Journalism, like so many other longstanding professions, has its broad stroke image. One thinks of a journalist--crime beat journalists especially-- and up comes the image of the hardened cynic, scotch in one hand, cigarette in the other, typewriter whirring.
What one doesn't imagine is a journalist poring over details of subpoenas, gag orders and other legal hodgepodge. I suppose it's obvious that beat reporting requires a very specific and thorough knowledge of a narrow strip of society. What I didn't think about was my own place in the world of beat reporting. To be entirely honest, I don't have an outstanding interest in one area. The environment, perhaps, maybe Asian dynamics, but ultimately I have no idea. Do certain personalities lend themselves to certain beats? If so, then where do I fit in? (I don't think I could handle crime reporting... as stated in chapter 14, "police work seldom attracks saints and police officers are frequently cynical, often prejudiced, occasionally dishonest. I don't think I could handle that sort of company in addition to having to memorize legal niceties.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Paying for Positivity
Barrack Obama has tried very hard to mold himself as the "good guy" among his political competitors.
Good, meaning non-mudslinging. According to a Reuters article, Barrack's campaign has been devoted to painstakingly carving out his persona as the peacemaker, just the sort of positive candidate that could bridge the widening partisan gap.
Too bad Hillary's still winning in the polls.
Now Obama is helplessly pinned by his own public image. He must choose between betraying that image and possibly alienating his hard-earned supporters. So far, society seems set on destroying the image. Observe:
-"If he's playing to win, they are going to have to ratchet it up," says Simon Rosenberg, head of the Democratic advocacy group NDN.
-"Voters here like a scrappy underdog, and he never fit that role" says Dante Scala, a political analyst at the University of New Hampshire
Ratchet up? Scrappy? What? The political world has always nurtured the "survival of the fittest" mentality but seriously? At a time when our country is so divided a bill has more of a chance to get hit by lightning than to get passed, how can we castigate a candidate who's trying to make amends? (Or at least pretends to.)
Good, meaning non-mudslinging. According to a Reuters article, Barrack's campaign has been devoted to painstakingly carving out his persona as the peacemaker, just the sort of positive candidate that could bridge the widening partisan gap.
Too bad Hillary's still winning in the polls.
Now Obama is helplessly pinned by his own public image. He must choose between betraying that image and possibly alienating his hard-earned supporters. So far, society seems set on destroying the image. Observe:
-"If he's playing to win, they are going to have to ratchet it up," says Simon Rosenberg, head of the Democratic advocacy group NDN.
-"Voters here like a scrappy underdog, and he never fit that role" says Dante Scala, a political analyst at the University of New Hampshire
Ratchet up? Scrappy? What? The political world has always nurtured the "survival of the fittest" mentality but seriously? At a time when our country is so divided a bill has more of a chance to get hit by lightning than to get passed, how can we castigate a candidate who's trying to make amends? (Or at least pretends to.)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Minor Details
One of the most striking parts of Chapter 13 was the section on“Issues of Taste and Ethics.” It reminded me strongly of an argument we had to write during Journalism Ethics last year which discussed the morality of including children in stories:
The question of whether a minor should be interviewed in a story is a matter of taste, not of ethics. Provided the child holds no information that can genuinely harm a group or an individual, including him/herself, there are no ethical roadblocks worth considering. With the consent of a parent or guardian, there is no legal obstacle, so the issue becomes, “How does interviewing a child benefit the story?” (After all, at their roots, all journalists are storytellers.)
Thus, as a journalist one must determine what type of story is being told and subsequently, how important a role the minor had to play in it. If a minor is a unique participant in a story---unique, apart from his/her age, that is---then an interview is acceptable out of necessity. Just as a story about three bears cannot be properly told without the third bear’s perspective, a story about a case of child abuse cannot be properly told without the child’s perspective.
If, however, the minor is only an appendage---an afterthought meant to aggravate the audience’s tear ducts---then one should reconsider the interview’s importance. If the information can be obtained just as easily from an adult, then it should be.
The only exception to this rule is in the case of local community stories where harrowing ethical issues are a rarity. A county fair or a local concert, for instance, is an acceptable context in which to interview children (for obvious reasons.)
Ultimately, using children as tools for titillation should be avoided at all costs. Just as in fiction, useless characters only clutter up the story.
The question of whether a minor should be interviewed in a story is a matter of taste, not of ethics. Provided the child holds no information that can genuinely harm a group or an individual, including him/herself, there are no ethical roadblocks worth considering. With the consent of a parent or guardian, there is no legal obstacle, so the issue becomes, “How does interviewing a child benefit the story?” (After all, at their roots, all journalists are storytellers.)
Thus, as a journalist one must determine what type of story is being told and subsequently, how important a role the minor had to play in it. If a minor is a unique participant in a story---unique, apart from his/her age, that is---then an interview is acceptable out of necessity. Just as a story about three bears cannot be properly told without the third bear’s perspective, a story about a case of child abuse cannot be properly told without the child’s perspective.
If, however, the minor is only an appendage---an afterthought meant to aggravate the audience’s tear ducts---then one should reconsider the interview’s importance. If the information can be obtained just as easily from an adult, then it should be.
The only exception to this rule is in the case of local community stories where harrowing ethical issues are a rarity. A county fair or a local concert, for instance, is an acceptable context in which to interview children (for obvious reasons.)
Ultimately, using children as tools for titillation should be avoided at all costs. Just as in fiction, useless characters only clutter up the story.
Go Gore, Baby!
It’s been a moody decade for Al Gore. Rushing from Vice President, to Presidential candidate to having Florida pull the rug out from under his potential Presidency, he’s one of those people who, not given a moment to breathe, have their lives sculpted out for them. Not only their lives, but their image.
Gore has endured the same jabs at his image as many a politician. Stiff and overly bookish, he was tagged as a policy-narc with the personality of a turnip. Thus, it only makes sense that it took a presidential defeat and the flight of his many of his image-hawks that he was able to “be himself.” (I didn’t think Gore knew what a sense of humor was until I saw An Inconvenient Truth)
Albeit, this is pure speculation on my part but how else can you explain the return to his environmental roots, his Oscar Award and now (*drumroll*) his Nobel Peace Prize.
Way to go, Al. I give you mad props.
What’s funny about the political arena is that often, you have to detach yourself from politics in order to be successful as a person.
Case in point: with the Peace Prize under his belt, people are whispering of Gore throwing his name into the Presidential pool. It’s as if success in politics can only lead one way: to the White House.
Gore, to his credit, has not bolstered any of these rumors. But at the same time, his aides have not denied the claims outright either.
I can only hope that everything in Washington isn’t just an act.
Gore has endured the same jabs at his image as many a politician. Stiff and overly bookish, he was tagged as a policy-narc with the personality of a turnip. Thus, it only makes sense that it took a presidential defeat and the flight of his many of his image-hawks that he was able to “be himself.” (I didn’t think Gore knew what a sense of humor was until I saw An Inconvenient Truth)
Albeit, this is pure speculation on my part but how else can you explain the return to his environmental roots, his Oscar Award and now (*drumroll*) his Nobel Peace Prize.
Way to go, Al. I give you mad props.
What’s funny about the political arena is that often, you have to detach yourself from politics in order to be successful as a person.
Case in point: with the Peace Prize under his belt, people are whispering of Gore throwing his name into the Presidential pool. It’s as if success in politics can only lead one way: to the White House.
Gore, to his credit, has not bolstered any of these rumors. But at the same time, his aides have not denied the claims outright either.
I can only hope that everything in Washington isn’t just an act.
Monday, October 8, 2007
More than words
I read a particularly interesting piece in the Washington Post today, titled "Read Her Lips. And Hands. Oh, And Eyes, Too"
As its title suggests, the article talks about the body language of presidential candidates during speechs, debates and other public events. Three analysts took painstaking note of physical communication during a Democratic debate, calling Hillary a master of "rhetorical jhujitsu" while reprimanding Dodd for moving too quickly. "Man, slow it down! " said analyst Seth Pendleton. "His points are good, but things run together... You want the audience to appreciate it. It's like what they say in jazz -- the space between the notes."
Which makes me think: "how much am I affected by demeanor?" I've heard that famous story about the Nixon-Kennedy debate in which Kennedy's smooth aesthetic charm won TV viewers over in torrents while Nixon won the radio debate with raw logic. I like to think of myself as someone rooted in fact...but can I really say I'm not swayed by how things appear?
I have no clue.
As its title suggests, the article talks about the body language of presidential candidates during speechs, debates and other public events. Three analysts took painstaking note of physical communication during a Democratic debate, calling Hillary a master of "rhetorical jhujitsu" while reprimanding Dodd for moving too quickly. "Man, slow it down! " said analyst Seth Pendleton. "His points are good, but things run together... You want the audience to appreciate it. It's like what they say in jazz -- the space between the notes."
Which makes me think: "how much am I affected by demeanor?" I've heard that famous story about the Nixon-Kennedy debate in which Kennedy's smooth aesthetic charm won TV viewers over in torrents while Nixon won the radio debate with raw logic. I like to think of myself as someone rooted in fact...but can I really say I'm not swayed by how things appear?
I have no clue.
Do as I say...
There's a line in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" that I live and die by as a writer. "Brevity is the soul of wit," he states about halfway through the second act. Ironically, it comes from the mouth of Polonius, the blustering and notably long-winded comic relief, whose advice is taken by nobody.
Funny, how history repeats itself.
Much later, in both Orwell's "Politics and the English Language,” and "Five Characteristics of Academic or Scholarly Prose,” each authors laments the "current" state of the English language. Classrooms the world over warn students against over-elaboration (or pretentious diction, as Orwell says), passive voice, dead metaphors and myriad other leeches of good writing.
What I find baffling is that while these rules are preached, assigned readings so often break these very same rules. History texts, research papers, scientific analysis, even some NYTimes ledes...all revel in "academia-speak." wordy, boring, and often indecipherable. And as they say, mistakes garner mistakes.
Are we a society of Poloniuses?
Funny, how history repeats itself.
Much later, in both Orwell's "Politics and the English Language,” and "Five Characteristics of Academic or Scholarly Prose,” each authors laments the "current" state of the English language. Classrooms the world over warn students against over-elaboration (or pretentious diction, as Orwell says), passive voice, dead metaphors and myriad other leeches of good writing.
What I find baffling is that while these rules are preached, assigned readings so often break these very same rules. History texts, research papers, scientific analysis, even some NYTimes ledes...all revel in "academia-speak." wordy, boring, and often indecipherable. And as they say, mistakes garner mistakes.
Are we a society of Poloniuses?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Thinking Outside the...Country?
It's been a while since I've caught up on my "it's all politics" podcast so this story is a little old but it still caught my attention (ear?)
Apparently a number of presidential candidates--Obama, Giuliani, Clinton-- have been fundraising overseas! Giuliani hosted an elaborate fundraising dinner in order to court, strangely enough, American financiers and businesspeople who are currently living in Great Britain.
Seems like a bit of a long shot at first, doesn't it?
But on second glance, one wonders at the economic insinuations this political move makes. If enough movers and shakers in the financial are abroad for a political candidate to seek them out...what does this say about where American money?
Of course, it could just be that our presidential candidates were looking for a vacation.
Apparently a number of presidential candidates--Obama, Giuliani, Clinton-- have been fundraising overseas! Giuliani hosted an elaborate fundraising dinner in order to court, strangely enough, American financiers and businesspeople who are currently living in Great Britain.
Seems like a bit of a long shot at first, doesn't it?
But on second glance, one wonders at the economic insinuations this political move makes. If enough movers and shakers in the financial are abroad for a political candidate to seek them out...what does this say about where American money?
Of course, it could just be that our presidential candidates were looking for a vacation.
Trolling the Waters
I am not a patient person. My parents will readily attest to my glaring lack of attention span when faced with any lecture that extends beyond 20-minutes. (Although they might find me more attentive if they veered away from the topic of my myriad flaws.) I cannot abide sitting still. If a movie’s pacing drags, I’m gone. If food takes too long to prepare, I reach for a granola bar. If a professor wanders, so do I.
Which makes reporting on meetings, speeches and news conferences a particular challenge for me.
Apart from the obvious challenge of staying awake, the news value of these events isn’t immediately apparent. Whereas events like a car crash, a workers strike or a murder, have direct and blatant news value, the reporter must glean through a lot of tripe in order to find what’s truly newsworthy in a speech.
The same holds true for news releases. Judd Slivka, reporter for the Arizona Republic claims to receive over 400 pieces of mail a week and manage to pull seeds for real stories from the torrent. I cannot imagine having the time, let alone the patience and eye to do that. As stated in “News Reporting and Writing,” news releases are more often than not, “far from earthshaking.” I hear that and already my eyes start glazing over.
When I was little, my dad and I used to fish in our pond. It was an ordeal that involved me throwing rocks to see the ripples, trying to catch frogs, running around in circles, dipping my toe in to see how cold the water was and generally not fishing. My dad would sit in the grass, reeling in his line, waiting.
I can only hope to do the same when the time comes.
Which makes reporting on meetings, speeches and news conferences a particular challenge for me.
Apart from the obvious challenge of staying awake, the news value of these events isn’t immediately apparent. Whereas events like a car crash, a workers strike or a murder, have direct and blatant news value, the reporter must glean through a lot of tripe in order to find what’s truly newsworthy in a speech.
The same holds true for news releases. Judd Slivka, reporter for the Arizona Republic claims to receive over 400 pieces of mail a week and manage to pull seeds for real stories from the torrent. I cannot imagine having the time, let alone the patience and eye to do that. As stated in “News Reporting and Writing,” news releases are more often than not, “far from earthshaking.” I hear that and already my eyes start glazing over.
When I was little, my dad and I used to fish in our pond. It was an ordeal that involved me throwing rocks to see the ripples, trying to catch frogs, running around in circles, dipping my toe in to see how cold the water was and generally not fishing. My dad would sit in the grass, reeling in his line, waiting.
I can only hope to do the same when the time comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
