Well it's time for my final blog.
We were told we could do a sort of "wrap up" of the semester, so that's exactly what I'm going to do.
I entered this class not knowing quite what to expect, besides hearing from multiple sources that it was going to be "challenging." I'd definitely agree with that assessment, but I'd also add that it has been worthwhile. I sometimes feel that I'm learning the same aspects of journalism over and over again in all of the journalism classes I've taken. While there has been a bit of an overlap in 420 as well, I really do feel that I've learned many techniques in this class that have and will continue to mold me into a better writer and copy editor. Although my grades on the difficult weekly quizzes frustrate me, they also force me to learn from my mistakes.
As it says in the syllabus, "If your motivation in this course is the grade you might receive and not the learning you'll require, you need to reevaluate your motivation. Nobody gives you a letter grade on a job; it's pass-fail. I don't want to put an emphasis on grades. I want to emphasize learning. That's what will stay with you long after yo leave this campus." I feel like this excerpt explains the main idea behind the class perfectly. I'm usually very grade-conscious and this class forced me to push that aside and focus on the bigger picture. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I do feel like this class will stick with me longer than other classes do because it forced me out of my comfort zone and taught me a lot along the way.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Week 11
Two weeks ago I blogged about the journalism v. blogging debate and this week after reading reviews for the new movie "State of Play," I got to thinking about it again.
I think that it is very telling of the relevance and newsworthiness of the changes going on in journalism that a movie was made about it and with so many A-lister actors and actresses (Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Robin Wright Penn, and Helen Mirren).
From my review reading, I've found that Crowe plays a well-respected, veteran investigative reporter who is somewhat in professional competition with newbie young blogger McAdams. Crowe tries to teach her the ways of thorough old-school print journalism but McAdams is much to concerned with turning out copy every hour on the hour to heed his advice. With another 2009 relevancy twist, Mirren plays the fictional newspaper's editor, who is under constant pressure by the paper's new corporate owners to cut costs, re-design the all-important front page, and produce quick news rather than taking time to uncover not as obvious stories.
The film's storyline seems to have so much to do with the current crises in the newspaper world that, as a journalist, I cannot wait to see how the film plays them out.
I think that it is very telling of the relevance and newsworthiness of the changes going on in journalism that a movie was made about it and with so many A-lister actors and actresses (Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Robin Wright Penn, and Helen Mirren).
From my review reading, I've found that Crowe plays a well-respected, veteran investigative reporter who is somewhat in professional competition with newbie young blogger McAdams. Crowe tries to teach her the ways of thorough old-school print journalism but McAdams is much to concerned with turning out copy every hour on the hour to heed his advice. With another 2009 relevancy twist, Mirren plays the fictional newspaper's editor, who is under constant pressure by the paper's new corporate owners to cut costs, re-design the all-important front page, and produce quick news rather than taking time to uncover not as obvious stories.
The film's storyline seems to have so much to do with the current crises in the newspaper world that, as a journalist, I cannot wait to see how the film plays them out.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Week 10
For this week's blog entry we were told to read "The Quality-Control Quandry" by Carl Sessions Strepp of the American Journal Review and discuss what we thought of the article. Basically Strepp's article went over what we all already know: Editing jobs are being cut significantly in newspapers everywhere. I feel like these cuts are just going along with the times. Jobs are being cut everywhere. We all know the stats on the newspaper industry, it only makes sense that more and more editors are being let go. By understanding and accepting this, I think now the most important thing for newspapers is to make-do as much as possible with the editors that remain; to do as thorough and as accurate job as much as possible.
I think that absolutely all copy should be edited by at least one person other than the reporter who wrote it before it is published in any way -- even if it's only going online. Just because immediacy and speed are crucial when it comes to internet news, I think that it is even more important to make sure that speedy news is reported without any silly typos. And even though there are not as many editors sitting around to proof stories for errors, a fewer number of editors is better than no editors at all.
The AJR article listed a few copy editing practices that are becoming more and more common during this time of transition which I found to be pretty spot-on. The most important one in my opinion is the reinforcement of the oftentimes neglected principle that writers should be better self-editors. I would take that a step further and say that writers should never be the only ones editing their story. I also think that the practices of "buddy editing," "previewing" and "back editing" can do wonders for places where the number of editors is plummeting.
I think the main idea that this article is trying to get across is to not get too worked up with the news of editor cut-backs, but to just step up to the plate and do better work in the first place,and to make-do with the editors that remain.
I think that absolutely all copy should be edited by at least one person other than the reporter who wrote it before it is published in any way -- even if it's only going online. Just because immediacy and speed are crucial when it comes to internet news, I think that it is even more important to make sure that speedy news is reported without any silly typos. And even though there are not as many editors sitting around to proof stories for errors, a fewer number of editors is better than no editors at all.
The AJR article listed a few copy editing practices that are becoming more and more common during this time of transition which I found to be pretty spot-on. The most important one in my opinion is the reinforcement of the oftentimes neglected principle that writers should be better self-editors. I would take that a step further and say that writers should never be the only ones editing their story. I also think that the practices of "buddy editing," "previewing" and "back editing" can do wonders for places where the number of editors is plummeting.
I think the main idea that this article is trying to get across is to not get too worked up with the news of editor cut-backs, but to just step up to the plate and do better work in the first place,and to make-do with the editors that remain.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Week 9
Is blogging the new form of journalism? Should bloggers be held to the same standards as journalists?
While browsing YouTube, I came across this interesting video dealing with these exact questions. The man behind the webcast is Chris Pirillo, a 35-year-old man who has been participating in web conversations since 1992, when he started lockergnome.com as a "content publishing network." He now publishes personal blogs and lifecasts (webcasts dealing with various life topics and interesting how-to tidbits) to tens of thousands of viewers and is also a top subscribed partner on YouTube; in the past year he posted over 1,000 webcasts. He also does weekly live video segments for CNN.com where he gives "tech" advice to his savvy audience. Fun fact: When you search "Chris" on Google his site is listed first in the results.
So, after seeing his impressive resume, I was definitely interested in how Chris would answer these questions. To my surprise, he answered them quite closely to how I would answer them myself.
Chris and I agree that blogging is not the "new" form of journalism, and that bloggers mostly write out of passion or extreme interest on a topic. Also, bloggers and journalists are not one in the same because they are not held to the same standards. Although bloggers and journalists both write articles, posts, etc. of high content, journalists' work comes from a place of research and a blogger's work comes greatly from a place of personal thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Therefore, blogs are full of opinions, whereas journalism is meant to be unbiased. If a journalist misquotes or provides wrong information in a story, he or she is held responsible for that, a blogger does not hold that same responsibility because much of their work contains the research of actual journalists, so if the info is wrong, the journalist is to blame, not the blogger.
I suppose that the answers to these questions mainly depend on each individual's definition of journalists, bloggers, journalism and blogging. Based on my personal measures of these words, blogging is not the new form of journalism, it's more just a style of writing; and bloggers definitely shouldn't be held to the same standards as journalists because blogging is not journalism.
To check out Chris Pirillo's website full of blogs and webcasts on various topics, click here.
While browsing YouTube, I came across this interesting video dealing with these exact questions. The man behind the webcast is Chris Pirillo, a 35-year-old man who has been participating in web conversations since 1992, when he started lockergnome.com as a "content publishing network." He now publishes personal blogs and lifecasts (webcasts dealing with various life topics and interesting how-to tidbits) to tens of thousands of viewers and is also a top subscribed partner on YouTube; in the past year he posted over 1,000 webcasts. He also does weekly live video segments for CNN.com where he gives "tech" advice to his savvy audience. Fun fact: When you search "Chris" on Google his site is listed first in the results.
So, after seeing his impressive resume, I was definitely interested in how Chris would answer these questions. To my surprise, he answered them quite closely to how I would answer them myself.
Chris and I agree that blogging is not the "new" form of journalism, and that bloggers mostly write out of passion or extreme interest on a topic. Also, bloggers and journalists are not one in the same because they are not held to the same standards. Although bloggers and journalists both write articles, posts, etc. of high content, journalists' work comes from a place of research and a blogger's work comes greatly from a place of personal thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Therefore, blogs are full of opinions, whereas journalism is meant to be unbiased. If a journalist misquotes or provides wrong information in a story, he or she is held responsible for that, a blogger does not hold that same responsibility because much of their work contains the research of actual journalists, so if the info is wrong, the journalist is to blame, not the blogger.
I suppose that the answers to these questions mainly depend on each individual's definition of journalists, bloggers, journalism and blogging. Based on my personal measures of these words, blogging is not the new form of journalism, it's more just a style of writing; and bloggers definitely shouldn't be held to the same standards as journalists because blogging is not journalism.
To check out Chris Pirillo's website full of blogs and webcasts on various topics, click here.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Week 8
For my blog this week I found a clip of legendary singer-song writer Bob Dylan discussing case, specifically the difference between who and whom. This obviously fits in perfectly with what we have been learning in lab and what we were just tested on before spring break.
Dylan's tutorial on case was inspired after playing Bo Diddley's song "Who Do You Love?" on his Sirius XM Radio segment called "Theme Time Radio Hour."
After all of our discussion on case, I know that in the sentence "Who do you love?" the 'you' is the subject to the verbs 'do love,' therefore leaving 'who' without a verb. Since 'who' cannot be a subject without a verb, 'who' should really be 'whom' in this sentence. Bo Diddley obviously never took Journalism 420 with Jean McDonald or he would have known better to title his song so ungrammatically.
To here Dylan's explanation of the great who/whom debate in that famous raspy voice of his, click here.
Dylan's tutorial on case was inspired after playing Bo Diddley's song "Who Do You Love?" on his Sirius XM Radio segment called "Theme Time Radio Hour."
After all of our discussion on case, I know that in the sentence "Who do you love?" the 'you' is the subject to the verbs 'do love,' therefore leaving 'who' without a verb. Since 'who' cannot be a subject without a verb, 'who' should really be 'whom' in this sentence. Bo Diddley obviously never took Journalism 420 with Jean McDonald or he would have known better to title his song so ungrammatically.
To here Dylan's explanation of the great who/whom debate in that famous raspy voice of his, click here.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Week 7
Yet another week with no specific assignment. By now you might have noticed that on weeks like this I tend to veer towards the pop culture side of journalism, and, yes, that's where I'm headed this week as well.
I was actually doing homework for a different journalism class when I found my topic for this week: USA Today's pop culture blog titled Pop Candy.
This blog is dedicated to absolutely all aspects of popular culture, whether it is movies, television shows, books, music, etc. The blogger, Whitney Matheson, gives her opinions on the shows people should be watching and the ones they shouldn't waste their time one; movies past and present that she's seen lately and what she thought of them; and books and songs her readers should give a try.
Of course I love how I can get my fill of celeb gossip at the blog, but what I truly love most is how interactive Pop Candy is. There is a "Candy Mailbag," where Matheson answers questions from her readers like, "I've been trying to figure out how to get a reservation at Hell's Kitchen but I cannot find it. Can you help me out?" or "I loved the green hoodie Shane was wearing on the L Word finale. Where can I buy it?"
Another feature on the blog I enjoyed is titled "Pop Forum: Meet Today's Featured Reader," where one of her loyal readers gets their picture and a few finish-the-sentence blurbs posted on the blog. One question Matheson always makes the featured reader answer is "One famous person I've actually met," which is followed with the story on how they came across the celebrity. A picture of the featured reader and said celebrity is almost always posted as proof of the encounter.
Overall it's a truly great pop culture blog for anyone who is interested in hearing about new books, movies, music, etc. in an interactive fashion. I for one can see myself going back and checking Matheson's posts in the future.
I was actually doing homework for a different journalism class when I found my topic for this week: USA Today's pop culture blog titled Pop Candy.
This blog is dedicated to absolutely all aspects of popular culture, whether it is movies, television shows, books, music, etc. The blogger, Whitney Matheson, gives her opinions on the shows people should be watching and the ones they shouldn't waste their time one; movies past and present that she's seen lately and what she thought of them; and books and songs her readers should give a try.
Of course I love how I can get my fill of celeb gossip at the blog, but what I truly love most is how interactive Pop Candy is. There is a "Candy Mailbag," where Matheson answers questions from her readers like, "I've been trying to figure out how to get a reservation at Hell's Kitchen but I cannot find it. Can you help me out?" or "I loved the green hoodie Shane was wearing on the L Word finale. Where can I buy it?"
Another feature on the blog I enjoyed is titled "Pop Forum: Meet Today's Featured Reader," where one of her loyal readers gets their picture and a few finish-the-sentence blurbs posted on the blog. One question Matheson always makes the featured reader answer is "One famous person I've actually met," which is followed with the story on how they came across the celebrity. A picture of the featured reader and said celebrity is almost always posted as proof of the encounter.
Overall it's a truly great pop culture blog for anyone who is interested in hearing about new books, movies, music, etc. in an interactive fashion. I for one can see myself going back and checking Matheson's posts in the future.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Week 6
Last week we watched the video about the last days of the Rocky Mountain News, a daily newspaper in Denver that has been around for almost 150 years. As journalism students, we constantly hear about the diminishing future of print journalism, so much so that I feel as though I've become immune to news of newspapers folding. My point is that if our teacher had just said, "Today was the last issue of the Rocky Mountain News," I wouldn't have been phased much; but actually watching the documentary and hearing the stories of the Rocky's loyal staff and readers, I was saddened.
So, for my blog entry this week I decided to explore the Rocky's website. Among many features, I found the blog section and fittingly all of the most recent blogs are in tribute to the last days of the beloved newspaper.
The blog I've decided to talk about was written by staff writer and media critic Dave Kopel, and can be found here.
I liked Kopel's blog for many reasons. Firstly, he urges all of the loyal fans of the Rocky to please subscribe to their old competition, The Denver Post, because "a city with one major daily is a lot better than a city with none at all." However, at the same time he stays faithful to his paper, stating that he personally finds that the Rocky covered many stories that the Post did not bother with and covered them thoroughly, as opposed the superficial coverage of some of the Post's stories.
Kopel then goes into the specifics of why newspapers like the Rocky are folding: the internet. He states that although papers gain readership by posting online, they also lose quite a bit of revenue by doing that as well. Likewise, an advertisement online is only one-tenth as effective as a print ad in a newspaper, so with more readers getting their news online, ad revenue obviously decreases. Because of reasons like this, newspapers like the Rocky will continue to fall victim to the internet.
A last thought of Kopel's that I appreciated had to do with those people who only rely on online news. Sure, that quick and convenient, but what Kopel said in reply to this is what really stuck with me: that at the end of the day those online "news sources" get their information from news reporters. And what happens if their are no newspapers, and consequently no true news reporters, left to retrieve that news?
Hopefully it will never reach that point, but I guess only time will tell.
So, for my blog entry this week I decided to explore the Rocky's website. Among many features, I found the blog section and fittingly all of the most recent blogs are in tribute to the last days of the beloved newspaper.
The blog I've decided to talk about was written by staff writer and media critic Dave Kopel, and can be found here.
I liked Kopel's blog for many reasons. Firstly, he urges all of the loyal fans of the Rocky to please subscribe to their old competition, The Denver Post, because "a city with one major daily is a lot better than a city with none at all." However, at the same time he stays faithful to his paper, stating that he personally finds that the Rocky covered many stories that the Post did not bother with and covered them thoroughly, as opposed the superficial coverage of some of the Post's stories.
Kopel then goes into the specifics of why newspapers like the Rocky are folding: the internet. He states that although papers gain readership by posting online, they also lose quite a bit of revenue by doing that as well. Likewise, an advertisement online is only one-tenth as effective as a print ad in a newspaper, so with more readers getting their news online, ad revenue obviously decreases. Because of reasons like this, newspapers like the Rocky will continue to fall victim to the internet.
A last thought of Kopel's that I appreciated had to do with those people who only rely on online news. Sure, that quick and convenient, but what Kopel said in reply to this is what really stuck with me: that at the end of the day those online "news sources" get their information from news reporters. And what happens if their are no newspapers, and consequently no true news reporters, left to retrieve that news?
Hopefully it will never reach that point, but I guess only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)