Can article comments be too harsh?

With most people getting their news from Web sites now, do you think it is possible that a journalist who reads comments from a story, and then does a follow up to the same story, can become biased based on what they read? Steve Myers of the Poynter Institute looked at the issue of comments online, focusing mainly on the time around when NFL star Sean Taylor was killed. Before he was pronounced dead, there were comments regarding his well-being, and hoping he would pull through. Others had backgrounds surrounding racism and said his rough past had caught up to him. When reading news online, do you read the comments that follow to see their reaction to the story?

Recently, I read an article about a University of Utah basketball game, where Utah had lost the game, mostly to missed free-throw shots. The Utah head coach, Jim Boylen, is the former assitant coach from men's MSU basketball, and because I am of relation to him, I thought I would check out the comments to see what people really had to say. Most of them argued about the refs and the bad calls they had made, but most of them were in regards to Jimmy. Some comments were not hurtful, calling him coach ridilin and such, but others were juts vicious. It made me wonder how newspapers decide to regulate these comments, and how they decide on if a comment has gone too far.

Is there a point at which certain comments can become too vicious? In the article by Steve Myers, he explained that the Washington Post deleted many comments about Sean Taylor that were extremely racist. While it is the Washington Post's Web site, it is ethical for newspapers to edit their comments on articles? Is it to keep the community and reputation of the paper safe, or is a way to regulate what readers read. Is it wrong to delete user comments who want to voice their opinion?

While I do believe the newspapers have a right to control such comments, especially racist ones regarding Sean Taylor after a serious incident which later caused his young death, I also see it from a point as regulating the reader's views. If your paper supported McCain, and a user commented on supporting Obama, would you delete it to keep the readers Republican and more McCain? Is it ethical?

Integrity now obsolete

It's not common for someone with incredible wealth and fame to risk their life serving their country. But that's what Prince Harry has been doing.

Until this week that is.

It was no secret that Harry had enlisted and was being sent overseas, but the media had agreed not to report any specifics about his service, which we now know was on the front lines in Afghanistan.

This was no problem for Matt Drudge, sworn enemy of integrity in the media. Drudge Report broke the story yesterday, and today Harry is headed back to merry old England.

Celebrities: Do not attempt to do anything heroic! Matt Drudge will out you, your presence will become a security threat, and you will promptly be sent home.

I'm sure Drudge will defend the report, saying something about reporting the truth and so forth. Nonsense. All this means to Matt Drudge is more readers, more money, and more notoriety.

I think Outside the Beltway's James Joyner probably put it best:

"Allowing Harry to do his duty outside the spotlight and without creating a high profile target for the Taliban is a noble gesture and far outweighs whatever “public right to know” that would have justified breaking the embargo."

It's a sad truth that these types of media embargoes will soon be impossible thanks to people like Drudge. It only takes one attention-hungry blogger to spill the beans.

Journalism Goes Places Politics Cannot

Yesterday, CNN.com reported that North Korea, a part of President Bush's "axis of evil," was in the midst of dismantling a nuclear facility they had previously agreed to demolish. This itself is important news, but what is particularly interesting is the Editor's note at the top of the story. 

"CNN was one of only two U.S. news organizations at the facility"

It  shows the reach news and journalism has across the globe, getting places politicians and global leaders may not be able to.

It also brings to mind 2003 when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein for a 60 Minutes II. Rather sat across the table from Hussein and conducted the interview through translators - Hussein's first interview with an American in a decade.

Vladimir Putin was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2007, and as a part of the story he allowed himself to be interviewed. Video of the interview can be seen here.

All these journalistic interactions between world leaders and global opponents of the U.S. let people see them and their views on us without having them sifted through our own governmental filters. And I think the neutrality journalism offers to people and countries like these can help us all understand each other a little better.

Media vultures swarm bogus 60M "censorship" story

This past Sunday, CBS' 60 Minutes ran a controversial story about Karl Rove's possible involvement in the conviction of an Alabama governor. But in large parts of Alabama, the program was replaced by dead air.

Instead of doing any original reporting or investigation, this blog post from the Machinist simply regurgitates the sentiment of Harpers' Scott Horton, who says in his story:

"In a stunning move of censorship, the transmission was blocked across the northern third of Alabama by CBS affiliate WHNT,..."

A stunning move of censorship? How so, Mr. Horton? Where's the evidence?

From what I can tell, Horton merely watched the offending program before concluding that our government was pulling the strings.

The New York Times article on the incident, on the other hand, actually looks into the issue, and finds a chief executive of the station who claims it was just a technical problem.

A typical, dubious response, perhaps, but there's more.

They also note that the station has aired the report several times since Sunday, as well as making it available on their website. They've also placed a scrolling ticker at the bottom of other programs indicating how viewers can see the report - if the station doesn't want people seeing this story, they're doing one hell of a terrible job at it.

I'm reminded of the shutdown of the Wikileaks domain name not long ago - the site was clearly violating numerous laws, but because it was a vaguely anti-government website being shut down by the judiciary, it looked a bit like censorship.

But instead of finding out if those claims of censorship had any merit, bloggers and others with axes to grind decided to go ahead and claim that our government was censoring dissent, abolishing our liberties, and once again marching toward fascism.

Don't overreact, do your research, and leave your conspiracy theories at home.

Alleged sexism

It isn't surprising, with our first viable female candidate for the Oval Office, that gender issues have been pushed to the forefront of public discussion. What is a bit surprising, however, is that the scrutiny seems to be spreading.

In the New York Times article "Boys Will Be Boys, Girls Will Be Hounded by the Media," magazines and infotainment programs were accused of unfairly targeting troubled female celebrities. Several magazines responded that their (primarily female) audiences were more interested in women's scandals.

In a blog analyzing coverage of Hillary Clinton, especially the moments that some called demonstrations of passion and others called meltdowns, posters discussed the role women's opinions play. One cited gender-specific insults from female Obama supporters; another claimed that "women everywhere know how she feels" when targeted. A related post predicted that women's rights would lose ground if the alleged gender-related attacks continued.

It is possible that a double-standard exists, though if it does, more substantial probing is needed for the (probably numerous) causes. It is noteworthy that some of the most vocal opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the '70s and early '80s came from women. Before we condemn media sexism, we should look at how women see themselves and each other.

It's all about the reporting

Clark Hoyt, ombudsman at the New York Times, weighs in on last week's Page 1 story about Sen. John McCain. Hoyt's bottomline - the story should not have focused on the "inappropriate relationship" with a lobbyist because it couldn't back it up. That angle made it a story about sex. And the reporting to back it up just wasn't there. Washington Post Media Critic Howard Kurtz has an interesting take that looks at sex scandals and the coverage over the years.

Blogging done right

One reason for creating this blog was to familiarize students with blogging techniques. As American Journalism Review points out, newspaper staffers are blogging like crazy. So it's a skill set that many of you will need. This list of 10 tips on writing a blogpost is a good guide. Blogging won't do you much good if you ignore traditional journalistic principles. You won't want to show a recruiter your posts if they're filled with spelling or grammar errors. And although the blogosphere seems more freewheeling than traditional print news outlets, you should take a look at the blogging ethics code posted on the cyberjournalist site.

Print still plays a role

Perhaps I am a bit bias because I will soon be writing for Spartanedge.com, an online publication at MSU, but I read a letter on The Big Green website that made me think. Constantly we have been taught that print will soon die and that all things will go electronic. No matter how much it has been hammered into my head by classes and readings, I must continuously beg to differ. The managing editor of TBG, Cara Binder, brings to the forefront an issue in journalism that has gotten a great amount of play in recent years: shall print journalism stop it's presses for good?

In my opinion the written word has been around far too long to assume that, just because technology abounds, printed news will die a horrible stone age-like death. It just doesn't sit well with me. I am under the persuasion that the future holds great things for multimedia journalism, using all senses to engross the audience into what is going on in the world today. But I can't see print just going away. It may however change it's coat rather drastically.

That's where the alternative press comes in.

I was talking to a friend on the bus recently about various topics and we stumble upon the idea of E-books becoming mainstream. These days they have electronic devices equivalent to ipods in which one can hold thousands of books on a palm-sized, hand-held quadrilateral. The Sony Reader Digital Book is one example My friend doesn't think that it will catch on. There is something about holding a paperback book (or hardcover if your rich) in your hand and taking it along with you; writing notes in the margins or dog earring one of the pages (which I wouldn't recommend, but to each is own) can't be done with a plastic screen.


There may be those of you reading this who not agree with me. That's fine. I would like to direct you to this blog, which is probably a bit better suited for you. But I must leave you with this thought: Even though we have websites like Itunes, which gives us music from all over the world almost instantaneously, there are still quite a few record stores around the country. Why can't print journalism be the same way?

Reporting goes Digital, not just video

With the passing of analog T.V. almost here, HD (or high-definition for those not tech-savvy) video reporting will soon become all the rage. Two photojournalists give the inside look on HD video reporting in the newsroom, noting that people, especially journalists, will fall behind if they don't jump on the HD bandwagon. The biggest challenge is displaying it Richard Adkins from WRAL-TV in Raleigh, N.C., and Manny Sotelo from KUSA-TV in Denver, Colo., give us an overview on the subject.

Check out the video about the world going digital, from Adkins' news station.

Getting the story right

There's little compromise when it comes to accuracy in the newsroom. You take every effort to get the facts straight otherwise you won't last long at your position. You'd hope this same standard would apply to graphics, photographs, and other visual elements, but all too often the standard is lowered in these areas in a rush to provide eye catching content quickly.

An example is the spy satellite story that has been brewing over the last few weeks. Common sense suggests the U.S. military didn't supply images of the satellite to media, and so they took it upon themselves to create graphics for the story.

The result was inaccuracies across the board.

For example, the first image is not the spy satellite. It's a Russian spacecraft docked to the International Space Station. The second image is the Hubble telescope.

In both these situations the graphics could easily have been run by someone familiar with the topic and would most certainly have been caught. It's important for visual content to be just as accurate as stories, helping to prevent embarrassing situations like these.

Endorsements: Going the way of the buffalo?

"How can a newspaper be objective on the front page when it endorses a candidate on the editorial page?" writes Rick Stengel, Managing Editor of Time Magazine. His column discusses the legitimacy of endorsements, which nearly 30 percent of papers still do.

Stengel is honest about objectivity - there's no such thing, and transparency is better both for the paper's image and its ability to draw in readers. But he concludes by saying that endorsements still undermine the credibility of the paper, especially with the elusive younger demographic.

As Stengel points out, most young people don't get why endorsements are there in the first place, and I, stereotypically, must agree.

If I know the paper I'm reading leans to the far right in the first place, it's not likely that I'll be surprised when they endorse McCain, or that I'd respect them for going against the grain and picking a Democrat.

You report, let me decide.

Eyes before Ears

"When the eye and the ear compete, the eye wins," Al Tompkins of PoynterOnline advices those in his video story telling class. News organizations should keep this in mind when reporting on recent allegations that Senator McCain has had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist in a story in the New York Times. No matter what is said in a story Tompkins warns that if a picture accompanies the story it may be worth more to the viewer than the actual story itself. Several different news organizations have decided to do a spin off story on the situation. With these stories instead of posting pictures of McCain and the lobbyist, they have chosen to accompany the stories with happy photos of McCain and his wife. Even though it has not been proven that there was no romantic relationship yet, it seems news organizations are taking McCain's side on the issue by using photographs that imply he has a great relationship with his wife, therefore implying that the allocations must be false. As Tompkins warns, readers may see that happy picture of him and his wife and assume that there wasn't a romantic relationship with the lobbyist, when that may not be the case. Tompkins also points out that if there was a picture of McCain and the lobbyist together than without reading the story some audiences might assume that he is guilty. For this reason, designers should be very careful about what photos they post next to stories since they could impact the reader more than the actual text. Especially in stories like this that could be implying whether someone is guilty or not.

News that's fit to print?

I feel like today's McCain coverage (original story and response) in the New York Times is along the lines of the obligatory "here's our dirt file on this guy" story. They lay out all the questionable things McCain has done in his time in Washington, including his involvement with Charles Keating and the savings and loan scandal (moldy old news, most people forgot or never knew about)- which he has apologized repeatedly for and even went against his party to enact legislation to ensure a more ethical congress. Now, I'm not saying that the public has no right to know all of this (it's no secret, anyway, it was one of the biggest stories of the 1980s and ruined the careers of three senators) nor am I saying he came out of it totally scot-free. But I take issue with the appearance that the Times felt they needed to make this "dirt story" a little newsier by pegging it to an alleged ("alleged" might be doing it too much justice) affair with a lobbyist. Never mind both he and she are denying it ever happened, and no one has come out and said that they saw the two romantically engaged.

What I especially found interesting in the aftermath of this story was how much some commentators believe the story will have credence, just because it's in the Holy New York Times. Consider what was said in Poynter's Al's Morning Meeting , where he thoroughly dissects the coverage and Poynter's ethics column where they analyze how the story will play on the often more sensational airwaves.

Just imagine what Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, and any other member of the noise machine has to say.

A road map to automotive information

Whether or not you are a car buff or just looking for a new car, there is a publication for you.

For those people, like me, who want up to date information on anything automotive then you might want to check out Autoblog. When you want your information quick, fast and see where they got the information then this site is for you. It is like a launching pad for research on things in the the automotive realm. It is sort of like an automotive wikipedia only with named sources and authors, that are credible, along with the information that sparked the blog post.

Want a more laid back approach to the same information thats just about as reliable then check out Jalopnik because the site has more than just straight commentary on what's new. It also has side blogs like "Welcome to Project Car Hell" where they find the biggest clunker (possibly on the face of the planet) and the funny thing is that it just gets worse every few days.
















Autoblog is the more newsy of the two blogsites for possible up-and-coming car enthusiast; but when you need some good ol' fun with your news then jalopnik is the way to go.

Technical information is not the aim of either blogsite. They will give you the initial taste; but for the full story, I would suggest checking out Automotive News or Motor Trend and reading their full articles (when available).

Checking out a car's specifications, tech specs or mechanicals then a good place to get a snapshot of all the information you could possibly need is Edmunds and Vehix. These two sites give about as much information (if not a lot more) as the average person could need about one vehicle or the comparable vehicles.

These sites will help with your interactions with the salesperson at the dealership because there are a plethora of opportunities to play the game "stump the salesperson." It is one of the most entertaining things to do when shopping for a new vehicle and when there is nothing better to do.

Also, if you are currently living anywhere in the world, you need to know a little something about cars because of the reliance on them economically and personally.

Is print journalism a waste of time?

With reporters packing up plastic crates and boxes with desk reminants around you, is there a way to keep your confidence in the shifty world of print journalism?
It seems today online is prevailing in more rapidly as print media, newspapers and magazines, keep down-sizing.
I have heard of at least three or four big-time magazine and newspaper editors who have been cut back from their jobs due to down-sizing. I was actually talking to one of my old internship editors as, he was getting the boot from his job, due to the issue.
When the money isn't coming in because everyone can find your content on the web, who's job is safe?
The Director of Poynter Career Center, Colleen Eddy thinks so there is hope, judging by her column entitled "Face an Uncertain News Industry with Confidence."
I think it's easy for Eddy to say "there may be a new opportunity outside the walls of your office," but everyones initial reaction is disbelief and disdain.
Does that mean that as a journalism student with a various experiences and qualifications, I may still lose my job even after working my preverbail buns off?
I agree, lay offs, if your the one replacing someone, is a sure fire way to gain more experience and become more marketable. But knowing that I may be the editor of Rolling Stone magazine one day and scaling the unemployment line the next, seems to not sit too well with me.
One thing to remember, is that the down-size of print has been an ongoing thing since the internet gained the reins. By checking out journalismjobs.com you can see reports back as far as 2001.
Here is the evidence what's the solution?

McCain "Affair" Nothing Unusual, But Still Noteworthy

The recent article by the New York Times about a possible extra-marital affair by Republican candidate John McCain re-ignites that never ending discussion about how important the personal lives of political figures are.
This situation is unique on two fronts. First of all, this is not the first time McCain's personal decisions have been brought into question. His first marriage to Carol Shepp ended in divorce just two months before he wed his second and current wife, the former Cindy Lou Hensley. Given that, it's not unreasonable to say that McCain has a history with women outside of his marriage. Second of all, the women that the New York Times alledges the affair is with is a lobbyist. Not only does this bring into question McCain's ethics regarding his personal life, but also his ethics in his political life. Granted, you could make an arguement that every affair a politician has is related to his political career but this situation is extremely close.
Both McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, have denied the affair ever happened but that is to be expected. What is important to me in this situation is the same thing that was important to me in the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal. It is not so much that he had an affair, but the fact that the affair was related to his job, which is funded by our tax dollars.

McCain- Not So Perfect after all?

It seemed like everything was going perfect for Senator John McCain as of late. He has raced ahead as the top republican canidate in the upcomming election and has outstanding ratings in virtualy every primary as of late. So the question had to arise as to how is this man so perfect?
In Thursday's New York Times, McCain's "perfect" history took what could potentialy be a big hit.
The first article that brooke Thrusday morning in the Times, described McCain as possibly having romantic relations with 40-year-old Vicki Iseman, a female lobbyist. While the article was enjoyable to read, it really felt like there was a serious lack of evidence to produce an article of this magnitude.
Every single quote by McCain in thsi article, consisted of him denying that anything ever happened between the two. Well, what do you expect? Here is a man who has a very good shot at becomming the next president of the United States, a man who has basicly a flawless history, and now that he is finally accused of doing something wrong- hmm..I wonder what his responce is going to be.
Here is a video link of McCain's responce to the allegations.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The timing of this article comes during several other scandals going around that can be related to this one. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick gets accused of an affair and denies it, then gets caught. Major League baseball player Roger Clemens, perhaps the greatest pitcher in baseball history, gets accused of using steriods and human growth hormans and denies it to a grand jury, yet many feel he is lying and will be accused of perjury. Bill Clinton, who has taken a large role and is very invovled in Hillary's campiagn, got impeached from office for his relations with another women.
This is an era where it seems like the media will do anything in their power to bring you down. As I said before, it seemed like McCain had to perfect of a record and obviously the press couldnt let that stand.
Here is a video of McCain's senior advisor disputing the report of him having relations with Iseman. The video provides pictures and reasons for denying what was writen in the NY Times article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Coverage unfair at first, now the field levels

Normally, I do not see a place for personal business, like sexual orientation or extramarital affairs as a necessary topic of discussion for an election. However, in the case of McCain and his relationship with the lobbyist, the event is worrisome in regards to showing favoritism. The coverage of this event has, in the New York Times, damned him from the beginning, as stated on Poynter. Instead of providing all of the information first and allowing readers to make their own choice, it begins with a mischievous plan by his staff. However, the information is important, as moral issues can sway the voting public. McCain addressed the allegations in a press conference, denying them, as covered by the Washington Post.

Overall, the coverage seems to be moved on to allowing him to speak about the allegations. However, a bit more objectivity (including non anonymous sources in the lead) would have been helpful.

Fear of the Semicolon

A sign on the NYC subway asking patrons to throw away their newspapers inspired a New York Times article about the underused form of punctuation. The sign read, "Please put it in a trash can; that's good news for everyone."

Sam Roberts wrote that the semicolon is so rare because writers don't know how to use it. It, for the record, should be used to join two clauses that might otherwise be separated by a period.

The Times article, which is currently the number three most e-mailed, includes a quote by novelist Kurt Vonnegut: "When Hemingway killed himself he put a period at the end of his life. Old age is more like a semicolon."

Gone Too Far?

Photo by Paul Koehnke, KREM.com

This seemingly innocuous situation in Spokane, Wash., turned into a big debate for local journalists. The story is about a homeless man and his dog living in his van near an elementary school. Neighbors called police, but all they did was suggest the man move, perhaps to a homeless shelter. Some time later the police went back and ordered the man to leave. It was the last time he was seen, but he left his van.

KREM-TV, the local television station that reported the story, said they contacted the Abandoned Vehicle Unit within the Spokane Police Department. An officer came out to tag the van for towing.

Doesn't seem too major, but Dave Laird of the Spokesman-Review newspaper thought that by calling the Abandoned Vehicle Unit, KREM-TV overstepped their journalistic bounds, getting too involved in the story.

"At first glance, I had mixed feelings about the fact that KREM chose to contact the Abandoned Vehicle Unit, as it demonstrates a lack of compassion to me, and that action appears to have violated at least one of the terms of ethical journalism, that being, report the news, but do not become part of the news itself," he said in an SR blog.

I'd have to agree with him. It's the job of journalists to stay as unbiased as possible in reporting the news. By contacting the AVU, not only did it show a lack of compassion and understanding for the homeless man, but the TV station unnecessarily injected itself into the story. They should not be acting as the police in this case, and should have left it up to local citizens to call in or the police themselves.

Report the news, don't make the news.

Leave the man alone!

The recent media attention being paid to Andy Pettitte was fun for a while. Now all thats happening is a rehashing of the same statements that we've already heard over and over and over again. This is the one thing that always gets old and tired about sports media. Whenever there is a big news story, as the Mitchell Report certainly was, it doesn't matter if there is any new news or not, regardless it gets hyped up and beaten into the ground. Why not just let the story develop as it might in the courts and give a short recap. Also, why is it always the negative that gets played this way? I cannot remember the last time I read a positive story in which no new news was uncovered, yet it kept getting headlines everyday.

The problem with sports news is that it is becoming less about the players lives on the field and with their teams and more about the players personal lives with their families. (see Tony Romo's vacation with Jessica Simpson) What ever happened to writing about an unsung hero making a play to win a game, or thriving while a star is injured? Maybe we'll hear about it if that star was suspended for steroids, or hes in jail for abusing his wife. People watch sports to hear good news and to be entertained. In today's world there is enough negative to go around, why focus on that when there are so many great sports stories that get swept under the rug?

Free Speech?

Chez Pazienza, a former senior producer for CNN, said he was fired for blogging.
The topic has come up before, does what someone says in a blog effect the news even if they have no editorial input into their work?
Ironically, CNN has a post from 2005 on their website on how not to get fired for blogging.

Tragedy blindness?

Plenty of us have heard of "ad blindness." Readers consciously or subconsciously skip over ads, for any number of reasons: they don't expect to be interested, they distrust ads, or they've just seen so many that they don't register anymore. Of course, an unusual or interesting ad can still catch the eye.

Does something similar occur with news coverage of tragedies? Think about our morning news discussions. Not one of us has ever mentioned "[insert number of troops] have been killed since we last met." To many people, it's not a top story anymore. We've seen similar stories so many times that they don't register like they used to.

Of course, we're still capable of being shocked. It just takes something either especially heinous, unusual, or closely related to us.

What, however, is the news media to do if tragedy blindness exists? Coverage can't stop when a still-important story gets a little stale. Some reporters go for the equivalent of the screaming car salesman: they look for the most sensational and heinous aspect of the story- arguably contributing to further desensitization.

Do you think there's such a thing as tragedy blindness? If so, should we try to combat it, or is it natural? What are our options?

The distant semicolon

How often do you see a semicolon anymore? Even in journalism, a career which usually embraces the punctuation mark has seemed to make it an outcast. Instead of using semicolons to combine sentances, we use improper commas, or form two very short sentences. Has our intellectual society gotten lazy or have people never liked the semicolon? An article in the New York Times explored the subject after featuring an erudite writer for the transit agency had used a semicolon when reminding passengers to put newspapers "in the trash can; that's good news for everyone."

As told by Sam Roberts in a City Room opinion post, the use of the semicolon doesn't just symbolize something that is rarely seen, but also something New Yorkers never do. Pause. The semicolon is meant for a pause, to think about what was just read and what it really means.
Should the semicolon be done away with for good, and only be seen in poetry when readers are meant to stop and ponder?
As a journalism major, I was excited (yes, really) to see a semicolon being used in public, whether subway riders notice or not. Even as a copy editor, I cannot think of a time recently when I would proof articles and encounter one. The use of the semicolon should be embraced. It is still simple and keeps writers from having too short and choppy sentances. Thank you Neil Neches for keeping the semicolon alive in New York.

Open Opportunities

Many of you may already know of the choices that are given to Journalism students looking for freelance opportunities with campus wide publications. But on the whole, such media outlets seem to be overlooked. And because of this--whether lack of information or lack of concern--I wonder about the future of such venues.

Places like Spartanedge.com, a completely online campus news outlet, are making headway in the convergence realm of journalism. EJ magazine a student run "green" periodical, is associated with the Knight Center for Environmental journalism at MSU. For those looking for broader writing options, there's always Offbeat magazine, a literary collection open to all writers who are linked to the Michigan area. If you're ambitious, the news weekly City Pulse welcomes those of the Lansing/East Lansing area who have found interesting and informative anecdotes about the city. The stories in City Pulse tend to be longer than your typical news article, however.

The list definitely goes on. If any of you have any opportunities to share with the rest of us, feel free.


One can never have too many clips.

Question Answered

In my last post, I posed the question as to who would be the best person to write a story about a devastating event like the meat packing fiasco that has recently swept newspapers and news television stations throughout the country. As I looked at my inbox this evening, I believe I found the answer.

It doesn't matter.

My grandmother, who currently resides in Boston, MA., is a copy editor and received her journalism degree here at MSU. She makes a habit of sending me words of encouragement to help me stay on the often-downtrodden path of journalistic excellence. It's always been helpful. Lately, she's sent me links to New York Times articles. This one caught my eye.

It's a short article about the coverage that the Northern Illinois University campus newspaper (the Northern Star) did during the recent shootings. Those reporters were the first on the scene and are likely to be one of the few to continue with coverage long after the rest of the country has forgotten. Now, no one is more connected to this story than these students-journalists. One student employee of the Star was killed by the violence which occurred that day. Yet this didn't stop the coverage. Which got me thinking...

In the end, it doesn't matter what bias you have, so long as you have the dignity, honesty, and integrity to push it to the side and tell the world a true story about itself... with a platform as balanced as the scales of justice (a bit dramatic, but I'll take it). When it comes down to it, we've just got to do our job. And we ought to do it the best we can.

The Jungle comes to life...again

There is almost not enough words to say about the situation in Chino, California, in which milk cows were being slaughtered in the most devastating ways possible. Thought vegetarians may be rejoicing, I'm wondering how much emphasis should be put on the story? Also, how long has this been going on at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company? Are there many more like them?

The difficulty in telling this story is figuring out the best way to display the information plainly, yet passionately, without bias. But then, I suppose that is the same with any story. Plus, there's probably only a few ways to talk about the United States Human Society's videotape showing crippled cows being struck in the face and eyes repeatedly. This action was to motivate the cows to walk towards the slaughterhouse. The inability to walk however, is a sign of mad cow disease, a mental-degenerating ailment caused by misshapen proteins in the animal. Deformed protein occurs when the cows (or any animals) are fed contaminated animal tissue.

Who would be the best candidate to report on this issue most objectively? A vegetarian? A person who works at meat packing company? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that Upton Sinclair is probably rolling in his grave.

Three words to focus your story: Who did what?

Figuring out how to focus a story after you've done the reporting is tough. I often tell reporters they should keep a post-it note on their computers with the words, "Why should I care?" on it. Reporters need to remember that's the question readers will want answered as they decide whether or not to spend time with a story. Writing coach Chip Scanlan, of the Poynter Institute, suggests reporters ask three questions: What's the news, what's the story and so what? Don Gibb, a former reporter and editor at the London Times, suggests outlining. He also recommends thinking of your story in chunks - that's especially important online. And Al Tompkins, Poynter's broadcast and online leader, says tell your story in these three words - who did what - to find the focus. Whether you are telling a story in print, online, or for broadcast, that advice works. Try it and let me know if it helps.

Subdued coverage

The New York Times ran a front page story on the Northern Illinois shootings, but it was just barely above the fold and in the far-left column. The dominant photo belonged to a story on the violence in Kenya. The only photo with the story was printed with the jump on page 13. This seems to ignore the conventional wisdom that all news is local. There's no denying that the situation in Kenya is both tragic and important, but the average American is likely to be far more interested in a tragedy occurring only a few hours away.

The online version was a little different, with a photo of mourning students and a multimedia presentation.

The other question I had of the editorial decision to downplay the shootings had more to do with culture than news values. I was shocked when I picked up the State News and saw the top story. I mentioned to a friend of mine about keeping cell phones on in class because of it, to receive any emergency alerts, trying to approach the subject delicately. She said that she thought she had heard something about the shootings, lightly, as if it were of no real concern.

Throughout the day the edgy atmosphere that followed Virginia Tech was conspicuously absent. That led me to wonder: is it all about body counts? Are we so coarsened that single-digit fatalities don't shock us anymore?

The media are frequently blamed for everything from loose sexual morals to encouraging copycat crimes. For my part, I don't believe that any one cultural entity can be blamed for such complex problems. I do think, however, that the media are obligated to cover tragedies as tastefully as possible while still treating them as (fundamentally human) tragedies. Look for a future post on "tragedy blindness."

Covering a beat: What you need to know to get started

You've been hired as a beat reporter in a community new to you. Panic is beginning to set in. How do you tackle a new beat in a new town? John Rains, writing coach, at the Fayetteville Observer in North Carolina, offers a guide for new reporters. And seven experts talk about ways to develop a variety of different beats in this Charlotte Observer training newsletter.No matter what the beat - city government, schools, religion or cops - much of the advice holds true for all reporters. Chad Livengood, a young reporter at the Jackson Citizen Patriot, writes about education. After nearly two years on the beat, he says he's coming up with so many story ideas on his own, he rarely gets an assignment from an editor. And his ideas often turn into Page 1 stories. Livengood will follow his own advice this spring when he moves to a larger paper in Missouri to tackle a new beat - state government.

Should journalism ethics apply to other programming?

Everyone knows that journalists are supposed to tell all sides of a story objectively, but what about other writers in the same company? ABC dipped into the autism controversy in its new series Eli Stone, in which a lawyer represents the mother of an autistic child in a suit against a vaccine manufacturer. Not that there's anything wrong with an entertainment program taking on a controversial issue; the problem is that the program made no attempt to present both sides, and doctors worried that parents might decide not to vaccinate their children after watching it. Is Eli Stone bound by the same standards of fairness as the news branch of its parent company? If not, how do we draw the line for the plethora of "infotainment" programs on both network and cable TV?

Journalism's future in literature?

In an interview with Poynter Institute reporter Brian Spadora, author Norman Sims told of his concerns for journalism, and where he sees the field going.
Sims recently wrote a book, "True Stories: A Century of Literary Journalism" in which he discussed the importance of literary journalism. Unlike hard news reporting found in newspapers, literary journalism is more about telling stories.
While this style of writing is typically found in magazines, it still has applications to newspaper reporting.
Sims said he would like to see more description, characterization and scene-setting in news stories for all genres of publication.
"I don't fear for literary journalism, because it has natural qualities that attract good writers. I have greater concerns about the sustainability of traditional public affairs journalism," said Sims.
Do you think newspaper reporting would be better off implementing some of these literary techniques? Or do you think both styles have their place: paired-down writing in newspapers and literary writing in magazines?

Is copy editing the right job for you?

Is copy editing a potential career for you? Are you really not sure what a copy editor does? Check out Bill Walsh's explanation of what a copy editor does. Walsh is the national desk copy desk chief of the Washington Post and his website is a great resource for students and professionals. Still not sure? Look at Jane Harrigan's list of 10 reasons you might like copy editing. Think you're interested in the job but not sure you have what it takes. See what Marti Davenport, news editor at The Detroit News, says she looks for in copy editors.

Journalism's future: The good, bad and ugly, too

Today's New York Times gives you a look at what is happening in the newspaper industry. You can't hide the fact that the industry is undergoing a transition that isn't pretty. At the same time, author Richard Perez-Pena points out that readership is actually growing. The article says: "The paradox is that more people than ever read newspapers, now that some major papers have several times as many readers online as in print. And papers sell more ads than ever, when online ads are included.
But for every dollar advertisers pay to reach a print reader, they pay about 5 cents, on average, to reach an Internet reader. Newspapers need to narrow that gap, but the rise in Internet revenue slowed sharply last year."
If you doubt that there truly is a shift to journalism online, take a look at the Peter Zollman's report on the Madison Capital Times, a newspaper ditching print (mostly) and going online. Be sure to read Amy Gehran's post in that same column on why she's optimistic about the evolution in the industry anyway. And then check out blogger Dan Kennedy's take on the Times' article and where he thinks the news business is headed.

I think, too often, journalists are so nostalgic for the good old days of print, they ignore the upside that the web and other new technologies bring to journalism - particularly much broader reach and new audiences. What do you think?
Are you ready for a new kind of journalism and a new future?

What do recruiters want

What do recruiters look for when they're hiring interns? Detroit Free Press Recruiter Joe Grimm says he looks at the quality of work, but he also looks for people who want to make Detroit and Michigan their home. His Jobs Page offers tons of good advice for internship-seekers. Detroit News Recruiter Walter Middlebrook wants people who are passionate about journalism. When you talk to him about your clips, you need to show that you're excited about journalism and your stories.

Being the First to Know

WHAT, BOBBY KNIGHT QUIT?! For most of you, this may have been the first thing that came to mind, whether you saw it on ESPN.com, SportsCenter, or heard it from a friend. After just passing the 900-win mark two weeks ago, he can no longer be called Coach Bobby Knight. Very sad. But the journalism angle--I liked how the author of this web article included a detailed description of how the reporter gathered the information. Even if it sounds unnecessary, it ensures trust between the writer and reader.

Taken from the report (not an actual quote): "Knight informed Myers of his decision in a meeting around noon, Hance said. Knight then informed Hance of his decision in a 10-minute phone call."

He had a report straight from the man himself.

For something fastly developing, I thought he did a good job because it shows he didn't just hear from a friend, he knew before that friend. This is the basis of being a journalist, knowing before someone like me just heard it.

If Wikipedia says it's true, check it out

American Journalism Review has an interesting article on whether more journalists are embracing Wikipedia as a legitimate source. Bottomline: Not really. But some are using it as a roadmap or starting point to gather information that they then verify with more legitimate sources before using. We've talked in class - and most J-school professors agree - about not using Wikipedia as a source, at least without further verification. Although I admit that Wikipedia is amazing in many ways, read noted journalist John Seigenthaler's piece on his personal experience with Wikipedia and you'll have a better understanding of why you need to be skeptical. Seigenthaler is a retired journalist and founder of the First Amendment Center. He also was an assistant attorney general and close friend of Bobby Kennedy. If you still have doubts about whether Wikipedia is safe as a main source, see what Stephen Colbert has to say on the subject.