Okay, so one of my favorite things that I have written about, concerning the upcoming election, in my blog is the various forms of multimedia that websites are using. It’s fun to look at the different forms of media involved in politics, and not just print and broadcast. As important as print and broadcast news are, I think it is also vital to look into the future and where journalism can go. News organizations are finding innovative ways to cover politics and they deserve just as much attention as other forms of journalism.
The great thing about these new forms of multimedia is the simplicity and ease of using them. Instead of reading an entire article, or a bunch of articles if you really want to know about the issue, you can just click around and see what you want to see. Everything is laid out right in front of you. One shouldn’t brush off older forms of journalism and only look at the fun multimedia when it comes to learning about an issue though. A good mix of print, broadcast, and new multimedia is the best way to get the full coverage of news.
Yesterday, The New York Times website added a new piece of multimedia “Naming Names.” This application gives all the “names used by the major presidential candidates in the series of Democratic and Republican debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses.” There’s a circle with all the candidates’ names around the outside. Lines are formed from name to name, indicating that one candidate used the name of another in the debate. When you click on the name of a candidate, arrows show you who used their name. Quotes also appear so you know what was specifically said about the candidate, and who said it.
Time.com has a poll titled “How America Decides.” The poll shows how people form opinions. It does this by incorporating a person’s knowledge of the candidate and the emotions inspired by that candidate. You select a candidate and three bar graphs show percentages for various subcategories for knowledge of the candidate, traits that describe the candidate extremely well, and emotions evoked by that candidate. It’s kind of hard to explain it in detail, but once you start clicking around on it you can really understand it in full.
This use of multimedia made me laugh the most. ABC.com’s “Buzz-o-meter” (which is the lamest name by far) names one candidate the “Buzz Maker of the Week.” For example, Obama was this week’s Buzz Maker because of Oprah and all that jazz. What makes me laugh is how this reminds me of trashy magazines dealing with celebrities. Not much really goes into this application, and if you follow politics you would already know everything it has to offer. I guess it’s good if you missed out on politics for the week, maybe you were in a week-long coma or something, and you need to quickly catch up.
I’m torn about the use of these multimedia applications and if they really are good for our country. I definitely think they are more good than bad, but I think lazy readers could use them incorrectly. Instead of reading an article and getting really into the news, one can have fun and click a few buttons and think they are aware of everything. I guess it’s all up to the people that use them. If you want to get a lot of information, you can. It’s definitely out there. If you want to take the easy way out, you can. You can just look at the “Buzz-o-Meter” and learn what made headlines in politics that week.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Reading!
Missouri Professors: Merrill's Offense Was Plagiarism
Let me just start by saying, that poor girl. She just made a mistake and I really don't think she meant to plagiarize at all. She's a student, she's learning. That's part of education, isn't it? Making mistakes and trying to correct them? By just pulling her column completely, they are not giving her the opportunity to do better. I understand the school wants to set and maintain journalism standards, but they have to remember that students are there to learn. They don't know everything going in. If they did, they would not be there.
It's important that she and other students learn the responsibilities of their actions, but it is also important that they get the right education before they can even make the mistakes. If she had been told about how to properly attribute someone else's quote (which can be tricky, and doesn't always look as pretty as it would if you just left it out), she might not have even made the mistake in the first place.
I agree that what she did should be labeled as plagiarism. Using another person's writing, ideas or quotations, is essentially stealing. If I spent my energy and time writing something, then saw it used elsewhere without attribution I'd be pretty angry.
I still feel bad for her though. They could have handled the situation better.
Carelessness is not plagiarism
And poor John Merrill! He clearly did not mean any harm. The man was 83 and was a professor! He knew what he was doing for the most part but made one little slip and killed his credibility. His post was so sincere and I really feel for him. I am astounded that the school administration didn't stand up for him. Absolutely astounded.
He makes a very good point about semantics and the lack of a clear definition of plagiarism. There really is no absolutely, clear-cut definition of the word. That paragraph, to me, puts him on such a higher level than the people who pulled his column. This is something that he has definitely put a lot of thought into. I highly doubt the Missourian editor has thought as much as Merrill has about plagiarism.
Miller just didn't see using other people's quotes as plagiarism. It wasn't in his definition of the word. And how was this story not edited and checked before it ran? Someone should have caught his flaw somewhere along the line before it was published.
Some of the comments people wrote on this story were incredibly harsh. I understand that using the quotes without citing the source is inaccurate and that he simply could have called and got new quotes himself. Maybe his apology was just so heartfelt. I don't know. I can see both sides. I know that what he did wasn't right, but I still feel for him.
Maybe it's the fact that he's 83. In my head I am probably meshing who he really is and a little, lost old man. Maybe if he said he had Alzheimer's he would have gotten off easier.
Places Journalists Should Go for Politics
Well this is nice? I really don't know what to write about it. It increases my stalker capabilities, that is for sure.
"It can be fun to run their home through Census data to get a description of their neighborhood."
I have definitely done that...but not with political figures. More like people who I like to creep on. The best way to start a conversation is definitely, "So is it true that 98% of your town in Caucasian?"
The sites given here are pretty crazy, things I would never dream of. Project Vote Smart seems really cool, esp. how you can search speeches and public speeches. There are SO many sites. SO much information available.
This just furthers the point that you really can find almost anything you want/need on the Internet. I often forget this, or simply do not know where to look. But with this stalker's handbook provided, I will forever know where to look.
By the way, my town (Medway, MA) is approximately 3.6% Asian and 2.3% of individuals are under poverty level. And about 1,067 citizens are under age 5. These are all facts that you NEED to know.
Let me just start by saying, that poor girl. She just made a mistake and I really don't think she meant to plagiarize at all. She's a student, she's learning. That's part of education, isn't it? Making mistakes and trying to correct them? By just pulling her column completely, they are not giving her the opportunity to do better. I understand the school wants to set and maintain journalism standards, but they have to remember that students are there to learn. They don't know everything going in. If they did, they would not be there.
It's important that she and other students learn the responsibilities of their actions, but it is also important that they get the right education before they can even make the mistakes. If she had been told about how to properly attribute someone else's quote (which can be tricky, and doesn't always look as pretty as it would if you just left it out), she might not have even made the mistake in the first place.
I agree that what she did should be labeled as plagiarism. Using another person's writing, ideas or quotations, is essentially stealing. If I spent my energy and time writing something, then saw it used elsewhere without attribution I'd be pretty angry.
I still feel bad for her though. They could have handled the situation better.
Carelessness is not plagiarism
And poor John Merrill! He clearly did not mean any harm. The man was 83 and was a professor! He knew what he was doing for the most part but made one little slip and killed his credibility. His post was so sincere and I really feel for him. I am astounded that the school administration didn't stand up for him. Absolutely astounded.
He makes a very good point about semantics and the lack of a clear definition of plagiarism. There really is no absolutely, clear-cut definition of the word. That paragraph, to me, puts him on such a higher level than the people who pulled his column. This is something that he has definitely put a lot of thought into. I highly doubt the Missourian editor has thought as much as Merrill has about plagiarism.
Miller just didn't see using other people's quotes as plagiarism. It wasn't in his definition of the word. And how was this story not edited and checked before it ran? Someone should have caught his flaw somewhere along the line before it was published.
Some of the comments people wrote on this story were incredibly harsh. I understand that using the quotes without citing the source is inaccurate and that he simply could have called and got new quotes himself. Maybe his apology was just so heartfelt. I don't know. I can see both sides. I know that what he did wasn't right, but I still feel for him.
Maybe it's the fact that he's 83. In my head I am probably meshing who he really is and a little, lost old man. Maybe if he said he had Alzheimer's he would have gotten off easier.
Places Journalists Should Go for Politics
Well this is nice? I really don't know what to write about it. It increases my stalker capabilities, that is for sure.
"It can be fun to run their home through Census data to get a description of their neighborhood."
I have definitely done that...but not with political figures. More like people who I like to creep on. The best way to start a conversation is definitely, "So is it true that 98% of your town in Caucasian?"
The sites given here are pretty crazy, things I would never dream of. Project Vote Smart seems really cool, esp. how you can search speeches and public speeches. There are SO many sites. SO much information available.
This just furthers the point that you really can find almost anything you want/need on the Internet. I often forget this, or simply do not know where to look. But with this stalker's handbook provided, I will forever know where to look.
By the way, my town (Medway, MA) is approximately 3.6% Asian and 2.3% of individuals are under poverty level. And about 1,067 citizens are under age 5. These are all facts that you NEED to know.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
"Is Oprah a different kind of celebrity?" was a question addressed on Fox News Tuesday.
The segment "Bill vs. Oprah" covered how Barbara Streisand announced her support of Clinton and compared it to Oprah's support of Obama. They made it seem like a HUGE deal. It was deemed breaking news. The only thing that was new to the story though was the Streisand bit, and they only talked about it briefly.
The majority of the story was about Oprah's influence on the public, which I do not think is breaking news by any means. The public has been well-informed on Oprah's backing of Obama.
The reporters made it seem like Oprah is God. That everyone listens to her and will do as she does. I have to wonder how many people are really influenced by such prominent celebrities.
The segment "Bill vs. Oprah" covered how Barbara Streisand announced her support of Clinton and compared it to Oprah's support of Obama. They made it seem like a HUGE deal. It was deemed breaking news. The only thing that was new to the story though was the Streisand bit, and they only talked about it briefly.
The majority of the story was about Oprah's influence on the public, which I do not think is breaking news by any means. The public has been well-informed on Oprah's backing of Obama.
The reporters made it seem like Oprah is God. That everyone listens to her and will do as she does. I have to wonder how many people are really influenced by such prominent celebrities.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
ethics reading
Sidebar on pg 502
Guidelines for journalism: responsibility, freedom of the press, independence, sincerity, truthfulness, accuracy, impartiality, fair play, and decency.
pg 506-522
This information is all similar to what many of us have learned in our media ethics class. When first skimming through the chapter I thought everything would be identical information, but it was not at all.
Potter Box? Never seen it. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with Harry Potter. I'm tired. I think that's fairly obvious. Anyways, the box looks rather simple but once you start following the arrows I realized it can be a little confusing. But...it still is simple...it can go any way it wants to. Maybe it's confusing in the way in which it's so simple. I need to stop overthinking.
The green box about Kelly McBride was insightful. It's nice to know that there is someone out there to help people with their ethical decisions. The book offering her e-mail address and information about her column was a great addition to the chapter.
The section on freebies got to me. I love free things, yet I know as a journalist you are not supposed to accept gifts. I would have such a hard time turning down something given to me, and it seems as if I am not the only one. As humans in a buy buy buy world, we will take almost anything given to us for free. Well, I guess as journalists we should not. I like how some news agencies will accept gifts then auction them off and give the money to charities.
The withholding information portion of the chapter also intrigued me. The comparison of doctors to journalists was well put.
"If you work as a journalist, are you ever off-duty? A doctor isn't. Doctors take an oath to treat the sick. If you witness something at a friend's house or at a party, do you tell your news director about it?"
Guidelines for journalism: responsibility, freedom of the press, independence, sincerity, truthfulness, accuracy, impartiality, fair play, and decency.
pg 506-522
This information is all similar to what many of us have learned in our media ethics class. When first skimming through the chapter I thought everything would be identical information, but it was not at all.
Potter Box? Never seen it. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with Harry Potter. I'm tired. I think that's fairly obvious. Anyways, the box looks rather simple but once you start following the arrows I realized it can be a little confusing. But...it still is simple...it can go any way it wants to. Maybe it's confusing in the way in which it's so simple. I need to stop overthinking.
The green box about Kelly McBride was insightful. It's nice to know that there is someone out there to help people with their ethical decisions. The book offering her e-mail address and information about her column was a great addition to the chapter.
The section on freebies got to me. I love free things, yet I know as a journalist you are not supposed to accept gifts. I would have such a hard time turning down something given to me, and it seems as if I am not the only one. As humans in a buy buy buy world, we will take almost anything given to us for free. Well, I guess as journalists we should not. I like how some news agencies will accept gifts then auction them off and give the money to charities.
The withholding information portion of the chapter also intrigued me. The comparison of doctors to journalists was well put.
"If you work as a journalist, are you ever off-duty? A doctor isn't. Doctors take an oath to treat the sick. If you witness something at a friend's house or at a party, do you tell your news director about it?"
Candidates using e-mail
When I receive an e-mail with the subject line as "Hey" I usually think it's an e-mail from a friend or family member. I open it immediately. This tactic, the "Hey" tactic I'll call it, is what some candidates are using to catch their supporters attention.
Michelle Obama e-mailed supporters of her husband with this subject line. Unlike the "Hey" e-mails I receive from friends to keep in touch, this e-mail was looking for donations. They generally have a conversational tone as they are attempting to squeeze every last penny from the e-mail recipients.
"Such e-mails are a key to fundraising in this election -- Clinton raised $8 million online in the last quarter, while her closest rival, Obama, has collected a record of nearly $26 million online so far for the year -- and are central to organizing volunteers, especially a new generation of Web-savvy young activists."
I never realized how much energy, and money, went into e-mails. Clinton is said to have the largest e-mail list. Over one million addresses. That is crazy crazy crazy.
Michelle Obama e-mailed supporters of her husband with this subject line. Unlike the "Hey" e-mails I receive from friends to keep in touch, this e-mail was looking for donations. They generally have a conversational tone as they are attempting to squeeze every last penny from the e-mail recipients.
"Such e-mails are a key to fundraising in this election -- Clinton raised $8 million online in the last quarter, while her closest rival, Obama, has collected a record of nearly $26 million online so far for the year -- and are central to organizing volunteers, especially a new generation of Web-savvy young activists."
I never realized how much energy, and money, went into e-mails. Clinton is said to have the largest e-mail list. Over one million addresses. That is crazy crazy crazy.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
So washingtonpost.com has this really cool thing called "Issue Coverage Tracker." There are two columns, one for issues on the left and one with candidates on the right. When you scroll your mouse over specific issues some candidates pictures get larger, depending on how important that issue is to them. For example, when you scroll over health care Hillary Clinton's face gets larger than everyone else's. In a like way, when you scroll over a specific candidate the text of certain issues can get larger. For Tom Tancredo abortion is double the size of all the other issues. The bottom has a date range so you can select a time period for the issues and candidates.
You can also click on the candidate and you learn how many times a candidate mentions a specific issue. Did you know that John Edwards has mentioned globalization 8 times in the month of November? Well, know you do.
This is mainly just fun to play with. It's very aesthetically pleasing.
You can also click on the candidate and you learn how many times a candidate mentions a specific issue. Did you know that John Edwards has mentioned globalization 8 times in the month of November? Well, know you do.
This is mainly just fun to play with. It's very aesthetically pleasing.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
chaptah 19
Okay, so this chapter is about "Writing News for Radio and Television." It begins with using 9/11 as an example. I remember hearing about 9/11 for the first time. I had just came back from learning about the student handbook, in 8th grade. My teachers all turned on the tvs and radios so we could hear about the updates about the incident in our country. My friends were running around screaming that they thought the Backstreet Boys were "trading" day in the World Trade Center. It was quite the day. I remember that news that day wasn't so certain but tried their hardest to give all they could. The only images I remember from those broadcasts are the Twin Towers falling. I feel like that is pretty normal though.
It's crazy that one half-hour newscast has only 22 minutes of news, which equals half of a front page in newspaper. What's even crazier is how many people get their news solely from broadcast news.
The audio and visual aspect of broadcast news is now being used in print news, that is in online forms. I think that makes broadcast news have to work even harder to use their other forms of media in the best way possible.
"You can't shoot video of an issue." It is necessary to have people in a broadcast news story. Without a living, breathing person there would be essentially no story.
I like the sections on using "conversation style" and "tight phrasing" in writing for television and radio. It says to avoid the passive voice and to use transitive verbs in the active voice. It also says that people rarely talk in the passive voice...it's funny because I think I talk in the passive voice a lot. It sucks because it transfers to my writing. I'm catching it more now though. It also says to not be wordy...another one of my faults in speaking and writing. I am SO wordy. I never know the most direct way to say something. It's like I stumble over words and mash them up to try to make something comprehensible.
The last thing I found important in this chapter was how to structure the story. That whole section was helpful.
It's crazy that one half-hour newscast has only 22 minutes of news, which equals half of a front page in newspaper. What's even crazier is how many people get their news solely from broadcast news.
The audio and visual aspect of broadcast news is now being used in print news, that is in online forms. I think that makes broadcast news have to work even harder to use their other forms of media in the best way possible.
"You can't shoot video of an issue." It is necessary to have people in a broadcast news story. Without a living, breathing person there would be essentially no story.
I like the sections on using "conversation style" and "tight phrasing" in writing for television and radio. It says to avoid the passive voice and to use transitive verbs in the active voice. It also says that people rarely talk in the passive voice...it's funny because I think I talk in the passive voice a lot. It sucks because it transfers to my writing. I'm catching it more now though. It also says to not be wordy...another one of my faults in speaking and writing. I am SO wordy. I never know the most direct way to say something. It's like I stumble over words and mash them up to try to make something comprehensible.
The last thing I found important in this chapter was how to structure the story. That whole section was helpful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)