Are you serious? Ok maybe I am a negative skeptic today but getting life's pleasure and adventure from obituaries just seems weird. Ok so I will probably write them because I will take any job I can take. but thinking of them as an art form just seems odd. Then again thats what my friends say of journalism in general and when I talk about politics they snooze... but obituaries are a stretch even for me.
and if your write obituaries for a living you depend on people dying... yes ok journalist almost want bad things for a good story... but sometimes a good story comes out of positive things... and the negative w are reporting on does not have to be as permanent as death....
and that just seems like a lot of responsibility... i would not want somebody's life's memories to be put in my hands... how do I know what they were really like? what if he or she was some amazing person but simply did not do extraordinary things why should my hand deprive their greatness because I cant write a sensual obituary on them? Or how do I know they were not really bad/evil and I just made all the people who suffered by their had hurt and feel guilty...
plus i like journalism because its supposed to be objective and there is nothing objective in obituaries... it takes a sensitive hand to write them a hand that beautify words and seem just all the things they beat out of us in journalism classes
I dont think that journalist should write obituaries... would writers and authors not do a better job and romanticizing a beloved dead one? Could not writers better help those who were close to the dearly departed... obituaries dont need to be cold hard fact they serve more for closure then for information
There are people who read obituaries like novels for pete's sake....
So in conclusion I would like to show appreciation for all those people writing obituaries.. you fill an important and delicat role in society one in which there are no clear wrongs and writes... you are brave and you are kind... and I sure hope I wont have to join you for long...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Bush in the Democrat Republican Showdown
So new polls start the horse race with democrats leading...
No one in the bush administration is running for the presidency...
Republlicans avoid the subject of Bush and his administration...
Republicans are using Bush to show how Reppublicans can screw up the country...
and Bush aproval ratings are reducolously low..I mean really low like 20% approval...I think French Queen Maria Antuanet had a better apruval rating when she was beheded
and Bush thinks he can help republicans win office in the upcoming elections..He said he can be a "strong asset" to0 republican canditates.
Ok I know that our president is not known for his great logical reasoning...
but seriously?
Is he in such denial? The president who went from an 80%approval rating to a 20% approval rating thinks he can help his party?
Really there is not much you need to know... his own dam party is ashamed of him. Most people said that they would rather have a democratic president.
Why? Ok I know we like to make jokes and say that he is stupid... but our president is the single most influential man on earth... and has a lot of vacation days... in my book he is a genius... I wish I could have all that... Even if he did listen to others advise, he knew who to listen cuz even his daddy could not stay in office for two cycles. So what are his motives? Is he in denial? or does he have a trick up his sleve? either way his words frighten me
No one in the bush administration is running for the presidency...
Republlicans avoid the subject of Bush and his administration...
Republicans are using Bush to show how Reppublicans can screw up the country...
and Bush aproval ratings are reducolously low..I mean really low like 20% approval...I think French Queen Maria Antuanet had a better apruval rating when she was beheded
and Bush thinks he can help republicans win office in the upcoming elections..He said he can be a "strong asset" to0 republican canditates.
Ok I know that our president is not known for his great logical reasoning...
but seriously?
Is he in such denial? The president who went from an 80%approval rating to a 20% approval rating thinks he can help his party?
Really there is not much you need to know... his own dam party is ashamed of him. Most people said that they would rather have a democratic president.
Why? Ok I know we like to make jokes and say that he is stupid... but our president is the single most influential man on earth... and has a lot of vacation days... in my book he is a genius... I wish I could have all that... Even if he did listen to others advise, he knew who to listen cuz even his daddy could not stay in office for two cycles. So what are his motives? Is he in denial? or does he have a trick up his sleve? either way his words frighten me
Monday, September 17, 2007
New media vs old values- let the healing begin
The RSS feed and online interactive time-lines and maps makes the internet even more user friendly. Through tools like these finding and using information becomes much easier. It is the new generation. people will read what they are interested in and they will find the information that is relevant to that despite what the headline of the New York Times is. This must change the role of the journalist in this new era... right?
In a 2007 modern journalism classroom in a a high tech building where classrooms are equipped with mutli-media and computers and where there are labs that allow students to broadcast themselves through radio, television and internet, students are still expected to read about journalistic ethics, tools and skills that were used 40 years ago when a pc were simply 2 insignificant words and the world was connected through telephone and telegram wires.
Why are we learning the same techniques of quoting that were used in this pre-historic era with computer dinosaurs? Is there something we can learn from the cavemen journalist?
Of-course!!!- one may argue- a good quote is as important now as it was then and truth was as important is as important now as it was then.
So maybe instead of discarding our predecessors good values we can build on them.
We now have top quality recorders that most journalists use in any interview good note taking skills may seem obsolete. but what's a recorder without the brain. a hand without the brain to tell it to write? or a story without good old fashioned sense.
So yes maybe the industry is changing and morphing into ways that will be unequivocal to old style journalism, but we still need to learn. because you cant learn calculous without first learning to multiply, even if you have a calculator to do it for you.
In a 2007 modern journalism classroom in a a high tech building where classrooms are equipped with mutli-media and computers and where there are labs that allow students to broadcast themselves through radio, television and internet, students are still expected to read about journalistic ethics, tools and skills that were used 40 years ago when a pc were simply 2 insignificant words and the world was connected through telephone and telegram wires.
Why are we learning the same techniques of quoting that were used in this pre-historic era with computer dinosaurs? Is there something we can learn from the cavemen journalist?
Of-course!!!- one may argue- a good quote is as important now as it was then and truth was as important is as important now as it was then.
So maybe instead of discarding our predecessors good values we can build on them.
We now have top quality recorders that most journalists use in any interview good note taking skills may seem obsolete. but what's a recorder without the brain. a hand without the brain to tell it to write? or a story without good old fashioned sense.
So yes maybe the industry is changing and morphing into ways that will be unequivocal to old style journalism, but we still need to learn. because you cant learn calculous without first learning to multiply, even if you have a calculator to do it for you.
Youth in the 2008 Elections
"Fish and children dont have voices." The saying now is not only old but inaccurate. Youth in the US is taking more and more interest in politics. This means that people our age are no longer the future of the nation we are affecting our nation NOW. According to the Targeted News Service youth ages 17-29 will make up 17% of the nations voting population.
To me this shows the great power of the media. Although we are of course different then our parents generation or even generation X, the main difference is not us but our enviorment. We can now access more information then any other generation could think of. The US federal news tells us that experts think that the reason why our generation is so interested in voting is because we can easily get the information we need to be interested. Even if one does not have a specific interest in politics an interesting link or post on-line can lead a web surfer to research candidates. This non-aggressive and impersonal method makes the surfer not feel pressured.
We spend a large percentage of our lives on-line and are guided by its endless paths. But these paths impact our decisions and our political views.
Youth is not only more interested in politics then our predecessors, we also seem to lean more to the left with our political stances and not adhere to party lines. Does this mean that the internet is in some way socializing our though process and decision making. Is the new-media, the internet, invoking liberal views or are we already liberal and the internet may seem liberal because of the links we choose to follow. Does the internet have power over us or do we we have power over the internet? Does youth have more of a say in politics or is it the people who are more tech savy then others that have more influence over the elections?
To me this shows the great power of the media. Although we are of course different then our parents generation or even generation X, the main difference is not us but our enviorment. We can now access more information then any other generation could think of. The US federal news tells us that experts think that the reason why our generation is so interested in voting is because we can easily get the information we need to be interested. Even if one does not have a specific interest in politics an interesting link or post on-line can lead a web surfer to research candidates. This non-aggressive and impersonal method makes the surfer not feel pressured.
We spend a large percentage of our lives on-line and are guided by its endless paths. But these paths impact our decisions and our political views.
Youth is not only more interested in politics then our predecessors, we also seem to lean more to the left with our political stances and not adhere to party lines. Does this mean that the internet is in some way socializing our though process and decision making. Is the new-media, the internet, invoking liberal views or are we already liberal and the internet may seem liberal because of the links we choose to follow. Does the internet have power over us or do we we have power over the internet? Does youth have more of a say in politics or is it the people who are more tech savy then others that have more influence over the elections?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Thompson
Thompson finally declared his candidacy. After much talk he finally has declared it officially. NPR and the LA times seem to make him out as the hero of the rightist movement. He is just to the conservative americans. The NYT wont even give him that.[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/2008-thompson-dives-in-hagel-may-step-out/ ]
They show how he skirts around homosexuality and other important conservative topics.
From what I have read no one really takes him seriously. He came in late to the elections. missed many of the debates and is currently justifying his actions. The newspaper seem to all concede that he is over-the-hill. His election being a feeble attempt at his once existing political career. Even the pictures make him seem very old.
Ofcourse none of the articles said that. They all were fair on the surface. Quoting different people. THey quoted Thompson himself and when he defended himself. The pictures were not that obviously biast. but is that not worse then if the newspapers simply came out and be clear about their point of views. because if people believe that these sources are unbiased and fair then they will forget to look at other sides of the story. It seems that Thompson's fate has already been sealed by the somewhat liberal media.
They show how he skirts around homosexuality and other important conservative topics.
From what I have read no one really takes him seriously. He came in late to the elections. missed many of the debates and is currently justifying his actions. The newspaper seem to all concede that he is over-the-hill. His election being a feeble attempt at his once existing political career. Even the pictures make him seem very old.
Ofcourse none of the articles said that. They all were fair on the surface. Quoting different people. THey quoted Thompson himself and when he defended himself. The pictures were not that obviously biast. but is that not worse then if the newspapers simply came out and be clear about their point of views. because if people believe that these sources are unbiased and fair then they will forget to look at other sides of the story. It seems that Thompson's fate has already been sealed by the somewhat liberal media.
The noblility of reporting
It is indeed interesting how "news reporting and writing" starts off its book with declaring the nobel nature of journalists. The portray journalists as the informers of the people. Protectors- not ones who physically stop damage- that would be bad journalism- but one who give power to the people- the power of knowledge. This position is so sacred and necessary that it must not be tainted with bad journalism. A journalist must have honor, integrity. be fair to all and never sell out. It is with this mind that this book chooses to start off aspiring journalists. The idea is nobel. Was it not one of our own founding fathers that said a democratic and free government is necessary. A free press is necessary, but if need to be chosen he would chose a free press over a free government.
The idea of truth and justice appears in many classes and many books. The real reason I chose this profession comes in the following two chapters of the book. Journalistic integrity is not only talk. It is real. This book spells out for you how you can be nobel and change the world. Not in abstract and indecipherable ways, but in clearly and concisely. Everything about the journalistic education says that you must be fair and honest. The guidelines are strict. A journalist must hold high standards in every aspect of her job. Even in miniscule things such as grammar. A journalist must not publish something with inappropriate grammar even on tight deadline. It is unprofessional can destroy a reputation. The rules are so clear and firm and evolving that a new grammar guide comes out every year in the AP style book.
Of-course, if one regards journalists so highly one can be quite disappointed. This could be a turn off: Its so corrupt I cant do anything about it. Or it can be engaging- these principles can be put into practice- the media is getting there it just needs more people who believe in the principles. Depends on the way you look at it.
The idea of truth and justice appears in many classes and many books. The real reason I chose this profession comes in the following two chapters of the book. Journalistic integrity is not only talk. It is real. This book spells out for you how you can be nobel and change the world. Not in abstract and indecipherable ways, but in clearly and concisely. Everything about the journalistic education says that you must be fair and honest. The guidelines are strict. A journalist must hold high standards in every aspect of her job. Even in miniscule things such as grammar. A journalist must not publish something with inappropriate grammar even on tight deadline. It is unprofessional can destroy a reputation. The rules are so clear and firm and evolving that a new grammar guide comes out every year in the AP style book.
Of-course, if one regards journalists so highly one can be quite disappointed. This could be a turn off: Its so corrupt I cant do anything about it. Or it can be engaging- these principles can be put into practice- the media is getting there it just needs more people who believe in the principles. Depends on the way you look at it.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Change the way we vote.
After more then 200 years of electing our president through the electrol college officials are now reconsidering the practice. With small states who have originally best benefitted from the system reconsidering. Maryland abolished the electrol college with in its state said the nyt- although im not entirly sure what that means. The electoral collage is a national issue more then a state issue. The electrol college makes the election foucus on about a quater of the nations states said George C. Edwards III, a professor of political science at Texas A&M University. In the Editorial section of the LA times Dan Wentzel gives his rather crude opinion of the electoral college as something to be rid off to put nicely as something unfair and undemocratic. In the Editorial pages of The International Herald Tribune, Charles Frederickson, cried that in order for the US to once again represent "freedom, liberty and justice for one and all" the electoral college must be done away with. This man wrote this from Bangkok. Appareantly theUS is not the only one thinking of this issue. The consenses, in the print media at least is that the electoral cocllege should be changed. When I typed in the phrase "electoral college inro LexisNexis the articles seemed to mostlt say the same thing. Although I do see the challenge do democracy in an elloctral college system- I feel the system should not be dissmissed so easily. The system afterall is in our constitution and has been in place from the begining of US history. Is there a reson why it worked so long? Or is it only becauseit was in the constituion that we followed it so long? The main reason it was in the constitution is so that the small states would agree to form one nation (the US). At the time state loyalties were much stronger then country loyalties hardly anyone identified with the country. All the states wanted equal representation. Has the political climate sufficiantly changed that now individual people want equal representation. Is thre other reason why this system worked so long? Have we not had national pride for quite some time? What is with all the murmur now? Wouldn't it be stupid to abruptly change our political system ina political time as delicate as it currently is?
The Evolution of the On-line News
Last year I read The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture ( for more info and reviews go to http://www.amazon.com/Search-Rewrote-Business-Transformed-Culture/dp/1591840880). This book credited Google for inovating the internet. It had a section on online-news. It applouded the expanding internet for making information easier to access as well as more user friendly. But 4 years later The State of the News Media 2007 the judgment on the the online news is not so opptomistic. Although, it applauds the online enviorment for rapidly advancing it does not give it great marks. It speaks about how different news media have different strenghts online and how none have all strenghts or all weaknesses across all categories. This helped me look from a greater distance at something that has become very much part of my normal part: nyt.com. Although the analysis gave good regard to the NYT I could not help but feel defensive. The website, which I love enven more then the paper- has no faults in my books. but the analysis made me realize- that yes- even the nyt has certain problems. Although i like watching the multi-media on the nyt- it is true it is lacking- the video clips are not very common- but its a paper for petes sake. I personally like the news look of the website- it makes the reading feel more legitamete not like reading a fancy my-space page. The high marks of npr- made me want to visit that site more often.
I feel like this analysis is made more for historical references than modern critique. The authors have aknowledged that even through a couple months time the internet has vidly chaged- I hopw that in a couple of years I will be able to look back at this analysis and laugh. Its good to have these kinds of analysis becasue it can better help us appreciate the spped of the evolution of technology. This makes me want to read a report on the state of the interview when NYT and such sites just started. This was like 200 years ago cuz it sure dont feel like 5.
I feel like this analysis is made more for historical references than modern critique. The authors have aknowledged that even through a couple months time the internet has vidly chaged- I hopw that in a couple of years I will be able to look back at this analysis and laugh. Its good to have these kinds of analysis becasue it can better help us appreciate the spped of the evolution of technology. This makes me want to read a report on the state of the interview when NYT and such sites just started. This was like 200 years ago cuz it sure dont feel like 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)