Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Being the subject of a news story

About 2 weeks ago, I was interviewed by a Daily Illini writer for a story about volunteering at the Champaign County Humane Society. This was my first time being interviewed for a story and it was interesting to see how I felt once it was published. I'm used to being the one collecting the quotes and writing a story about a person. It was weird to have the tables turned.

Overall, I think the writer did a great job. My name wasn't spelled wrong, the picture wasn't embarrasing and she wrote the story she said she was going to write. She told me it was a "Dirty Jobs" peice that the DI was planning to do every Tuesday. There was nothing on the DI that said it was a dirty jobs column or anything, but I think it went well anyway.

She definitely just paraphrased my words when I was talking and filled in the quotes with what I basically said because some of the quotes were definitely not exact quotes. But she didn't misquote the basic meaning so I wasn't bummed.

The story did give a wrong fact, however. In a photo caption it said I volunteer one day a week at the shelter, when I actually volunteer twice to three times a week. It's not a very important fact so I wasn't angry, but I do wonder where the writer got that information because she never asked me how many days I volutneer. Did she just assume or what? But again not a big deal. It just makes you think how many small facts you read in papers aren't actually true. I'm sure they check the big important facts, but kind of pass by the small ones.

All in all, I was happy with the story. And it taught me to make sure that even the smallest facts are correct when I am writing or editing a story about a person/place/event. Even though my fact was unimportant to me, a small fact may be important to someone else.

The quote they higlighted and put in big font was:
"Sometimes the dogs will kiss you after they have eaten poo or mud but you learn
to deal with it," Scott said.
Kind of an embarrasing way to go down in DI history, haha.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

So did the political endorsements work?

Since I'm not feeling particularly creative today, I thought I would focus on a topic that I wrote about 2 blogs ago. If you can remember, I found an article that claimed political endorsements in newspapers do not influence public opinion. I think the topic of political endorsements and whether or not editors should allow them is particularly interesting.

I found a website that keeps track of all the newspaper political endorsements for the 2008 election (they have 2004 on there too). It's a very interesting website if you are interested in this topic, so check it out! Since I can't spend an hour plus on this blog with two exams coming up tomorrow, I only looked at all the states that McCain won and who their newspapers endorsed. Here is what I found:

MT- 3 papers Obama
SD- 2 papers McCain
ND- 2 papers McCain
NE- 4 papers McCain
KS- 1 McCain, 2 Obama
OK- 2 Obama, 4 McCain
TX- 8 Obama, 13 McCain
LA- 2 Obama, 1 McCain
ID- 1 Obama, 1 McCain
WY- 1 Obama
UT- 1 Obama, 1 McCain
AZ- 1 Obama, 2 McCain
AR- 1 Obama, 2 McCain
MS- 2 Obama
AL- 8 Obama, 6 McCain
GA- 3 Obama, 2 McCain
SC- 1 Obama, 5 McCain
TN- 2 Obama, 4 McCain
KY- 3 Obama, 3 McCain
WV- 3 Obama, 2 McCain
AK- 1 Obama, 1 McCain

McCain did come out on top most of the time, but Obama received a good amount of support from newspapers in red states. So that would make it seem that political endorsements don't work. But a good editor should never just look at that and accept that conclusion. An editor should look at what parts of the states these Obama-endorsing newspapers were from. Because there is a possibility that they are from counties that did vote Obama, but more counties voted McCain. If that was the case, political endorsements could have made a difference.

For the sake of time, I'm not going to look into all 50 plus newspapers and their county. I just wanted all of you to be aware of this website and the fact that political endorsements in newspapers may or may not work. Just remember that just looking at the up front statistics aren't enough, the deeper research could show us a totally different story! Like our class has taught us, always make sure your reporter did ALL the research before coming to his/her conclusion.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Front Pages after the Election

I'm a very, very visual person so large pictures really appeal to me. It doesn't hurt that I'm a HUGE Obama supporter and campaign intern, so being able to see the big picture with the text "Obama Wins" is something I've been waiting for since the primaries. But color always appeals to people's eyes so a big picture of Obama on the front page is going to catch your eye more than a front page with a lot of text.

I really like the Chicago Tribune's front page: There is a huge picture with the text "Obama. Our Next President". But there also is a little bit of text at the bottom, talking about his speech at Grant Park.

But not a fan of the Red Eye, because the picture by itself makes it not look like a newspaper. I think it needs a headline. Same with the Chicago Sun-Times.

I also love large headlines that would stand out if you're walking by a news stand like the Post-Tribune in Indiana or Lawrence Journal-World in Kansas. Where I think papers like The Dodge City Daily Globe in Kansas or Bemidji Pioneer in Minnesota need much larger headlines. I guess the Pulizter/Hearst style journalism appeals to me!

I looked at red state newspapers vs. blue state newspapers and there was no real trend. The only paper that was VERY different from most of the 20-some I looked at was the Christian Science Monitor in Massachusetts. There is no mention of Obama winning on the front page. You'd think that this would be the biggest news on November 5th, so the fact that they didn't mention it is very weird. Why do you guys think they didn't deem it front page news?

Sunday, November 2, 2008

J-school cirriculum

The question Amy Gahran posed: Should j-schools be partnering more closely with other academic departments in order to impart to students a more current and relevant skill set and mindset? If so, what are the obstacles to that cooperation, and how can they be overcome?

I would LOVE for our journalism department to work with other academic departments. It would very cool if we could have a class in which we wrote specifically for a topic that different departments focus on. If I had my way, I would write about animals and anything associated with the topic of animals for each story I had to write throughout my entire four years here. So if the Journalism department worked with the Animal Science department, I would have been able to take a class in which I learned more in depth information about animal sciences so I could be a better writer in that field. Same goes for sports lovers (kinesiology) or political mavericks (political science).

To have a class like that would be fantastic for people who wanted to be copy editors. We only have two copy editing classes in the whole journalism curriculum: this one and Magazine editing. And this teaches us very basic editing, so it would be very beneficial if we were able to take a class to learn about the topic we are interested in copy editing for. For example, by learning the veterinary lingo or more information about animals in general, I'd be able to edit stories about it and understand the topic and the "fancy" words.

One of the people whom left a comment said:
"With all due respect, the younger folk aren't really as tech savvy as some assume. Yes, they know email, Facebook, Youtube, IM and Limewire. But... With all due respect, the younger folk aren't really as tech savvy as some assume. Yes, they know email, Facebook, Youtube, IM and Limewire. But most of them don't know, or seem to care, about blogging, twitter, alternative online media, audio and video storytelling, why links matter, etc."
I do agree with him that many of us really don't know a whole lot about the Internet past the normal college websites. But he gives this as a reason that we don't need the classes, where I think this is THE reason we need classes about computer science and business. I know NOTHING about that kind of stuff and if the department required that I took a class like that, I would only be the better for it.

The biggest obstacle is going to be money, like everyone else said. Also, willingness from professors to spend a lot of extra time trying to start the program. If universities could gain the money needed and the passion from their professors for this type of project, I think the improvements they would see in their graduating students would be immense. I know it will never happen in my time here, but we already see it slowly with the online class and the News-Gazette class. Even this class has introduced me to a new medium I've never used: blogging!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Politics and Journalism

Like Missy's blog mentioned last week, quite a few newspapers are endorsing presidential candidates. It's been happening for years (maybe decades I dont know, I haven't been around very long) and it is somewhat controversial. U of I Journalism students are told throughout the four years we study here that we should always take a non-biased stance on the hard news issue we are reporting. So it is weird to me that we allow these things to happen.

I looked up some more information on it and found this article by American Journalism Review. The article researched whether or not newspaper endorsements impact public opinion. Their findings, for the most part, discovered that endorsements usually had no impact on voters. So why do newspaper do it? Here are some reasons:

Editorial writers explain endorsements with words like "conversation," "values" and "credible."

Doak: "The primary purpose of editorials is to stimulate discussion in the community [and it's]..a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values."

Collins: "The point of doing an endorsement of a president, or even a senator, is to continue that conversation... When you weigh in, what you're really doing is juicing up the conversation, and that's critical before an election."

Lynell Burkett, editorial page editor at the San Antonio Express-News and president of the 600-member National Conference of Editorial Writers: "We're here to present a credible opinion and to stir conversation and debate."

Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Washington Post, adds one more: The newspaper as citizen.

* I can't figure how to get out of the quote thing so the rest of my blog is going to be indented*

So it seems that most editors claim that their newspaper endorse canidates so that they could stir up coversation and debate. Do you think they do that? Or do they just make newspapers seem biased?

Also, it causes people to start thinking that they will give skew their stories so that their canidate looks good. We already see that with Fox News and MSNBC. I can honestly say I won't watch Fox News because I think its so biased against my candidate and my brother feels the same about MSNBC. The same could happen for newspapers.

I really think that endorsements are an idea that newspapers need keep away from. What do you think?

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Are newspaper headlines and stories too negative?

SIGNS THAT YOU'VE BLOGGED TOO MUCH: A movie quote gives you a good idea for your next blog.

So "The Ring" was on TV Friday night while my roomates and I were getting ready to go out. We got sucked in pretty quickly and ended up watching the whole thing. The last thing on my mind was Journalism or our blog assingment, but a quote from the creepy killer ring girl's father quickly brought it to mind.

When Naomi Watt's character (who is a journalist) brought up the suicide of his wife and his crazy daughter, the father says
"What is it with reporters? You take one person's tragedy and force the world
to experience it... spread it like sickness."
That quote not only had me running to get some pen and paper to write it down, but it reminded me of the countless stories and polls we've seen in our classes about readers beleiving we are too biased or too negative, ect.

I decided to look at the headlines for The News Gazette, The New York Tiimes and U.S.A. Today on this past Friday. Here's some of the headlines on the front page of each:

USA TODAY: "Bailout pushes mortgage rates up", "Sports also paying a price amid the struggling economy", and "Police agencies fear more crime caused by financial meltdown".

NEW YORK TIMES: "Oil price drops, aiding economy and consumers", "In a downturn, college straings family budgets", "Rivals' visions differ on unleasing innovation" and "Courts compound pain of China's tainted milk".

NEWS GAZETTE (from 16th): "Appeals court: Closed session was OK", "Economy takes turn back toward basement", "time to get personal" (about debate) and "recession now coudl evoke that of late '70s".

*** Now this might be a little unfair since we are in a huge economic crisis right now so it is going to reported on quite a bit but the number of negative headlines compared to positive headlines in each newspaper is quite drastic and common no matter what is happening in our economy at the moment. By just looking at the front page of each newspaper in the morning, one could only conclude that our lives suck. As a side note, have you noticed that local papers usually have more "happy" headlines than national papers? I wonder why?

Negative stories sell. People want to hear about the murder in Florida or the kipnapping in Chicago. In the movie, the people wanted to know about the wife's suicide and their creepy daughter. But it is our job as reporters and editors to decide what IS news and what is just sensationalism. Those two lines get crossed more in news than they should, and by looking at the polls from readers: people notice.

So before this becomes a essay instead of a blog, I'll just leave you with a couple of questions. Do you think we should edit for how much negativity we are putting in a paper? Is good news hardly ever news? Why do we seem to focus on the negative?

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Numbers in Dog Bite Statistics

**My Pit Bull (Floyd) and me! According to some statistics, I shouldn't let his mouth near my face because at any moment he might bite my face off.

After our discussion about college rape/sexual assault statistics in the media on Wednesday, I started to think about the most annoying statistics to me personally: dog bite statistics.

In Journalism 415, my beat was animals. I specifically focused on one of the most popular dog breeds in the country (and Champaign County): pit bulls. We all hear the horrible stories of pit bulls attacking and killing people. So when looking to see if this was just another sensationalized media circus story or a true fact, I looked up bite statistics. And they were exactly like rape statistics: different according to what Web site you found.

This Web site: http://www.pbrc.net/misc/PBRC_stats.pdf, says that there are no documented fatal attacks from 1965-2002 from American Pit Bull terriers.

This Web site: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html, says that pit bulls, Rottwielers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks included in studies. But also warns:
If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
This Web site: http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html, says that Rotts and pit bulls were involved in 50% of reported dog bite statistics.

There are more and more Web sites as you look further. Some say Pits are homicidal dogs that are involved in 75% of all attacks and should never be pets and there are some that say that, on average, dogs like Golden Retrievers and Labradors have higher bite rates than Pits. The statistics are just so mixed that I don't think it is responsible for any journalist to use any of the statistics listed online.

A reporter needs to look at what sites are down-playing Pit bites (Pit bull or animal activist sites usually) and which one's are up-playing it (usually legislators or town council people who don't know much about dogs). They also need to remember the type of people who are raising Pit Bulls, that Pit Bulls are the second most popular dog breed in America and therefore there are more Pits in the U.S. so there will obviously be more dog bites by them and remember that Pits are the most common wrongly identified breed.

They must also remember that many have dog fighting genes from earlier generations (so could be more likely to attack) and are more powerful than most breeds so when they attack, the injuries will be worse than a Chihuahua attack (which makes them more dangerous).

As a person who volunteers at a humane society, I have come across A LOT of Pit Bulls. I was scared because of their reputation in the media, but once I met them, I found out their reputation (at least in Lake County and Champaign County) couldn't be further from the truth. Most I have met are fantastic with people and great with other dogs. It really is how you raise them in my opinion.

I remember talking to a Chicago police man and him telling me that his station will get calls from reporters when a dog attack is called in and the reporters will be very interested until they find out that the dog bite wasn't caused by a Pit Bull, then most go "Oh, nevermind". Don't be one of those reporters.

Pit bulls may be the most dangerous dog in America. But, before you go claiming it, remember to think about each of the contributing factors and how inconsistent the statistics for and against the breed are.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Ethics: Photo Response

After looking at all the photos in Journalism lecture, I came to the conclusion I would not run any of them. Well, not without the person's permission.

If the little boy's family is okay with me posting that moment b/w their dog and their son than I would post it. Same goes if the woman in the Mardi Gras picture if she gave me her permission. But those are the only two pictures I would run with permission.

The other four are disturbing. Three of them are of dead people (well 1 is a dying man) and that is something that may not sit well with readers. Little children look at newspapers whether searching through them for the comics or using them to play with their Silly Putty (you know you all did it!). Dead bodies and suicide are something they should not see nor something anyone NEEDS to see. I would be sooo angry if that was my family crying over my brother's dead body. That is not something I would want to relive when looking at the paper and I do not think it adds anything to the story except sensationalism. The man with his jaw through the gate is just disturbing and might affect people with weak stomachs.

It really dosen't matter to me if the events are local or national. To publish the pictures of dead bodies is selfish and in my opinion, just a way to sell more newspapers. It is also EXTREMELY unethical unless given permission. Yes, even for the suicidal man at the press conference. He was obviously okay with his suicide being public, but he was sick. Can you imagine being the wife or the mother of that man and seeing a picture of your son with a bullet going through his brain on the front page of a newspaper? That's not something anyone should have to experience.

As for the question of where and how to play the photo have any bearing on my decision, I would say only for the Mardi Gras picture. I would want to run that photo (if given the woman's permission) to show the effects of events like these and how dangerous they are. As a young woman that goes to parities occasionally, when I saw that photo, I was horrified. It was definitely the photo I struggled with the most. It could really strike home in a good way to young woman about taking precautions when going to big drinking events (and in my own anger-driven emotion, it would nice to have those men's mother's, employers, girlfriends ect. open the newspaper and see catching the men red-handed because they deserve it). But only in that pretense and WITH the woman's permission. If I was her, I would never want these photo's to run in a newspaper. But if she was okay with it, than so be it.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Misleading Numbers in News Stories

I am the first to admit that math and I do not get along. When we took our pretest on the first day of class and I came across the math section...well, I didn't even know where to start. And while looking for an article for this blog assignment.... well, I still didn't even know where to start.

After looking through many newspaper search engines and not really thinking any of the stories had bad numbers, I've really learned what I need to work on. And what I need to work on is learning the basics of many different topics (even if I'm not interested in the topic) so I know if the numbers look suspicious. I don't know what is too big or too small when it comes to deaths in Iraq or the number of illegal immigrants in the country. And if I ever want to be in the business, I should know these things.

However, I did come across a man who does. John Allen Paulos is the "Who's Counting" writer at ABC news and his story called Misleading Numbers in the News was very informational to me. Paulos focuses on three topics regularly focused on in the news: social security, illegal immigration and the number of Iraqi civilians killed.

Paulos first focuses on social security:
One can find a few stories noting that the 6.2 percent of the average American's taxable income that goes to Social Security taxes will be cut to 4.2 percent. That's a 2 percentage point cut -- not a 2 percent cut, but a 32 percent cut! This will leave a huge hole in Social Security revenues for present retirees. Why isn't the proposal fairly described as calling for a 32 percent cut in individuals' contributions? I suspect it's because most reporters don't feel confident enough of their basic arithmetic to so describe it.
That sounds similar to my math problems and it seems that many other reporters feel the same way.

Paulos also points out that Time magazine claimed 3 million illegal immigrants were attempting to cross into U.S. every year, and this statistic has been accepted by other new organizations with no questions asked. However, border patrol says they apprehend around 1 million a year and they estimate 3 times that number actually attempt to get across the border.

Paulos points out:
And the factor of three mentioned by border agents is just conjecture. How does one estimate how many people are not apprehended when these latter are, almost by definition, largely invisible? Whatever the real statistic, the 3 million figure has by now attained a life of its own.
The most complicated and misleading numbers are associated with Iraqi civilian deaths during the war. The two most popular studies used in news stories on this topic have been by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and by Iraq Body Count (IBC). Roberts’s claims the deaths could be as high as 100,000 where IBC claims the deaths level out to about 15,000. That is a huge difference, but both are being used in news stories. So a loyal reader of both the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times may first read that civilian deaths are around 15,000 and then read they are around 100,000. And we wonder why people don't trust the news!

I know numbers are hard to figure out for someone with a journalism degree; but, with just a couple clicks of the mouse, I think we could easily find out whether our statistics are misleading or accurate.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The Seven Deadly Sins of Copy Editing!

I searched the World Wide Web up and down (well...for around 15 minutes) and could not find a really good story about Journalism to write about. I knew they had to be some out there, but I was feeling lazy. Then a wonderful thought came to me! Our lecture professor uses a lot of Poynter Online articles to get her point across, so I checked there. It was on this website I came across the article, "The Seven Deadly Copy Editing Sins".

This article resonates with what we are learning in our lecture and lab class. Editor Anne Glover pins down seven sins many copy editors make:

1. Arrogance: This means don't believe that what you say is final and always correct.

2. Assumption: Do not assume that a reporter did the correct math or wrote down the right address. Always check the facts.

3. Sloppiness: This basically means don't make stupid mistakes, like "a jumpline that refers the readers to the wrong page".

4. Indifference: It's easy to treat the story you are reading as just a story you have to spell check, but this kind of thought-process is risky. It causes every page to look the same and for headlines to become boring. Pretend the story is YOUR story and have a little pride what you do to make it better.

5. Ignorance: This means always fact-checking and making sure everything is correct. Ignorance is writing the wrong date in reference to the end of WWI because you didn't feel the need to fact check. Glover says "Readers always know these things, and you damage the newspaper's credibility when you show you don't".

6. Laziness: This sin goes along with ignorance. Human being wants to do whatever is the easiest, and that can be anything from not looking up a word in the stylebook because its two rooms away or "not bothering to teaser something because you couldn't find out what page it was on".

7. Inflexibility: Yes, it sucks when a huge story hits after you already finished designing and editing the front page. But remember what your REAL job is: getting the news out to the people. You may have pull an all-nighter, but the end result will be worth it.

***These mistakes are very obvious, but if you really think about your life as a Journalism student, you know that you have at least contemplated these options quite a few times in your short career. For me, laziness hits the hardest. No one wants to search the web for good articles for an hour, ergo I'm sure no editor wants to spend hours upon hours making sure one story is precise. But considering how the public views the media nowadays, this is the most opportune and important time to make sure every minute detail has been examined carefully.

Therefore, I think this article is something any aspiring copy editor or writer should have linked in their "favorites" folder in their web browser. If they can look down the list and can honestly say they did not commit one copy editing sin while looking at the story they are editing, the story is probably ready for the public to read.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Outsourcing editing jobs..."How About No"

I am sure the majority of the class and I share the same opinion when it comes to outsourcing news editing jobs.

I understand that newspapers are losing business and money rather quickly, but I do not think outsourcing is going to help the matter.

As many of us have seen in numerous polls, readers are not content with how the media is reporting news. Just to reiterate my point , "The Pew Research Center of the People and the Press" recorded their findings on their website:
Just 42% say news organizations generally "stand up for America;" about as many (40%) believe that news organizations are "too critical of America." That represents a significant shift since July 2003, when a narrow majority (51%) said that news organizations stand up for America, while 33% said they were too critical.Other measures assessing the basic values of the press also have become more negative. Six-in-ten see news organizations as politically biased, up from 53% two years ago. More than seven-in-ten (72%) say news organizations tend to favor one side, rather than treat all sides fairly; that is the largest number ever expressing that view.
This is the real problem. And how would outsourcing editing jobs fix this? That's right...it can't!

The writer of the article, John McIntyre, states this exact opinion. He points out that if editing was only fixing spelling and grammar errors, then perhaps it may be a good idea. But editing is MUCH more than a glorified spell check. It is fact checking, and people whom have never set foot in the United States are going to have a hard time making sure all the facts are correct.

More factual mistakes will happen if outsourcing happens and readers will be even more distrustful of what they read. Outsourcing may bring down financial costs at first, but in the long run it will cost newspapers their readers and their fantastic local editors.

God knows I am one of the writers that needs an editor assisting me whenever possible. And I'd rather have us living in the same town, instead of 3,000 miles away.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

News Editing...A Dying Profession?

News Editing seems like it would be one of the most important positions at a news publication, right? You always will need people to check the facts, the grammar and anything else a writer might have screwed up on. However, by looking at headlines and news stories at the start of every class in Journalism 420, I have learned that many mistakes still make it to print. So perhaps newspapers like the News Gazette have all ready made some cuts we'd never thought were so desperately required in order to survive the tough newspaper business.

Alan D. Mutter, a former City Editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, has blogged about this problem on his blog "Can newspapers afford editors?” He brings up important question: "how many editors does it take to a put a story in a paper?” Every newsroom has differing opinions on what the correct answer may be, and it really is a question we must consider in the wake of newspaper layoffs.

Mutter includes in his blog a thought provoking quote from a senior editor working at an undisclosed metropolitan newspaper:

“How many people have to read a story before it goes in the paper?” asked a senior editor at a major metropolitan daily who is struggling to sustain the quality of his news report in an era of shrinking resources. “If we have to economize, the editing process is the place. Why do we have all these people processing stories after a reporter writes it? They are not producing anything that will get us traffic on the web.”

At first read, I very much agreed with this editor: if the newspaper industry needs to make layoffs, editing is the first place to look. Do we need a story to be looked at by eight different people before the story is published? And in a time where newspapers have to compete against the Internet (a place that steals their hard earned stories and posts them on their websites saying its publicity for the newspaper when its just giving the reader a place to read the story for free), drastic cuts sometimes need to be made.

Mutter displays both sides of the story in order to give his readers the ability to judge fairly whether or not more than one or two editors are really needed at a news publication. As I really thought about this question, I began to remember how many mistakes we have found in class in newspapers like the News Gazette and the Daily Illini. I wonder if these publications have employed less editors over the years and there in lies why so many mistakes have made it to the final copy.

Mutter points out that this would be an issue if more editors were let go:

" A compelling case can be made that newspapers would debase themselves journalistically, commercially and, perhaps, even fatally by abandoning the disciplined reporting and professional editing that makes their content uniquely valuable in an age of frequently impulsive, often repulsive and usually unverified Twittering."

After reading this quote, I was sold on the fact that a good amount of editors are needed if you desire to publish a factual and clean publication. But Mutter also points out that, though the New York Times had a VERY extensive editing process, Jayson Blair and Judith Miller still got away with their wrongdoings.

So how many editors ARE needed to help publish a story at a newspaper? The majority (54.39%) of Mutter’s readers believes that 2 editors are all that is needed. Four or more comes in place at 2nd, one at 3rd and zero at 4th. One must remember that a majority of his readers are in the newspaper business themselves so therefore may deem the importance of editors higher than the average American. As for me, I am on the fence. I do think we MUST keep as many reporters as possible, but even one badly written or a falsified news story can bring down the entire publication. What do you think?

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Reaction to Transforming American Newspapers

Vin Crosbie hit home when he described the real reasons for the demise of American Newspapers in his article "Transforming American Newspapers" (http://www.digitaldeliverance.com/blog/2008/08/transforming_american_newspape.html). So many editors, journalism professors and media professionals have blamed online news content as the sole rogue against American newspapers. But the truth is, it is the internet's ability to adhere to a person's individual interests (through sports websites, online music communities, ect.) that has really made the difference.

As a student who can sadly admit to only reading newspapers when it is assigned by a professor, this article's contents were not extremely shocking to me. I spend a good 5 hours online everyday reading articles, message boards and blogs that adhere to my specific interests. Crosbie brings up a fantastic point when saying the Internet allows readers to do something they never could before: use a search engine that can help a person find articles that adhere to their interests and their interests ONLY. Print and broadcast news programs must comply to a broad variety of interests instead of individual ones. Why would a busy working American want to sit down and watch an hour long news show for just one story that interests them when they can search it on google and read 10 different stories about that one subject?

I do not read newspapers as often as a Journalism student should. But I do read news everyday. However, the news I read everyday centers around fashion, rock music and Barack Obama. I may not know the economic issues facing the automobile industry but I do know that Scott Weiland was kicked out of Velvet Revolver earlier this summer and is now in the middle of a reunion tour with Stone Temple Pilots. And to the people I spend my daily life with, the Weiland news appeals to them far more than the car industry.

Newspapers are behind the times as far as catering to individual interests. But they also force us to learn about issues that we would have never searched on Google ourselves. The minimal times I do pick up a newspaper, I learn about international issues and economic crises that are usually much more interesting than I would have first gave them credit for. Without this general content, I would have never heard of Barack Obama when he was just a Illinois Senator. It was a newspaper article that introduced his name to me. Not a search engine. There is still a place in the world for general interest newspapers; they just need to find and implement the right marketing tools if they want to survive the years to come.