's hard to argue that the ordinary person shouldn't share in the benefit of what's going to be a commercial product," says Everette Dennis, senior vice president of the Freedom Forum International Consortium of Universities.
But is journalism really a commercial product? If so, then I'm out. Now.
And on the financial end of things, can journalists afford to pay off their sources? Journalism and wealth aren't normally used in the same sentence.
But more than that, I'm worried about what this says about journalism and our society in general. If people expect payment for quotes, then where is the social duty in journalism? Money has a tendency to suck the dignity out of a profession.
It just worries me, that's all
As far as I can tell, journalists are in constant competition, always poised on the proverbial blocks, waiting for a good story like a runner waits for the blast of the starting gun. So it makes sense that at some point in the game, journalists might have to pay sources for information.
"It's hard to argue that the ordinary person shouldn't share in the benefit of what's going to be a commercial product," says Everette Dennis, senior vice president of the Freedom Forum International Consortium of Universities.
But is journalism really a commercial product? If so, then I'm out. Now.
And on the financial end of things, can journalists afford to pay off their sources? Journalism and wealth aren't normally used in the same sentence.
But more than that, I'm worried about what this says about journalism and our society in general. If people expect payment for quotes, then where is the social duty in journalism? Money has a tendency to suck the dignity out of a profession.
It just worries me, that's all
Book Cover Politics
Maybe it's trite of me to draw on the age old saying "don't judge a book by its cover" but I could think of nothing else to describe Rudy Giuliani's rise in politics.
This conclusion was something I drew from reading an editorial by Gerald F. Seib in the Washington Post who is equally baffled by Rudy's meteoric rise as a republican presidential candidate. I mean, let's review: Giuliani a) supports abortion b) supports gay rights c) support gun control d) commands the support of 33% of Republicans.
One of these things is not like the others.
In the words of Mr Seib, "the last supporter of abortion rights who made a plausible run for the party's nomination was then-California Gov. Pete Wilson in 1996, and he lasted about as long as a red-eye flight from the West Coast."
So what's happening here? It's simple: people like a macho man. Giuliani is seen as a leader, a tough guy, a winner and this image trumps everything including his wrecked family life, his flamboyancy and his stance on social issues.
Which, in the end just seems like pure desperation to me.
This conclusion was something I drew from reading an editorial by Gerald F. Seib in the Washington Post who is equally baffled by Rudy's meteoric rise as a republican presidential candidate. I mean, let's review: Giuliani a) supports abortion b) supports gay rights c) support gun control d) commands the support of 33% of Republicans.
One of these things is not like the others.
In the words of Mr Seib, "the last supporter of abortion rights who made a plausible run for the party's nomination was then-California Gov. Pete Wilson in 1996, and he lasted about as long as a red-eye flight from the West Coast."
So what's happening here? It's simple: people like a macho man. Giuliani is seen as a leader, a tough guy, a winner and this image trumps everything including his wrecked family life, his flamboyancy and his stance on social issues.
Which, in the end just seems like pure desperation to me.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Cool Kids
There's no doubt about it, investigative journalists are the "cool kids" on the playground of journalism. After all, any job that warns people that "lack of courage" (pg 403) might be a deterrent, has to be pretty badass. This is the journalistic world that Hollywood loves, that foolish aspiring journalists (like myself) think they're enterting.
But like the cool kids, investigative journalists have their issues. (And I'm not talking about the glamorous drug-soaked kind of issues.) Careful observation and patience--neither of which I possess in large quantities--is of the utmost. Being able to read administrative drivel is also important. Not only do investigative journalists have to deal with finding written sources, they also must interpret them. What does a 5500 form mean? Where are they found? The corporate ocean is filled with illegible plasma.
Makes me thinkg, maybe I should just stay an average kid.
But like the cool kids, investigative journalists have their issues. (And I'm not talking about the glamorous drug-soaked kind of issues.) Careful observation and patience--neither of which I possess in large quantities--is of the utmost. Being able to read administrative drivel is also important. Not only do investigative journalists have to deal with finding written sources, they also must interpret them. What does a 5500 form mean? Where are they found? The corporate ocean is filled with illegible plasma.
Makes me thinkg, maybe I should just stay an average kid.
The Bush Factor
Forget hiding in the bushes, Republicans have been trying to hide a very problematic Bush.
George W. Bush, that is.
A New York Times editorial compared the number of times that Democrats have mentioned the current president's name versus the number of times that Republicans have invoked it. The number? 47 to 2. (One of the 2 Republican mentions was actually a criticism by Representative Ron Paul from Texas.) Pretty dire stuff which brings up questions about what to do with a moron for President?
Perhaps moron is too harsh a word... but what else should we assume about a President whose approval ratings are the lowest of any president since the "invention of modern polling"? Republicans are saddled with the task of delicately separating themselves from the current Republican president.
Some don't mention him, but emphasize the future (Mitt Romney's campaign slogan is "Change begins with us") while others selectively support him. Giuliani "praises Mr. Bush as keeping the nation safe even as he presents himself as a competent manager, perhaps to draw a contrast with the president." (Which means Bush was what, not competent? Oh the word-games politicians play.)
Meanwhile, the Democrats are eating Bush up like Halloween candy.
In the end, however, I can't help but wonder at whether this phenomenon is a beneficial one to America. I cannot abide George W. Bush but at the same time, I would be foolish to let his idiocy affect my decision regarding the next President of the United States. I feel as though voters are too often reactionary. Dissatisfaction with leadership is associated with the wrong attributes--such as party affiliation--which then leads to faulty decision making and the absolute last thing we need is another logical fallacy in Washington.
So I guess, no matter who mentions Bush, I'll try and take an objective look at what's actually being said.
George W. Bush, that is.
A New York Times editorial compared the number of times that Democrats have mentioned the current president's name versus the number of times that Republicans have invoked it. The number? 47 to 2. (One of the 2 Republican mentions was actually a criticism by Representative Ron Paul from Texas.) Pretty dire stuff which brings up questions about what to do with a moron for President?
Perhaps moron is too harsh a word... but what else should we assume about a President whose approval ratings are the lowest of any president since the "invention of modern polling"? Republicans are saddled with the task of delicately separating themselves from the current Republican president.
Some don't mention him, but emphasize the future (Mitt Romney's campaign slogan is "Change begins with us") while others selectively support him. Giuliani "praises Mr. Bush as keeping the nation safe even as he presents himself as a competent manager, perhaps to draw a contrast with the president." (Which means Bush was what, not competent? Oh the word-games politicians play.)
Meanwhile, the Democrats are eating Bush up like Halloween candy.
In the end, however, I can't help but wonder at whether this phenomenon is a beneficial one to America. I cannot abide George W. Bush but at the same time, I would be foolish to let his idiocy affect my decision regarding the next President of the United States. I feel as though voters are too often reactionary. Dissatisfaction with leadership is associated with the wrong attributes--such as party affiliation--which then leads to faulty decision making and the absolute last thing we need is another logical fallacy in Washington.
So I guess, no matter who mentions Bush, I'll try and take an objective look at what's actually being said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
