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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment