Here's a fun little fact according to facebook Stephen Colbert is the most popular candidate for the 2008 US presidential elections. It took merely a week for the Colbert support group to become the biggest face-book group by far and for face-book to take the group offline. Although many of the supporters are underaged the statistics bring up a good question.
Ok so maybe this entry is not a traditional election entry and serves a comical purpose but maybe it reveals something dire about our politics.
why is it that professionals who try so very hard to gain support who spend millions and millions of dollars trying to get support and enhancing their career have problems getting similar support to a celebrity who simply fake announced his candidaciship
this brings up a theme present in previous elections- there was a study done in the last election that Oprah would have had a serous chance of winning the presidency if she won.
why is it seems that people who the public wants to run for president do not run?
Is it a fault in our system? Is it that the best leaders are the ones who found themselves in a position of power not spent their entire lifetime getting to it?
It is like in any other job. the people who perform a job for the mere power of it are horrible at what they do. maybe the problem is that politicians run for power. but is that the way it has to be? are there alternatives? should candidates be given other incentives to run? or maybe we could vote for people without the campaigns. like on american idol- ya politics is confusing and without answers
Monday, October 29, 2007
Courts and other stuff
WOW if reading about a job is head splitting and daunting why would anyone would to perform it? Who in the world would voluntarily put themselves through so much suffering? There are s many components to trials so many pesky details through mounds of boredom. It seems a court beat reporter has to sit to through ages of deathly-boring material to get one little interesting story- but they have to pay attention to each detail because there is a chance that at any one point in time during the trial the story of a lifetime may unfold.
not only does court material seem inhumanly boring but ridiculously hard to understand as well. A reporter has to pay attention to every pesky detail. I would not be able to tell the difference between a jail and a prison if I was sent on a court story. The reporter does not have a law degree so she or he must at all times feel two steps behind everyone else in the court. and what is worse he or she can under no circumstances report inaccurate information and report in a way that his or her readers may understand. So a reporter must understand the case in depth and have no question regarding the validity of the facts with which he or she is presenting.
All of this would be hard enough to do if all the information was presented on a silver platter to the journalist. but no! on top of all the troubles mentioned above there is more much more-- in order to even begin doing anything that I mentioned previously a reporter must first search, hunt and attack for information. any details of a case may be hard to get and to prove their validity even harder.
WAY TOO MUCH WORK- I fell bad for these people but perhaps I should hold my tongue for their work may soon seem like child's play to me- the journalism institution is ever evolving and the reporters job is getting harder and harder. I should be prepared for a long haul of work in my career of choice.
not only does court material seem inhumanly boring but ridiculously hard to understand as well. A reporter has to pay attention to every pesky detail. I would not be able to tell the difference between a jail and a prison if I was sent on a court story. The reporter does not have a law degree so she or he must at all times feel two steps behind everyone else in the court. and what is worse he or she can under no circumstances report inaccurate information and report in a way that his or her readers may understand. So a reporter must understand the case in depth and have no question regarding the validity of the facts with which he or she is presenting.
All of this would be hard enough to do if all the information was presented on a silver platter to the journalist. but no! on top of all the troubles mentioned above there is more much more-- in order to even begin doing anything that I mentioned previously a reporter must first search, hunt and attack for information. any details of a case may be hard to get and to prove their validity even harder.
WAY TOO MUCH WORK- I fell bad for these people but perhaps I should hold my tongue for their work may soon seem like child's play to me- the journalism institution is ever evolving and the reporters job is getting harder and harder. I should be prepared for a long haul of work in my career of choice.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The long long reading
Crime beat-
Well if this is an entry position I would love it- 9 gazilion times better then the writing obituaries.
I understand the reading's show of relation between beat reporting and a good drama- filled with hate violence murder and rape- all things that are interesting to the human pshyche but I just think that makes the beat that much more appealing- I dont understand why this article kept on speaking about how crime reporting is not a respected profession- I mean I assume that they are telling the truth but I dont see why that is- when average joe opens the newspaper he is not going to look at the international section but at the article the guy with the crime beat- because thats what is interesting. The crime beat journalist gets the most reads.
Also crime beat reporters can see the outcome of their hard work quite easily- if there is a rapist on the loose and the police has tips for the community on how to protect themselves that is viable information that will help a lot of people- information that the crime beat person will deliver
I think that police and firefighters are a communities finest and the crime beat reporter is the one that can connect them with the community- a task of honor
Although the journalist has this positive role for the community I do not think she should be obliged to make sure that kids dont follow criminals footsteps because she made criminals infamous. If a guy blows his brains up in a public venue that is news worthy and not what kids will think of it- parents should be in charge of what kids are allowed to read not the journalist.
Covering Crimes and victims
WOW that was creepy- its like the anti-llifeguard training- it felt like the exact opposite chapter of "dealing with the media" in my life guarding manuel. it read like it to- if the victem does this and this then do this and this. do get yourself into more then you can handle ... yada yada yada
It was also the exact opposite
lifeduard- under not circumstance release any information or talk to the media- EVER- the are the evil ones avoid at all costs-
journalist- if you see a body with a human soul that has anything to do with the interview- ATACK!
ok maybe not attack but approach gently and try to interview- but still exact opposite.
i think if I was mourning my mother's death and a journalist approached my during a breather brake outside the hospital i would punch him. literarily not even kidding straight in the nose a swift punch and maybe a round house kick- hey the hospital is right there I would not feel too guilty-
How can i be expected to act that hidiously toward people in mourning. I dont think that hospitals are an
appropriate setting for journalists- no matter how good the story- show some respect
Covering the courts
Oh DAM- this sounds like having to do all the annoying things a lawyer has to do with out the wealth or glory.
I think I rather do obituaries then be on this beat- so much confusing research- all while trying to not fall into a "Chicago motif"(I mean ofcourse the movie where the lawyer was the puppet master of all the reporters)
It sounds like a really hard case- and i do not see the point of them- ok i would be interesting to cover a case that changes the legal system but how often does that happen most of the time it is people alleged of a crime that will get a sentence whats it to my reader? they cant change the verdict and they wont be affected by it - at most they can idly gossip about out- and although that can be interesting and everything it usually has bad consequences where people are judged in the court of the mass media not the trial.
dont get me wrong trials open to the public are important for our democracy I just wish to have my hands clean of them- they seem like the are the child laborers that make my cheap clothes- i benefit from them but not necessarily approve of them- ok grim comparison but still
Well if this is an entry position I would love it- 9 gazilion times better then the writing obituaries.
I understand the reading's show of relation between beat reporting and a good drama- filled with hate violence murder and rape- all things that are interesting to the human pshyche but I just think that makes the beat that much more appealing- I dont understand why this article kept on speaking about how crime reporting is not a respected profession- I mean I assume that they are telling the truth but I dont see why that is- when average joe opens the newspaper he is not going to look at the international section but at the article the guy with the crime beat- because thats what is interesting. The crime beat journalist gets the most reads.
Also crime beat reporters can see the outcome of their hard work quite easily- if there is a rapist on the loose and the police has tips for the community on how to protect themselves that is viable information that will help a lot of people- information that the crime beat person will deliver
I think that police and firefighters are a communities finest and the crime beat reporter is the one that can connect them with the community- a task of honor
Although the journalist has this positive role for the community I do not think she should be obliged to make sure that kids dont follow criminals footsteps because she made criminals infamous. If a guy blows his brains up in a public venue that is news worthy and not what kids will think of it- parents should be in charge of what kids are allowed to read not the journalist.
Covering Crimes and victims
WOW that was creepy- its like the anti-llifeguard training- it felt like the exact opposite chapter of "dealing with the media" in my life guarding manuel. it read like it to- if the victem does this and this then do this and this. do get yourself into more then you can handle ... yada yada yada
It was also the exact opposite
lifeduard- under not circumstance release any information or talk to the media- EVER- the are the evil ones avoid at all costs-
journalist- if you see a body with a human soul that has anything to do with the interview- ATACK!
ok maybe not attack but approach gently and try to interview- but still exact opposite.
i think if I was mourning my mother's death and a journalist approached my during a breather brake outside the hospital i would punch him. literarily not even kidding straight in the nose a swift punch and maybe a round house kick- hey the hospital is right there I would not feel too guilty-
How can i be expected to act that hidiously toward people in mourning. I dont think that hospitals are an
appropriate setting for journalists- no matter how good the story- show some respect
Covering the courts
Oh DAM- this sounds like having to do all the annoying things a lawyer has to do with out the wealth or glory.
I think I rather do obituaries then be on this beat- so much confusing research- all while trying to not fall into a "Chicago motif"(I mean ofcourse the movie where the lawyer was the puppet master of all the reporters)
It sounds like a really hard case- and i do not see the point of them- ok i would be interesting to cover a case that changes the legal system but how often does that happen most of the time it is people alleged of a crime that will get a sentence whats it to my reader? they cant change the verdict and they wont be affected by it - at most they can idly gossip about out- and although that can be interesting and everything it usually has bad consequences where people are judged in the court of the mass media not the trial.
dont get me wrong trials open to the public are important for our democracy I just wish to have my hands clean of them- they seem like the are the child laborers that make my cheap clothes- i benefit from them but not necessarily approve of them- ok grim comparison but still
Monday, October 22, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Illigal immigration and border control
yes ok i am bias on this subject I know plenty of illegal immigrants and personally hate immigration (INS)- or maybe that makes me simply more informed not bias- but anyway- this makes me almost laugh and almost cry at the stance some of the presidential candidates take on this issue.
My favorite is in a new york times "article" http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/immigration/index.html. Mitt Romney has a brilliant idea- lets have all immigrants register to see who should be allowed to get a work permit and who should get deported. yes that a nice idea then we can know who is in the country and eliminate illegal working condition-
WHAT DO YOU THINK IMMIGRATION (INS) HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO FOR THE PAST SEVERA DECADES? invite illegal immigrants for tea?
Illegal immigrants are here because they figured out how to play the system and not get caught- why would they voluntarily come to sign up when there is a possibility of deportation?
Tom Tancredo also has a brilliant idea- lets follow the law- its clear and simple- deport all illegal immigrants and not offer them jobs- your such a visionary tom-
ya thanks for that but see thats the status quo- if an illegal immigrant gets caught they get sent home and its already illegal to hire illegal immigrants
and I am once again disapointed with Giuliani- who wants a fence around our southern border and strict policies on illegal immigration- honestly honey what is the point of your existence? if you are not even closely representing NYC then what are you running on? Its in NYC that children - regardless of legal status get free education and are allowed to go to college- where hospitals must admit everyone if in critical condition and its the city is on economic dependance on illegal emigrant work. i would think he would know that the illegal immigration issue is a bit more complicated.
My favorite is in a new york times "article" http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/immigration/index.html. Mitt Romney has a brilliant idea- lets have all immigrants register to see who should be allowed to get a work permit and who should get deported. yes that a nice idea then we can know who is in the country and eliminate illegal working condition-
WHAT DO YOU THINK IMMIGRATION (INS) HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO FOR THE PAST SEVERA DECADES? invite illegal immigrants for tea?
Illegal immigrants are here because they figured out how to play the system and not get caught- why would they voluntarily come to sign up when there is a possibility of deportation?
Tom Tancredo also has a brilliant idea- lets follow the law- its clear and simple- deport all illegal immigrants and not offer them jobs- your such a visionary tom-
ya thanks for that but see thats the status quo- if an illegal immigrant gets caught they get sent home and its already illegal to hire illegal immigrants
and I am once again disapointed with Giuliani- who wants a fence around our southern border and strict policies on illegal immigration- honestly honey what is the point of your existence? if you are not even closely representing NYC then what are you running on? Its in NYC that children - regardless of legal status get free education and are allowed to go to college- where hospitals must admit everyone if in critical condition and its the city is on economic dependance on illegal emigrant work. i would think he would know that the illegal immigration issue is a bit more complicated.
Monday, October 8, 2007
classroom vs. real world
as I wrote about the nuclear power plant incident in class, I was sure the circumstances were unfair, I knew nothing of the topic, setting, context and am not even a rookie reporter trying to write a story that could be considered major. After reading," ASSESSMENT OF MEDIA PERFORMANCE" I realized that I would be lucky if all these clauses were true in a real situation. If I was a rookie reporter that stumbled on a major story with no experience i could have the brake of my life. I a lot of success in any career is luck. I wish I could be like that guy who was sent to report on the story because he was first back from lunch. So in a way I am now inviting the problems I condemn in class.
Although I would be scared to death of incorrectly/inaccurately reporting on the story, it would be a dream come true. It is just one more paradox in journalism. Just like reporter dont want/but want tragedies, I dont want/but want to expose myself to immeasurable stress and possibility of failure.
I am very interested on the relationship between the reporters that was seen during the coverage period. What was stronger- their competitive side who wanted the best story or the side that wanted to talk about the story to better understand it? Did the amount of reporters allow for more or less information to be released? How intimidated were the reporters without experience when they saw the reporters who have a background in nuclear sciences?
Who were the authorities more willing to talk to? the experts because they better understood or the rookies because they seemed less intimidating and less harmful?
Although I would be scared to death of incorrectly/inaccurately reporting on the story, it would be a dream come true. It is just one more paradox in journalism. Just like reporter dont want/but want tragedies, I dont want/but want to expose myself to immeasurable stress and possibility of failure.
I am very interested on the relationship between the reporters that was seen during the coverage period. What was stronger- their competitive side who wanted the best story or the side that wanted to talk about the story to better understand it? Did the amount of reporters allow for more or less information to be released? How intimidated were the reporters without experience when they saw the reporters who have a background in nuclear sciences?
Who were the authorities more willing to talk to? the experts because they better understood or the rookies because they seemed less intimidating and less harmful?
Clinton v Obama horse race
So let me recap this NYT article for you...
the rookie Obama advances and has a clear lead over Hillary with more money and more supporters
but Clinton takes out her anticipated secret weapon and passes Obama for a marginal lead...
election, race, spectacle... all the same... what's the difference between presidential elections, the olympics and the super-bowl... one appears in the news section, one is international and one appears in the sports section--- and one more minor detail the 1st determines the fate of the planet
I wonder why elecitions are covered in such detail... because they determin our faith as a democratic society or because people want entertainment?
Many poeple speak as passionately about the "American Idol" elections as they do about the presidential elections. I wonder if the only reason the presidential elections stay on people's minds longer is because they require a longer process and there are more juicy details to talk about.
I know I am not making an astonishing claim and this argument is as old as the elections themselves: but let me pose the following question:
Are horse-race style elections not the best answer for a democratic society?
Now dont get me wrong, I have no idea what the answer to that is. I am but a naive college student, but I do have ideas about it.
The pros and cons of a horse race election:
Cons:
the elections may already be decided before election day
the most important issues are not covered in the news media
people focus on sensationalists prospects of the media.
Pros:
People are actually interested in the election- good for democracy
the news media get money
people actually find out about the candidates stances
politicians have to worry more about the consequences of their actions because people may find out.
the rookie Obama advances and has a clear lead over Hillary with more money and more supporters
but Clinton takes out her anticipated secret weapon and passes Obama for a marginal lead...
election, race, spectacle... all the same... what's the difference between presidential elections, the olympics and the super-bowl... one appears in the news section, one is international and one appears in the sports section--- and one more minor detail the 1st determines the fate of the planet
I wonder why elecitions are covered in such detail... because they determin our faith as a democratic society or because people want entertainment?
Many poeple speak as passionately about the "American Idol" elections as they do about the presidential elections. I wonder if the only reason the presidential elections stay on people's minds longer is because they require a longer process and there are more juicy details to talk about.
I know I am not making an astonishing claim and this argument is as old as the elections themselves: but let me pose the following question:
Are horse-race style elections not the best answer for a democratic society?
Now dont get me wrong, I have no idea what the answer to that is. I am but a naive college student, but I do have ideas about it.
The pros and cons of a horse race election:
Cons:
the elections may already be decided before election day
the most important issues are not covered in the news media
people focus on sensationalists prospects of the media.
Pros:
People are actually interested in the election- good for democracy
the news media get money
people actually find out about the candidates stances
politicians have to worry more about the consequences of their actions because people may find out.
Monday, October 1, 2007
WARNING- Dull Content proceed wit caution.
WARNING- Dull content: proceed with caution.
This is what I think should have been written in front of the assigned readings for today. BOOO!!!
Ya ok speeches, meetings, conferences, news-releases= all important contents of reporting.
But they are the dullest part of the job. BORING!!!
Before I become too disrespectful let me say that I have attended news conferences and meetings for almost every story I published and some of them were actually interesting. But I love journalism despite having to attend and read these.
It's like doing school homework. Read the following or listen to the following and give me a 200 word summery. DULL.
I admit they are important to stories. When reporting on an event or group a reporter can better understand the situation if he or she attends a meeting where the issue is discussed and it would be highly inefficient when someone of importance had to give a separate interview to all media answering the same questions. I just wish there was a better solution.
Probably the real reason I am so sour about them is because of the difficulty to get accurate information about them. Unlike in an interview you cannot immediately ask for clarification. The people will continue to talk in their own lingo and by the time you figure out their first point they are on their 5th point. They are also harder to concentrate on then an 8am calculus class. A tired brain can hardly produce accurate information. And what's more scare to a reporter then reporting false information? Its a nightmarish dilemma.
This is what I think should have been written in front of the assigned readings for today. BOOO!!!
Ya ok speeches, meetings, conferences, news-releases= all important contents of reporting.
But they are the dullest part of the job. BORING!!!
Before I become too disrespectful let me say that I have attended news conferences and meetings for almost every story I published and some of them were actually interesting. But I love journalism despite having to attend and read these.
It's like doing school homework. Read the following or listen to the following and give me a 200 word summery. DULL.
I admit they are important to stories. When reporting on an event or group a reporter can better understand the situation if he or she attends a meeting where the issue is discussed and it would be highly inefficient when someone of importance had to give a separate interview to all media answering the same questions. I just wish there was a better solution.
Probably the real reason I am so sour about them is because of the difficulty to get accurate information about them. Unlike in an interview you cannot immediately ask for clarification. The people will continue to talk in their own lingo and by the time you figure out their first point they are on their 5th point. They are also harder to concentrate on then an 8am calculus class. A tired brain can hardly produce accurate information. And what's more scare to a reporter then reporting false information? Its a nightmarish dilemma.
Thats it im turning Democrat
It has finally happened I have decided on a political party- all because of a homework assignment- oh the irony.
I will register a Democrat first chance I get. I was going to follow my mothers footsteps and stay independent but in the past year I have been leaning more Republican. Now the final straw has come. I have come to this revelation thanks to this NYT article. I truly say it is engines. It brings all the republican and democratic candidates together and shows a brief summery on their stance on global warming. It is so easy to understand: they give you a quote, what the candidate says he would do were he elected into office and actions he has taken in the past.
The last straw of my loyalty for my beloved Giuliani who has turned my city into the one I know now, is broken. HE SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER-booooo!!!! and he didnt do anything against global warming. and hes affiliated with a company that contributes to global warming- WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO MY HERO? and since when has he started calling the middle east "our enemies". Why are they our enemies? And since when does he take a stand that one cannot make a difference without a collaborative effort- he from the city for pete's sake. WE KNOW WE BETTER THEN EVERYONE ELSE-WE ACT LIKE IT TOO!!! so whats the problem. he has done marvelous things in new york without worying about what other are doing too much... since when has he enetered the finger pointing game and left the take responsibility for you own actions gamer- come on what wrong with you man?!
and oh yea-- republicans wake up!!! Are you serioius you are not sure weather global warming is man caused? experts disagree- numnutss- if you count your fortune tellers as experts then maybe- but experts have been agreeing that we are the cause of global wariming for years- stop putting fire under your bathtub- YOU WILL BOIL- no matter how much you deny it!!!!! And first worry about what you do then worry about what everyone else is doing- DID YOU PEOPLE NEVER GO TO KINDERGARDEN WHERE THEY TEACH YOU THESE BASIC RULES ABOUT LIFE?! GROW UP- just because everyone else is littering the cafeteria does not make it ok for you to do it!!!
All other debates will become null if we are frying to death!!!!
ok now back to my cool headed reporter side- republican and democrats disagree on the cause of global warming dispite popular beliefe in human's causing global warming. Most democrats argue that immidiate action is needed to save the planet and Republican argue that drastic measures are not needed because we do not know the true reason behind global warming--
YA OK ILL never be able to write a story about this- because I would just have ti finish that sentence with a descriptive word such as : EVIL IDIOTS...
I will register a Democrat first chance I get. I was going to follow my mothers footsteps and stay independent but in the past year I have been leaning more Republican. Now the final straw has come. I have come to this revelation thanks to this NYT article. I truly say it is engines. It brings all the republican and democratic candidates together and shows a brief summery on their stance on global warming. It is so easy to understand: they give you a quote, what the candidate says he would do were he elected into office and actions he has taken in the past.
The last straw of my loyalty for my beloved Giuliani who has turned my city into the one I know now, is broken. HE SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER-booooo!!!! and he didnt do anything against global warming. and hes affiliated with a company that contributes to global warming- WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO MY HERO? and since when has he started calling the middle east "our enemies". Why are they our enemies? And since when does he take a stand that one cannot make a difference without a collaborative effort- he from the city for pete's sake. WE KNOW WE BETTER THEN EVERYONE ELSE-WE ACT LIKE IT TOO!!! so whats the problem. he has done marvelous things in new york without worying about what other are doing too much... since when has he enetered the finger pointing game and left the take responsibility for you own actions gamer- come on what wrong with you man?!
and oh yea-- republicans wake up!!! Are you serioius you are not sure weather global warming is man caused? experts disagree- numnutss- if you count your fortune tellers as experts then maybe- but experts have been agreeing that we are the cause of global wariming for years- stop putting fire under your bathtub- YOU WILL BOIL- no matter how much you deny it!!!!! And first worry about what you do then worry about what everyone else is doing- DID YOU PEOPLE NEVER GO TO KINDERGARDEN WHERE THEY TEACH YOU THESE BASIC RULES ABOUT LIFE?! GROW UP- just because everyone else is littering the cafeteria does not make it ok for you to do it!!!
All other debates will become null if we are frying to death!!!!
ok now back to my cool headed reporter side- republican and democrats disagree on the cause of global warming dispite popular beliefe in human's causing global warming. Most democrats argue that immidiate action is needed to save the planet and Republican argue that drastic measures are not needed because we do not know the true reason behind global warming--
YA OK ILL never be able to write a story about this- because I would just have ti finish that sentence with a descriptive word such as : EVIL IDIOTS...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)