Paper or Plastic

Recently Fox launched the radically unsuccessful series, Anchorwoman. The show plopped a blond model with no experience in the middle of a newsroom and taped the ensuing "hilarity." The show got a lot of criticism before it aired for devaluing the work of real journalists. It was immediately cancelled.

Thank God.
Unfortunately rating-grabbing pretty faces, or in Katie Couric's case, short skirts are still exploited in broadcast to a certain degree. In fact some big name broadcast journalists don't even write their own columns, instead leaving that task to lesser reporters.
So do some reporters have more in common with Lauren Jones than we, as the professionals, would like to believe? Does the fact that the show tanked show that the American public is unwilling to knowingly get their news from beautiful bimbos? Or does it mean watching the process makes for uninteresting reality TV?
Of course, as an aspiring female reporter, I'm insulted to think that that's how any woman in the media will be thought about. So, are the Katie Courics and Lauren Jones of the world ruining for the rest of us?

Freedom or folly?

The debate continues over whether the editor of the Collegian should lose his job over his decision to use the F-word in huge type in an editorial. J. David McSwane insists the editorial was simply intended to defend free speech. McSwane has been ordered to appear before at a formal hearing before Rocky Mountain College's communication board on Oct. 4, according to a story in Editor and Publisher. Last week, the board said they'd received more than 300 emails about the editorial, with 70 percent running against McSwane's decision. The debate is raging in the blogosphere, too, with some defending the student and others saying the editorial was irresponsible. Apparently, some who know McSwane think he was more interested in grabbing the spotlight than the first amendment all along, according to an article on the Rocky Mountain News website.
So where do you stand? Should the editor stay or go? Is this really a first amendment issue or not?

Power to the People

Last week I attended a public hearing at the Lansing Center that brought public opinion on the Yellow Dog mining project in Marquette, Mich. to the ears of state policymakers.

For background, a foreign-subsidized mining company, Kennecott, was granted initial approval from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to mine for sulfur in the Yellow Dog Plains - a beautiful watershed home to a unique river and rare fish species.

Not only does mining for sulfide have consequences such as radiation exposure and the depletion of animal species. It has the potentional to suck the Salmon Trout River completely dry!

The MDEQ remained totally ignorant about the mine’s consequences until a group of scientists presented them with undeniable evidence of its destructive potential.

This is where you can see the Power of the People.

From there, numerous grassroots projects banded together to protest these industrialists and dissuade the MDEQ from giving in to big business.

The public hearing in Lansing was overwhelming. I approximated that for every 12 people that spoke against the mine’s construction, there was one supporter.

The public has the opportunity to voice their opinion until Oct. 17, when MDEQ will close off public comment and make a final decision.

From what I saw, these public hearings were a fantastic opportunity to seriously prevent this big business from destroying one of Michigan’s gems.

I know some public hearings are mired in deadlocks between sides. But when public consciousness is obviously right and contradicts the government, it is a journalist's duty to report democracy in action.

Power to the People.

Contacting Sources

I have realized the beauty of the back-up plan.

As journalists, we have the pleasure of talking to interesting people to pick their brains. There's times when you can just walk up to someone and have a friendly conversation and presto! One source down.

But what if a source doesn't call you back?

I constantly wonder about the great juxtaposition that is The Journalist. As a journalist, you are required to pry and dig for details and push the boundaries to get the story. Maybe even be a little annoying. Face it, folks-- people think journalists are annoying.

So when is it too annoying? If a source doesn't get back to you, and you're on a deadline, obviously you try and get in touch with them. Sometimes twice. Sometimes a couple of phone calls and an e-mail.

To bring me back to my original point, it's good to have a back-up plan. Plan ahead. Call/e-mail the sources who are priority first and then talk to other people. If the priority sources don't get back to you, try again. But still talk to other people. And then if they never get back to you (which is just rude) hopefully you'll have enough information to go off from the other people you talked to.

Note the word hopefully.

Libel should not be in your vocabulary

Perhaps Jenni Carlson, a sports columnist from The Oklahoman, was not paying attention in class when her professor defined libel. In a Sept.22 column she wrote, which was published below the fold on the paper's sports front, she belittled Oklahoma State University quarterback Bobby Reid on many fronts. She first said that his "attitude" was what made him bench the recent game, and that a "minor injury--whatever it was--..." was a poor excuse to sit a game earlier this season. She said injuries are part of the game of football and that Reid should have played through (hmm...risking serious injury perhaps). She then questions his mother feeding him chicken after an OSU loss Sept. 15, calling it embarrassing and that most college kids would rather streak across campus than be seen with their mom giving them food. Proceed to the article for more doses of libel...

Who is Carlson to decide that conclusion? Maybe Reid hadn't seen his mom in awhile and wanted to talk.

Oklahoma State Head Coach Mike Gundy confronted the reporter at a press conference Sept.22 with passionate anger, in defense of Reid.

"Get your facts straight!" Gundy said.

Look what happens with libel. It may sound like a good story but the good people get mad.

Lessons for readers

If readers were editors, would newspapers look different? Would they choose the same stories that professional editors choose? A study by the Project For Excellence in Journalism indicates readers' choices might be vastly different than the stories selected by mainstream media editors. Is there a lesson in this report for journalists? Steve Outing the publisher of a network of citizen-driven news sites, argues there are lessons for journalists in the explosion of blogs and citizen-generated news sites. Do you agree? Can you make both your traditional news stories and your blog postings more relevant and interesting? What do you think?

Mario & Rod Refusing To Quit

I know there are quite a few Detroit Tigers fans in our class, so I decided to be the first to post about the club and its current status in the wild card race.

I'm nervous, to say the least. After being swept by the Cleveland Indians, I am officially frightened. The Yankees forgot what the word "loss" means in the month of September, posting a 13-4 record as of today, while the Tigers continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Now, some Detroit fans are hanging their heads. However, Mario Impemba and Rod Allen, Fox Sports Net's broadcasters, refuse to keel over and die.

With just 10 games left, the Tigers would essentially have to win 6 more games than the Yankees, as they are 5.5 back. This stressful fact does not have Impemba and Allen worried, as they continue to inform viewers that the game of baseball is tricky and never predictable. Anything can happen, Allen said after the Indians completed the sweep against the Tigers.

Over the years, I have heard many announcers tell it like they see it. "It doesn't look good for the Tigers." However, whether or not the two Tigers broadcasters really have faith or not, they provide a soothing and supportive voice to orange and blue fans across the state. They give scenarios of how the Tigers can pull it off and the weapons that can go off during any at bat.

So, I ask you ... is this good broadcast journalism ... to sugarcoat the severity of the Tigers playoff hopes, simply because they are Tigers fans themselves? Or is this appropriate because they are in deed speaking to an audience that is 95% Tigers fans? Knowing your audience is a big part of what comes out of your mouth or what goes into print ... in my opinion, they are great in what they are doing, because FSN is really the only place where you are going to find positive remarks about the Tigers right now, unless you travel to the club's official site.

I just like their style, and the duo is unlike any other.

They make me want to believe, that a miracle could happen.

Dan Rather worth $70 mil?

I stumbled upon this story off CNN and needed to do a double take.

Dan Rather is suing CBS for $70 million because he thinks CBS used him to tell a controversial story about President George W. Bush. The problem started three years ago when Rather broadcasted a story about a military commander covering up Bush's supposed scanty behavior in the National Guard.

Rather said he was a reporter at heart, so why didn't he recognize the story copy before the airing on CBS. A simple phrase could have sufficed: "Uh guys, I don't think I can broadcast this." Didn't he have enough clout in CBS where people would listen to him if a story didn't sound like it would come out right on air? For crying out loud, he had been the evening news anchor of a national news station for 42 years in 2004. Maybe I'm naive on the subject, but more than four decades of broadcast experience would give me plenty of ethical practice.

So bottom line, why pay $70 million to a guy who could have easily avoided the mistake. It's like giving the guy who missed the game winning shot a bonus for losing the game. Who justifies such an extravagant sum? If CBS wants to settle this, they're going to have to give Katie Couric back to NBC.

I welcome your thoughts.

Environmental Journalism

The field seems noble in essence – writing for advocacy and positive change. Yet sometimes it just feels like people don’t give a damn.

Yeah, the environment could use some work, and yeah, I’m against industrial persecution on nature. It seems like millions share this mentality. But what is actually being done about it?

I bring up this topic because I am interested in the field and I find myself questioning my career goals. Will I be contributing to a fad that people outwardly care about but rarely believe in enough to engage in action?

I spent this past weekend in Lake City, Mich. at the Harvest Gathering music festival. But this was no ordinary music festival. It was hosted at the farm of one of the musicians (Seth Bernard) on the Earthwork Music label – a collection of local folk artists that promote environmental consciousness through their music.

I admire these people, and they inspire me immensely, primarily because they can accomplish something in a weekend that most environmental journalists dream to in a career. For instance, by addressing concern for nature between sets and distributing pamphlets, they got hundreds of concert-goers to mail petitions to Governor Granholm protesting sulfide mining at the Yellow Dog Watershed in the U.P.

If only journalists had the ability to invite hundreds of guests to their homes and put on an entertaining display of their work. Instead of reading, the public would be listening. And instead of thinking, the public would be doing.

Is an environmental journalist’s work frivolous in a time where people are so entrenched in their own lives? What separates this type of journalist’s work from most others is that it has to impact whole communities. It seems pointless if only a few people are affected by their work.

So this may be a daunting task for the environmental journalist, but it is necessary. If you ask me, their work is vital and the future depends on it.

The public's right to know?

The Connecticut Post's decision to publish the names, occupations, and other information about jurors deciding a sensational death penalty case set off a firestorm of criticism. Two jurors asked to be excused from the panel, which is expected to spend the next two months determining the punishment of a convicted killer. The jurors said they feared retaliation. The newspaper's editor and the reporter who wrote the story said they believe the public has a right to know who is deciding the high-profile case. In a cover story on the Poynter Institute's site, Al Tompkins reports on the controversy. . Tim McGuire, a former newspaper editor now at Arizona State University, weighs in on the ethical questions involved in publishing the jurors names while the trial is under way.
What's your take? Did the newspaper do the right thing? Why or why not? If you were the editor, what would you have done?

ASMSU Jokesters.

As the undergraduate student government reporter for The State News, I have never been given the opportunity to write in first person about my news beat. My opinion is never clearly expressed in my stories, as that wouldn't be professional. So, I will take these next few minutes to throw something out there that has been bugging me for a while now.

The Associated Students of Michigan State University's Student Assembly meet once every two weeks. I attend these meetings as a reporter, looking on to a group of people that could be considered my peers, seeing as we are all within the same age range, give or take a year. At the first meeting, members of the funding and programming committees were elected. However, I found out that watching these positions fill up made me feel as if I were undergoing a root canal as opposed to watching an election. It was irritating, to say the least.

"Why?" you probably ask yourself.

As some of you may know, ASMSU was under quite a bit of heat last semester, as members of the Assembly ran for the hills, leaving their positions when things got tough. During a controversial meeting, the minutes were supposedly "lost" a few days later. Then, late in the semester, a new group of elected officials settled in, booting most of the former officials out of their chairs. New group, new attitude...right?

No.

The representatives from the different colleges and organizations that sit on ASMSU's Student Assembly board don't take it seriously, in my opinion. Although it is still early, I witnessed students nominating themselves for programming board positions, and then when they were asked, "Do you accept your own nomination," they would say, "No way!" And then they would all laugh as if it were one of the funniest jokes of all time. It was then that I realized why ASMSU meetings supposedly take more than four or five hours. Just about every representative had to be nominated for a position in order for them to fill eight spots or so. Many would be nominated and turn it down, saying they don't have the time or they don't want to do it. It was like pulling teeth. That's the best way to describe it.

I am concerned, as an MSU student, that our own student government isn't taking all of this completely seriously. I could be wrong, because it is so early in the year, as I said earlier. But I am really looking forward to them proving me wrong, because I hate being a reporter/writer who is forced to write about controversial topics simply because a student government who is given $1.3 million dollars can't do something without people thinking it's shady.

And then that whole Nigel Scarlett thing happened. The State News found out that he plead guilty for aggravated assault over "a piece of garbage." Then we found out he spent about five days in jail on a previous charge. Members of ASMSU were questioning The State News' respectability, saying it was unfair to put something like that on the front page, simply because he was a member of ASMSU. Some thought it was ridiculous, because it's just like anyone else getting in trouble. Is it though?

So, JRN300, I ask you: Is it the same as anyone getting in trouble? Or when its the vice chairperson for external affairs of a student government that supposedly represents you, does it mean a little bit more? Isn't that almost like a congressman or White House official being in the news? It compares to that a little bit, I think.

Give me your opinion.

Use Summary Quote

I think there is no correct way to present the content of a quote. AP tells us one way but the practice of many others tells us another, hence the ethic debate within the Washington Post newsroom. As far as being educated on the subject, I was taught in JRN 200 that even if the interviewee's grammar wasn't exactly English perfect, it still made for an interesting quote, as long as what they said was in quotation marks. I also agree with the reporter who had written the quote that it may have saved embarrassment for the athlete, but there could have been other ways in which he could have written it. The content may have been embarrassing to the athlete, but regardless how sensitive the subject was, did the athlete not present the information in public?

However the information was given, there are ethical ways of publishing the information. Simply use a summary quote. Suppose the quote had been EXAMPLE: "'I aint gonna think U-M will ever win another darn game," U-M Tailback Mike Hart said.' Instead the reporter could have written it as "U-M Tailback Mike Hart goes into next week's game a little hesitant, but he and the team strive to dig out of this team slump." A summary quote is just one of many ways the reporter could have written it to avoid ethical controversy.

When is a quote not really a quote?

Several weeks ago, the Washington Post sports section carried two different versions of the same quote from an athlete. A columnist altered the quote to fix the athlete's grammar. The reporter, who taped the interview, quoted the athlete verbatim. Readers noticed the difference and wondered what was up. The newspaper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, wrote a column noting the columnist had violated the paper's policy on direct quotations. Her second column explored the reaction from Post staffers and readers to the Post's quotation policy, which Howell explains says "those exact words should have been uttered in precisely that form." Staffers, who said there were gray areas, were divided. At least some readers were appalled that quotes had been changed. Bob Steele, an ethics scholar at the Poynter Institute, weighed in, too. He said quotes should accurately reflect the words used in an interview. Changing them increases the readers' distrust.

What do you think? Is it ever OK to change a direct quote? Why? An editor at the Post points out the columnist did not change the meaning of the athlete's words. He simply changed the grammar to save the athlete from potential embarrassment. The AP stylebook says quotation marks are used to surround "the exact words" of a speaker. What's your take?

That Effing F-word

When the Toronto Star wrote about a new movie being shown at a film festival in Toronto, a debate ensued in the newsroom about whether or how to use the film's title in its coverage. The entertainment staff wanted to use the actual title, which included the F-word. The editor decided to stick with AP style and use dashes after F so readers would not be offended. Here's how a columnist at the paper explained the reasoning. The AP stylebook essentially says do not use profanity unless there is a compelling reason.
This isn't the first time the issue has come up in newspaper coverage. In 2004, when Vice President Dick Cheney told a senator to F--- off, the Washington Post spelled out exactly what he said. The decision was made, according to Post editors, because the vice president had used the phrase publicly, and it was deemed newsworthy.
After the Sept. 11th attacks, the San Francisco Chronicle used Bastards! as its headline, trying to capture the outrage of the day.


Most editors will tell you that deciding to use profanity is not an easy decision to make. Will readers be offended? Do you weigh that against capturing the actual moment? What do you think? Did the Toronto editor make a good decision? Would the decision be different at a student newspaper, and if so, why?

The speech that didn't happen

On Wednesday, Aug. 29, the Detroit Free Press led Page 1A with a story about Chrysler's new CEO Bob Nardelli under a headline that said Nardelli leaps into action at Chrysler. The story said Nardelli addressed more than 300 senior executives at an all-day meeting Tuesday in Dearborn. The problem: Nardelli was sick on Tuesday and postponed his meeting with Chrysler execs. The Freep reported as fact that the speech had happened - but it didn't. On Thursday, the newspaper ran a correction, which it also attached to its online version of the story. The Free Press' correction didn't explain how the mistake happened or what safeguards the newspaper might take to ensure it wouldn't happen again. The credibility gaffe was reported in the popular Romenesko column on the Poynter Institute site.

What do you think? What should the reporter and his editors have done to prevent the mistake? Did it hurt the newspaper's credibility? Should the paper have handled the follow-up any differently? Have similar situations hurt the credibility of newspapers before?

Here is how Detroit's other daily handled the story the next day.