I cannot write about obituaries as a journalist today.
My family suffered a death this weekend. The thought of writing objectively (yet personally), succinctly (yet fully)....is too much.
Suffice it to say that one cannot afford to become jaded in this stereotypically bottom-rung job. It would hurt too much.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Expect Expectorating.
Americans are a people of extremes...especially when it comes to politics. Be it push button issues like stem cell research and gay marriage or the way political candidates paint themselves in broad, sweeping strokes, Washington inhabitants are hard-wired for stereotype.
When General Petraeus testified on the war in Iraq in both the House of Representatives and the Senate a couple weeks ago, he bore the brunt of this sort of thinking. Despite the veracity of Petreaus' concrete facts,
In a manner that a Washington Post editorial likened to the "days when soldiers and sailors were spat upon by large segments of anti-war activists in the '60s and early '70s," an angry bunch of senators lambasted the General for rubbing their agendas the wrong way. Petreaus' bias was called into question with comments like the one Sen. Dick Durbin spit out in Congressional Weekly:
"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," --Durbin
I am wholeheartedly oppose the war...but to castigate someone for simply stating the facts is almost as deplorable as sending a country to war on false claims. Far too often, people confuse the war with the people fighitng the war.
But I suppose that's to be expected in Washington.
When General Petraeus testified on the war in Iraq in both the House of Representatives and the Senate a couple weeks ago, he bore the brunt of this sort of thinking. Despite the veracity of Petreaus' concrete facts,
In a manner that a Washington Post editorial likened to the "days when soldiers and sailors were spat upon by large segments of anti-war activists in the '60s and early '70s," an angry bunch of senators lambasted the General for rubbing their agendas the wrong way. Petreaus' bias was called into question with comments like the one Sen. Dick Durbin spit out in Congressional Weekly:
"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," --Durbin
I am wholeheartedly oppose the war...but to castigate someone for simply stating the facts is almost as deplorable as sending a country to war on false claims. Far too often, people confuse the war with the people fighitng the war.
But I suppose that's to be expected in Washington.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Don't quote me on this...
Sometimes, as a journalist, I hate people.
I've had people cuss me out for approaching them and requesting a harmless man-on-the-street interview. I've had sources be on their way to a great quote only to be stopped dead once they catch sight of a pen and pad (or worse yet, a minidisk recorder.) I've had to sit through circuitous, redundant rants, one-word answer interviews and just plain rude people.
So it strikes me as funny, that our textbook emphasizes the logistics of quoting (how to use ellipses, when to paraphrase etc.) when in my experience, you're often lucky to just get people to talk.
This is not to say that the text wasn't pointing out important aspects of quoting.
One thing, that I did find reassuring, however was the section on "accurate" quoting. In particular, the study that Arizona University Professor, Adrienne Leher did that showed 13 out of 98 quotes taken from Arizona newspapers were 100% accurate. (God knows I've done my share of fudging when it comes to exact quoting.) It's just nice to hear I'm not alone.
I've had people cuss me out for approaching them and requesting a harmless man-on-the-street interview. I've had sources be on their way to a great quote only to be stopped dead once they catch sight of a pen and pad (or worse yet, a minidisk recorder.) I've had to sit through circuitous, redundant rants, one-word answer interviews and just plain rude people.
So it strikes me as funny, that our textbook emphasizes the logistics of quoting (how to use ellipses, when to paraphrase etc.) when in my experience, you're often lucky to just get people to talk.
This is not to say that the text wasn't pointing out important aspects of quoting.
One thing, that I did find reassuring, however was the section on "accurate" quoting. In particular, the study that Arizona University Professor, Adrienne Leher did that showed 13 out of 98 quotes taken from Arizona newspapers were 100% accurate. (God knows I've done my share of fudging when it comes to exact quoting.) It's just nice to hear I'm not alone.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Fine Lines
I won't sugarcoat it; I'm a shameless liberal when it comes to push button issues. I'm adamantly pro-choice, I believe gays should be given the right to legally wed without question and above all, I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. Hands down.
Which is why I found it difficult at first, to read the headline "McCain: 'I'm a Baptist'" in Yahoo News' election coverage. (click here to read the article)
Apparently McCain, who until recently identified himself as an Episcopalian, declared himself a Baptist while campaigning in South Carolina earlier today. "It's well known because I'm an active member of the church," he said. "It plays a role in my life.
My first reaction to this flagrant blurring of the line between Church and State on both McCain's part as well as the media's was to rant the usual diatribes. "RELIGION SHOULDN"T BE CONSIDERED DURING THE POLITICAL PROCESS!" cried the crazy hippie in me.
Afterwards, however, I realized that A. I'd never sat down and thought through the logistics of such a statement and B. I had no clue what the actual difference between the two denominations were. Christianity to me is still a nebulous blob of ideology. (Talk about blurry lines.)
Even after researching it, I'm still somewhat unclear about the differentiations. Here, however, is my butchered sparknotes version of my findings. (Anyone who knows better, please don't hate me.)
Baptists are literalists; to them, the Bible is word by word law to be interpreted by each individual. (Everyone's required to have their own bible and there's no final authority beyond your own interpretation.) Many support "litmus paper tests" of faith based on how well one knows the bible etc.
Episcopalians, in contrast, are more people-centered. The essence of God lies in group dynamics and community outreach. Litmus tests tend to be spurned.
To me, these differences are so minute to outsiders that they almost seem superfluous. Yet, they play an enormous role in the lives of those who follow such faiths.
What's most interesting is how this plays a role in McCain.
It's easy to deride politicians who promenade their faiths for the sake of public opinion. (*cough*BUSH*cough) Yet, at the same time it's unfair to ask them not to consider it at all. Faith is an inherent part of soul, mind and personality. The fact that McCain is a Baptist does, in fact, affect his decision making process, his interpretation of the Constitution (our political Bible) and his approach to people in general.
Suddenly, my own lines are blurring.
Which is why I found it difficult at first, to read the headline "McCain: 'I'm a Baptist'" in Yahoo News' election coverage. (click here to read the article)
Apparently McCain, who until recently identified himself as an Episcopalian, declared himself a Baptist while campaigning in South Carolina earlier today. "It's well known because I'm an active member of the church," he said. "It plays a role in my life.
My first reaction to this flagrant blurring of the line between Church and State on both McCain's part as well as the media's was to rant the usual diatribes. "RELIGION SHOULDN"T BE CONSIDERED DURING THE POLITICAL PROCESS!" cried the crazy hippie in me.
Afterwards, however, I realized that A. I'd never sat down and thought through the logistics of such a statement and B. I had no clue what the actual difference between the two denominations were. Christianity to me is still a nebulous blob of ideology. (Talk about blurry lines.)
Even after researching it, I'm still somewhat unclear about the differentiations. Here, however, is my butchered sparknotes version of my findings. (Anyone who knows better, please don't hate me.)
Baptists are literalists; to them, the Bible is word by word law to be interpreted by each individual. (Everyone's required to have their own bible and there's no final authority beyond your own interpretation.) Many support "litmus paper tests" of faith based on how well one knows the bible etc.
Episcopalians, in contrast, are more people-centered. The essence of God lies in group dynamics and community outreach. Litmus tests tend to be spurned.
To me, these differences are so minute to outsiders that they almost seem superfluous. Yet, they play an enormous role in the lives of those who follow such faiths.
What's most interesting is how this plays a role in McCain.
It's easy to deride politicians who promenade their faiths for the sake of public opinion. (*cough*BUSH*cough) Yet, at the same time it's unfair to ask them not to consider it at all. Faith is an inherent part of soul, mind and personality. The fact that McCain is a Baptist does, in fact, affect his decision making process, his interpretation of the Constitution (our political Bible) and his approach to people in general.
Suddenly, my own lines are blurring.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Oh Hail ye Great Objectiv-ism
As a journalism student, I often hear about the pillars of journalism. "Relevance, Usefulness, Interest," preach the Missouri Group on page four of "News Reporting and Writing" while Bob Woodward idealizes a story as "the best obtainable version of the truth."
These concepts, which are so often taken for granted, are inherently flawed however. "Journalists," wrote Michael Schudson in his book Discovering the News," came to believe in objectivity, to the extent that they did because they wanted to, needed to, were forced by ordinary human aspiration to see escape from their deep convictions of doubt and drift."
Like a religion that relies on utter faith in one idea--like the divinity of Christ or the goodness of man--journalists base their faith on the idea that humans have the ability to be objective. Ironic, really. A quality that is usually associated with science is actually a belief employed in the pursuit of the spirit of journalism.
Thus, journalists are romantic scientists. Using the neutrality of science and the heart of social do-gooder, it is a culture in ideological limbo.
And like religion, there is never a solid answer.
These concepts, which are so often taken for granted, are inherently flawed however. "Journalists," wrote Michael Schudson in his book Discovering the News," came to believe in objectivity, to the extent that they did because they wanted to, needed to, were forced by ordinary human aspiration to see escape from their deep convictions of doubt and drift."
Like a religion that relies on utter faith in one idea--like the divinity of Christ or the goodness of man--journalists base their faith on the idea that humans have the ability to be objective. Ironic, really. A quality that is usually associated with science is actually a belief employed in the pursuit of the spirit of journalism.
Thus, journalists are romantic scientists. Using the neutrality of science and the heart of social do-gooder, it is a culture in ideological limbo.
And like religion, there is never a solid answer.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Political Gaming
I played Presidential Pong today. I found it on CNN's election center and putzed around with it for a while until I realize how much of my life I'd sacrificed for it. (45 minutes. Don't judge me.)
It was embarrassing; the game wasn't remotely fun. You pick your candidate, your opponent and you bat a ball around on a screen. (I liked playing as Bill Richardson cause his cartoon-self looks like a middle-aged Charlie Brown, poor dear.)
The best part of the game are the "power ups." Each player only gets three and they differ from candidate to candidate. Hilary breaks out the Clinton family whenever she starts sweating, McCain dons a helmet and power ups on his war veteran days and whenever Obama hits the ball--his tongue stick out when this happens-- he likes to power up on Lincoln's Statehouse. (Nothing sticks to the guy!) If you don't believe me, click here.
As silly as this all seems, however, these oversimplification of how presidential candidates are pigeonholed is not far from the truth. In today's world of celebrity obsession and the National Enquirer, a single rumor (like an expensive haircut) or a single issue (Mitt Romney and his gay crusade) can make or break a candidate.
If a haircut can tarnish a man's image, one would think that something like the Petraeus-Crocker Report, essentially a report card on the Iraq War, would put forth unbelievable political tremors among our current administration.
Think again.
In a Washington Post-ABC news poll, showed a sweeping skepticism among American voters when it came to whether Petraeus' testimony would have any effect on the current Iraq policy. "Only about four in 10 said they expect the general to give an accurate accounting of the situation in Iraq. A majority, 53 percent, said they think his report will try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is," stated the Washington-Post in an op-ed piece.
With the Bush administration facing plummeting approval ratings and only about a third of the United States believing in the party line on Iraq, the spotlight is again on the candidates to provide one thing above all: change.
Because in the end, war is not a game.
It was embarrassing; the game wasn't remotely fun. You pick your candidate, your opponent and you bat a ball around on a screen. (I liked playing as Bill Richardson cause his cartoon-self looks like a middle-aged Charlie Brown, poor dear.)
The best part of the game are the "power ups." Each player only gets three and they differ from candidate to candidate. Hilary breaks out the Clinton family whenever she starts sweating, McCain dons a helmet and power ups on his war veteran days and whenever Obama hits the ball--his tongue stick out when this happens-- he likes to power up on Lincoln's Statehouse. (Nothing sticks to the guy!) If you don't believe me, click here.
As silly as this all seems, however, these oversimplification of how presidential candidates are pigeonholed is not far from the truth. In today's world of celebrity obsession and the National Enquirer, a single rumor (like an expensive haircut) or a single issue (Mitt Romney and his gay crusade) can make or break a candidate.
If a haircut can tarnish a man's image, one would think that something like the Petraeus-Crocker Report, essentially a report card on the Iraq War, would put forth unbelievable political tremors among our current administration.
Think again.
In a Washington Post-ABC news poll, showed a sweeping skepticism among American voters when it came to whether Petraeus' testimony would have any effect on the current Iraq policy. "Only about four in 10 said they expect the general to give an accurate accounting of the situation in Iraq. A majority, 53 percent, said they think his report will try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is," stated the Washington-Post in an op-ed piece.
With the Bush administration facing plummeting approval ratings and only about a third of the United States believing in the party line on Iraq, the spotlight is again on the candidates to provide one thing above all: change.
Because in the end, war is not a game.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
How to Kill Enthusiasm
Step 1: Find journalism student (preferably fresh.)
Step 2: Carefully remove marrow from the first two paragraphs of an article.
Step 3: Label anatomy of an article and then overexplain each segment. The use of models, diagrams, and strange pictures from the 80's are useful in this step.
Step 4: Have student read extensive piece on future of newspapers. (Doomed. We're all doomed.)
Step 5: Serve chilled.
Alright this is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. Chapters six and seven from the Missouri Group's "News Reporting and Writing" had its strong points. Nothing written was wrong. Yet, it's this sort of analysis that kills my appetite for journalism. The idea of spitting out inverted pyramids for the rest of my life is as far from appealing as I can possibly imagine. Journalism offers (and therefore needs) so much more than that both in terms of passion and skill. This reading committed the same crime that every English class I took in high school did... it makes journalism too concrete. "Use figures of speech" instructs chapter seven. "Analogies such as similes and metaphors permit writers to show similarities and contrasts." True, but wouldn't you think that journalism students at this stage would know such a thing?
I suppose I just need more ambiguity when it comes to my future career.
Step 2: Carefully remove marrow from the first two paragraphs of an article.
Step 3: Label anatomy of an article and then overexplain each segment. The use of models, diagrams, and strange pictures from the 80's are useful in this step.
Step 4: Have student read extensive piece on future of newspapers. (Doomed. We're all doomed.)
Step 5: Serve chilled.
Alright this is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. Chapters six and seven from the Missouri Group's "News Reporting and Writing" had its strong points. Nothing written was wrong. Yet, it's this sort of analysis that kills my appetite for journalism. The idea of spitting out inverted pyramids for the rest of my life is as far from appealing as I can possibly imagine. Journalism offers (and therefore needs) so much more than that both in terms of passion and skill. This reading committed the same crime that every English class I took in high school did... it makes journalism too concrete. "Use figures of speech" instructs chapter seven. "Analogies such as similes and metaphors permit writers to show similarities and contrasts." True, but wouldn't you think that journalism students at this stage would know such a thing?
I suppose I just need more ambiguity when it comes to my future career.
Film Noir in Washington
Everyone knows the scene. A frenzied assistant rushes into a sumptuously decorated office where a man in Armani sits awaiting the news he already knows. "Sir, sir! It's in all the papers! They know about the money. WE'RE RUINED." Shady workings of a political underworld are brought to light in the headlines of spinning newspapers, angry murmurs fill a courtroom as a gavel swings and the culprit is stripped of his riches in the name of justice.
What's fascinating, however, is when real life puts a twist on this classic drama.
Norman Hsu, sallow-faced with bags under his eyes nearly as deep as his pockets, disappeared this morning right before his court hearing was to take place in Red Wood City . A heavyweight campaign donor, this now-fugitive who was considered a "hillraiser" by the Clinton campaign has been disgraced for multiple cases of illegality in his practices as a fundraiser. Having donated over $600,000 to democrats around the country, his arrest has created an understandable stir. HIs disappearance today echoes his vanishing act back in 1992 when charged with fraud. The details get shadier and shadier as one digs deeper into hsi backstory. Supposedly working in the Hong Kong garment industry during the respite between his first arrest and his reemergence onto the American political scene five years ago, there is little to no trace of his work there. An article in the New York Times states that "an address [Hsu] has given as his office in New York’s garment district seems to be little more than a mail drop, and people who work nearby have said they rarely see him. This guy is ready for the big screen.
Yet the fact that the political world is this theatrical worries me. Perhaps it's naiive to think so but politics--in particular, a Presidential election--should be a creature of fact not affiliation. Attacks have already been made on the recipients of Hsu's cash. Typing Norman Hsu's name into the youtube search and videos pop up screaming "Fugitives for Hilary" and "HILARY'S CHINESE MONEY." In response, candidates have been throwing the hot money at charities, hoping to assuage the possible public outcry. Falseness for falseness.
And it all makes me a little sad.
(For more info, visit http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democratic_fundraiser;_ylt=ArAXlf8sCBC2KMwHZk26v_jkbeRF)
What's fascinating, however, is when real life puts a twist on this classic drama.
Norman Hsu, sallow-faced with bags under his eyes nearly as deep as his pockets, disappeared this morning right before his court hearing was to take place in Red Wood City . A heavyweight campaign donor, this now-fugitive who was considered a "hillraiser" by the Clinton campaign has been disgraced for multiple cases of illegality in his practices as a fundraiser. Having donated over $600,000 to democrats around the country, his arrest has created an understandable stir. HIs disappearance today echoes his vanishing act back in 1992 when charged with fraud. The details get shadier and shadier as one digs deeper into hsi backstory. Supposedly working in the Hong Kong garment industry during the respite between his first arrest and his reemergence onto the American political scene five years ago, there is little to no trace of his work there. An article in the New York Times states that "an address [Hsu] has given as his office in New York’s garment district seems to be little more than a mail drop, and people who work nearby have said they rarely see him. This guy is ready for the big screen.
Yet the fact that the political world is this theatrical worries me. Perhaps it's naiive to think so but politics--in particular, a Presidential election--should be a creature of fact not affiliation. Attacks have already been made on the recipients of Hsu's cash. Typing Norman Hsu's name into the youtube search and videos pop up screaming "Fugitives for Hilary" and "HILARY'S CHINESE MONEY." In response, candidates have been throwing the hot money at charities, hoping to assuage the possible public outcry. Falseness for falseness.
And it all makes me a little sad.
(For more info, visit http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democratic_fundraiser;_ylt=ArAXlf8sCBC2KMwHZk26v_jkbeRF)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
