While I know writing features doesn’t require adhering to the strict set of guidelines established for hard-news stories, I don’t think feature writers should be able to write whatever they chose under the guise of being “creative” or “free spirits”.  A writer is a writer, regardless of what topics they write about or what style they write in and all writers should be held accountable for their copy.  Last week I was particulalry annoyed when I editing a “feature” story that contained no less than five fact errors.  Not grammar mistakes or issues with AP style — fact errors (including misspelling a performer’s last name and getting a band’s name completely wrong.)  It irritates me that a feature writer would be so careless as to not even check his copy for accuracy.  One of the main tenets of journalism is accuracy, and feature writers are journalists too.  While some writers may think their feature-like style of writing is “cool” enough to pass off as journalism, if they can’t get facts correct, they have no right in the reporting world.

Something that has been concerning me lately as I have attempted to find a job post graduation is the issue of convergence. Less people are being employed by newspapers and having to do more work to make up for the loss of coworkers. If people who are already established in the industry are being laid off because there aren’t enough jobs for them, what hope is there for a recent college graduate? While everyone surrounding me tells me how this should be such an exciting time for me, all I can think about is how hopeless I feel about finding a job. I feel as if the last four years of my life I have spent studying journalism might be wasted because who knows when I will be able to find a job that I can use it.

Fingers crossed I can find something in the next few months…

After reading several articles last week about the lack of respect copy editors receive from their reporting counterparts, I can’t help but think about my own experiences at a paper.  While I can honestly say I’ve never been openly ridiculed/disrespected by any member of the staff, I feel as if many of my efforts go unnoticed and unappreciated.  There have been several times I have caught the misspelling of a name or the incorrect number used in a fact or statistic.   While I am glad I was there to catch to error, I can’t help but to think to myself: Are reporters getting lazy or are they just relying on the copy desk too much?

While the majority of stories I read contain few errors other than misuse of a comma, when a reporter misspells a first and last name, I can’t help but think they aren’t doing as good of a job as they should be.  A main tenet of reporting is to be accurate and a fact error on not one but two names makes me doubt the reporting abilities of the person.  So to get off my soap box: Don’t hate the copy desk.  We’re your last line of defense and while YOU personally may not have made an error in your last story, the reporter sitting next to you might have.

The Whoppers of 2007

After reading this article, I think if there were so many media inaccuracies regarding candidates and their backgrounds, it is the responsibility of the reporters to investigate their claims and make sure they are accurate.  If a reporter simply takes what a candidate says verbatim and publishes it, the public will assume what they are saying is true when in fact it could be an exaggeration or a lie.  I think reporters should check the facts, just as they would for any other news story, and make sure that these statements are accurate.  If they just publish politicians’ speeches without any analysis or support, it would be the same as publishing a press release sent out by the candidate to gain support.

After reading some of the biggest lies or miscalculations given by a politician, it seems that many of the problems deal with politicians.  For example, Giuliani said he increased police officers by 12,000 while he was in office, but the problem with that statistic is 7,100 of those people were already officers that were just merged into the police department.  By including that population of officers, he was intentionally inflating the number of officers he helped “add” to the police force.  In reality, he only hired about 3,700 officers and 3,500 of them were paid for by the federal government under Bill Clinton.  In this case, I think the reporters and editors should have investigated the actual number of people added to the forces and corrected this misleading claim.  I think it is important for reporters to accurately report the truth on these matters because most readers wouldn’t take the time to look up the statistics themselves and would rather believe what their newspapers are telling them.

I think another problem that should have been fixed is Mitt Romney’s advertisements.  For my own personal reasons I don’t care for him but I think reporters should have investigated the claims he was making in his ads to be sure they were accurate.  Something that bothers me is how Romney is claiming he doesn’t support McCain’s immigration bill but he previously called it reasonable.  I think if there is a record of him saying this, publications should include this with an analysis of the ad.  Romney also claimed to support a Massachusetts bill that enforces immigration laws but the law never went into effect.  In essence he is lying and I think he should be exposed for it.

What I think this article is trying to say is the media really need to be a watchdog, especially as election time approaches.  If we are unable to catch the lies and inaccuracies in campaigns, readers will surely be unable to distinguish between what is real and fake and could ultimately put the wrong person in office.  If we tell them the truth behind the ads it would level the playing field and force politicians to become more accountable.

 

The Whoppers of 2006

            Something that immediately irked me in the first few paragraphs of this article is how candidates and parties have twisted words and made up quotes to misrepresent what the public is thinking.  If a reporter was to do the same, he or she would surely be fired and most likely be unable to find a respectable journalism job.  Why are politicians allowed to do something that would cause others to be fired?  Is it because we hold journalism in a higher esteem than politicians?  Or is it because we expect to be lied to by politicians?  If the latter is true, I think it is time for people to change the perception of candidates and force them to be more accountable.

            Something else I noticed is people are more likely to lie and fabricate facts when there is an election involved and they want to make their competitor look bad. While I know it has always been a part of the election process, I think mudslinging needs to be checked just the same as any facts or assertions made by the candidates themselves.  If a politician makes a claim and a reporter is able to check the accuracy of the claim, I think it is the reporter’s responsibility to the voters to make sure they know the truth behind the claim.

 

The Political Power of Words

            I thought this article was interesting because I had never thought of the loaded connotation many words carry.  It seems that once a buzzword begins to circulate in the industry, many writers will begin to use it, even if they don’t realize the full weight of what they are saying.  Something the article mentioned that I thought was important is reporters should be held to a higher standard of clarity than the average American.  I think this is important for reporters to remember because if an average citizen were throwing words around without knowing their full meaning, there probably wouldn’t be very severe consequences for his or her actions.  But if a reporter were to say the same words in print, he or she could be in trouble with their editors or even with the public for misrepresenting a politician.

            Another important point to consider is not letting sources define their opponents.  While it would be okay to use a quote from a source when discussing their opponent, it would be unethical for a journalist to use those words to describe someone.  Even if someone else said the words, the publication could unintentionally get in trouble for libel.

            I think another important point to consider is the fact that many times people are pigeonholed based on their political ideologies, even though this may not be completely accurate.  Most people do not fit all the characteristics of a conservative or a liberal so labeling someone as one or the other could lead to misperception of that person.  I think rather than labeling someone according to those narrow standards, we should try and describe them more accurately so all of their ideologies and beliefs are being used to describe them, not just one overused word.

Something that has surprised me today is how quickly news of celebrity gossip spreads before any other traditional news.  Within 20 minutes I had three people ask if I had heard of the news of actor Heath Ledger’s death.  While this come as a surprise because he was so young and the details are shocking, all I can think of is the public’s intense infatuation with celebrities and all things associated with them.  Sure, I’m guilty of doing it too (Perez Hilton is a commonly visited site on my computer) but I generally regard those articls as gossip and entertainment, not as real news.  When news of Britney Spears becomes plastered all over reputable network news shows it makes me wonder, what is really happening to this industry?  Is this all the public really wants to hear- gossip that is similar to high-school antics?  I even read somewhere that the AP wants to increase their coverage on Britney and her trainwreck of a life and I wonder where the line between entertaining stories and news values is drawn.  I think the entertainment news should be left to magazines and entertainment shows and left out of our regularly scheduled broadcasts.  There are too many other important things going on in our world for us to be focusing on what affect Jessica Simpson has on her boyfriend’s football-playing abilities.

 That being said, RIP Heath.

Case Study: Eagle Snatches Dog

            While the story of an eagle carrying a small dog out of the grasp of its owners may have appeal for its unusualness, there were many reasons why I personally wouldn’t have published the story on the front page of my newspaper (no offense Dr. R.).  One of the things discussed by my classmates was the fact the story itself was poorly written with very few details and no identification of the couple, probably due to the fact the story was based on the eyewitness account given by the gas station attendant.  The next issue we had with the story is that story is based on a single source.  Because there is no one to corroborate the story, how can the reporter be sure the attendant didn’t make up his account in order to get attention?  One of the issues that has plagued journalism is writers that have made up sources or quotes in order to enrich their stories.  While I am not accusing the writer of this story of doing so, without another source or the identification of the couple to go along with the story, what should make me believe this event even happened?

            Something else that I thought of when reading over this story is whether every one of the readers believed it.  Based on what Dr. R. told us in class, the story received great reviews and readers loved it.  I couldn’t help but wonder whether there was at least one cynical reader out there that may have disbelieved this story.  All it would have taken is one critical letter to put the question of the story’s validity into readers’ heads.  And if the newspaper’s credibility was ever at risk dealing with this story, there would be no way to prove it was true other than to tell readers to trust the story given by the lone attendant.  Just this risk would have been enough for me to pull the story off the front page.

            An alternative I thought of while reading this story is to possibly publish it with other odd-sounding stories as an entertaining package, rather than as a front-page read.  The weekly newspaper I interned at had an entire column devoted to “News of the Weird” where unusual stories from around the country were featured.  Readers loved to hear the oddball stories and because all the stories ran together, the stories were enjoyed more for their entertainment value rather than their news value.

 

Abstracts

Skeptical Editing

            I think the concept of being skeptical while editing is overlooked in today’s journalism industry.  If editors were more critical of the stories being presented to them by their reporters, we wouldn’t have to read about reporters fabricating stories as often. 

            Something simple we had to do in reporting class that is beneficial to the industry as well is to turn in a source list with our stories.  If our professor had any questions about the story or its authenticity, he or she could simply contact our source and see if what they had said is what is in the story and if we had actually spoken with them.  I think if an editor were to read a story that was too good to be true or seemed outlandish, the first step for them would be to check the source sheet.  Even if the source wishes to remain confidential in the story, an editor contacting them for validity would not expose them and would also help the writer’s story.

            I think one of the downfalls of our industry is the constant need for everything to be immediate.  Because online is becoming more important and stories are expected to be uploaded as soon as they are finished, this creates more pressure on the editor to get the story quickly and out to the public as soon as possible.  While this is an advantage to the reader, it’s a disadvantage to the journalist because there is a greater chance for sloppiness due to speed and it would only take one major mistake to undo years of great work.

            The idea of a devil’s advocate at a paper seems like a great solution to this problem.  I agree that it is hard to go against what people are writing and question a story’s validity, but if it will preserve the industry’s credibility, I think it is necessary.  There are more tasks being piled upon the editor and a new position could help relieve the burden while improving the quality of work. 

 

Joint Operating Agreements

            I think the idea of joining two papers for the sake of saving money is beneficial both for the industry as well as the readers.  I think the major consolidation of the industry is detrimental because it limits the amount of voices and opinions that can be expressed.  Combining business operations seems to be a simple solution to the financial problems faced by the newspaper industry.  Since more people are getting their news from online sources or television stations as opposed to print versions, the newspaper industry is slowly losing popularity.  It’s no surprise that over recent decades the amount of people who read a paper on a daily basis has been falling, most likely because of the alternative ways of obtaining news, such as a paper’s online site.  I think any way papers can save money while still maintaining their integrity is going to be helpful.

 

Meet the New Face of Hyperlocal Journalism

            To me, the idea of blogging as a new form of journalism is both exciting and frightening.  Maybe it’s just because I am not as tech savvy as others but when a journalist decides to turn a blog into a modern-day online newspaper, it seems rather sub-par and juvenile.  I think adding a blog to a newspaper’s site and having reporters that are in charge of maintaining the site as well as finding and reporting stories on it is beneficial to the paper because it keeps the publication up to date with technology.

            On the other hand, when independent reporters decide to start their own blogs and become their own media entity I begin to question their status as a journalist.  It’s not that I don’t think they are good reporters or are able to do as good of a job as someone who works at a printed newspaper.  I just fear if this trend becomes rampant and people all over the nation decide to start their own sites and slowly take over the industry, newspapers around the country will begin to suffer greatly.  If more people begin to read these blogs instead of getting their information from a newspaper or its Web site, eventually all the papers will lose readership and be forced to shut down.

            I think blogs started by journalists who have had experience in the field and reporting are acceptable ways of gathering information.  What really concerns me is when any average Joe Blow on the street decides to start his own blog and “reporting” on what happens in his neighborhood.  Then how is the public supposed to distinguish between good journalism and simple blogging?  While I am an avid fan of reading blogs about celebrities, I would hardly call this journalism or expect newspapers to start covering similar types of stories.  If blogs were to become a major component to the industry, I think there needs to be clear distinctions made between entertainment-type blogs that feature amateurs writing their opinions and journalists reporting on stories.  In my opinion, this would be a vital component to preserving the difference between those who have studied how to be a good reporter and those who haven’t.

 

‘Potemkin Village’ Redux

            One of the things I found interesting about this article is the co-founders of iBrattlebroro.com’s reactions to what other journalists think of them.  They said journalists think of them as illegitimate journalists and I agree with that opinion.  While it is nice to have other voices in the mainstream to combat conglomeration and make sure all points of view are expressed, I think it is unfair for two independent bloggers to receive the same title as someone who has spent four or more years at school and numerous years in the field of journalism.

            Something blogs can do that is beneficial to the community is voice citizens’ opinions.  For example, Blufftontoday.com had so many angry comments left by readers that the state decided to change its traffic management in response to the public’s discontent.

            After reading about all the different sites, it seems that those who want to go it alone should be prepared to expect lower salaries (most of the “civilian journalists” pay their bills by freelancing) and still aren’t getting as many hits as their local paper’s Web site.  I think this is better for the journalism community because it shows journalists with the experience are viewed as a more reliable and popular news source.

 

Common Sense Journalism

            After reading this story, I have a somewhat new perspective on the effort needed to put together a Web site.  I had originally thought any random person would be able to start his or her own news blog and write on whatever subject matter he or she wishes.  After reading about how much it costs to install software and all the various help needed to get the site started (such as finding stringers, photographers and people to promote the site) it seems to be a much bigger ordeal than I previously thought.

            I think the best way for someone to start his or her own news blog would to be associated with a local paper.  For a newspaper to keep up with the times, it needs to have a generous portion of the news go online.  If there was a separate site that featured many of the same stories that would run in the paper, plus stories that were found by local stringers and citizen journalists, I think that would be beneficial for all involved.  Not only would the newspaper be able to keep up in the faced-paced world, but also independent writers would have some of the financial burden taken from them while still being able to pursue their own stories.

I found the first reading, “50 Places to Shop for Story Ideas” particularly interesting because there were many locations on the list I would have never thought to look at.  For example, I found the third place, the vet’s office, to be unusual because I would have never thought of pets to make much of a story.  One of the suggestions I have used for coming up with ideas is to eavesdrop on others.  I’ve noticed that many times I will overhear friends discussing their problems and realize many others are probably encountering the same issue.  Something I noticed recently was students were being forced to wait for a certain date and time in order to add courses during the first week of classes, or drop/add time.  My friends and I all wondered why, even if you were a senior and should have first choice of courses, should you be confined to certain dates and times to gain the classes you want?  This could lead to a story about why the university set up such a policy and if there was any way to change it.

            One suggestion I could add to the list would be to look at popular news Web sites, such as MSNBC or Google News and read the top stories.  Often times in reporting class I would take the top stories and be able to localize them and apply it to the Gainesville community.  One story I wrote was based off an article comparing energy drinks to coffee-based beverages.  The article was claiming energy drinks were very bad for people to consume and I called a doctor in Gainesville and asked his opinion on the topic.  I also spoke with students who drink both beverages (not at the same time obviously) and asked them to describe their preferences and why they felt that way.

            Another suggestion I could add that would relate mostly to UF life is to spend time in Turlington during the middle of the day.  There are student groups constantly passing out notices or setting up displays at tables that describe what their organization stands for.  Some afternoons there are what I would call religious fanatics that stand and preach their version of the gospel to the students passing by.  Occasionally students will stop and respond them, which always leads for a heated debate and an interesting afternoon.

            In the second story dealing with revamping the way journalists will do their stories, I think the future of the industry will be helped and hindered by the technological additions.  For example, I think using blogs to generate ideas (mentioned in how things are and how they will be) could be good because it will show more directly what readers are concerned with and could open the reporter’s eyes to problems unknown to him or her.  On the other hand, if readers tell reporters what to write their stories on (as stated in how things will be) it may to come journalists playing the role of the student fulfilling an assignment given by the teacher, the teacher being the public.  I think journalists should be open to suggestions given by readers but should not wholly rely on blogs and online posting for story ideas.

            Another step I disagree on in how things may become is to update the blog every step of the way after doing some reporting and contacting sources.  I think this could become tedious and unnecessary because readers would be able to know the outcome of the story the minute it is posted online.  I know this is a high-paced world and the more quickly information is disseminated the better but it seems constantly stopping to blog about the latest step would actually prolong the reporting process instead of helping it.

            I also think allowing readers to edit your story in a wiki form, shape the story and ultimately edit it once completed makes the job of journalist appear unimportant.  If readers are able to shape the story as it develops, give ideas for the story itself and edit it once published on the web, what is the point in even having a journalist?  It seems as if the journalist does all the hard work, such as collecting research and locating sources, and readers who have no training or credentials are allowed to say whatever they want however they wish.