Journalism Conference

Last night I attended the Jounalism Conference at my alma mater, USF. It was the first time I have been back on campus since graduation! It was great to see old professors and classmates, and it gave me a new found reason to start blogging again!

Between hearing about all of their struggles and success to get where they are: From moving 8 times in 4 years, standing in the rain, sleet, snow, fire (insert natural disaster/weather pattern here) to all of their advice, it was well worth the trip!

Although some of their advice, being a college grad doesn't apply anymore (though it is true, INTERNSHIPS are key! that's how I got the desk I am sitting at now), I still found it extremely helpful and enjoyable to listen to. Especially, the, "Don't do what you don't want to do" one. I totally understand

I still wish I knew what they thought a good starting salary is (so I could either go home and cry myself to sleep or jump for joy all the way home.. I hope jumping!)

Now I hope I can turn this blog back into a real journalism think tank, and still be involved in the journalism world! (though right now my writing consists of all marketing - event recaps, propsoals, sponsorships, etc etc etc) Maybe one day I'll go back! (or freelancing sounds like fun!!!)


More to come. Promise.

So I got into the blogging thing...

And i realized it was a great way to keep friends and family in touch while I backpack europe for a month!
so if anyone still reads this my travel blog is..

My Trip


ciao!

My Ethical Standards

If I were a newspaper, what would my standards be?

-Reporters should be fair, and should be accurate and report the truth, which they came to by many interviews and deep research
-Reporters should disclose any conflict of interests and/or biases before writing a piece, or in premise of the piece.
-If a mistake is made it should be reported, and if were made online it should not be deleated, but added on to.
-The newsroom should be diverse in gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and so on, but their pieces they write should not harbor any opinion or biases towards their specific make up.
-The writing, pictures and illustrations should not harm, or harrass anyone and be sensitive to gender, sexual or disability issues




While I think of more I will add more to my creed.

2 thoughts

First, I'm interviewing Zach Braff today. Super nervous, as always.



Second, I think we should go for a drink during class. and after class, do my last day of classes ever, right.

So Wikipedia hates me....

I have an 'account' with Wikipedia, and Mr Wiki and I have been discussing my contribution to the movie listing of His Girl Friday. Apparently I lost.

MR WIKI -
It appears you're new here. I must point out your contribution appears to violate WP:Original Research and arguably WP:Notability. Please read these policies (and maybe WP:What Wikipedia is not) before reinserting again. If you still disagree, please respond here; I'll watch for it. Thanks. Clarityfiend 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ME -
I'm not sure I understand. I think the movie has pedagogical signficance. The idea seems to be original, there is no ethical dimensions noted about the movie. And, being a media studies student, and journalism student at a University feel it is important for others studying journalism and media studies. This is a class study and similar sections have been added by classmates to Capote and All the Presidents Men. I wonder how mine is different.

MR WIKI -
Let me quote from the Wikipedia official position on what it is not:
"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion."

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself if you would expect to see something like this in a film article in the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta.

Ethical dimensions are normally not noted in a movie page because the article is about the movie itself. Something of this sort might (possibly) be better suited to a different article: Journalism ethics and standards. The only way it would be appropriate in a movie article is if that film had a significant effect on ethics - off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

As for why your classmates haven't been similarly afflicted by someone like me, Wikipedia's a big place, and this film is a bit more popular than the others you mentioned. I'm sure somebody will get around to it eventually. Or if you prefer, I could go harass them myself (lol). Clarityfiend 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)



I didn't want to harass my classmates no, I was just confused as to what I did wrong or different! Very interesting....

V.Tech NBC Controversy

I am extremely sensitive to victims families in a tragedy. (I guess it takes one to know one). It's super hard to be on the outside. I remember thinking about the Oklahoma City Bombing tragedy and how, because I was removed, the footage and coverage made me shudder and I was sad for it, but it didn't bother me to know it was on the air. But then once you are on the inside, at least for me, you become super sensitive to anyone mentioning it, even something short in passing, I think, what right do they have? What do they know? And I most definitely don't want to see pictures or videos or anything that would give a visual to my horrible memory.
I'm assuming this is what the victims families felt, and why they canceled their appearance on NBC after NBC decided to air the "mulitmedia manifesto".
The two sides are that, one, showing the footage let the killer re-victimize his targets, on the other hands people are concerned and want to know what caused this, and its a journalistic responsibility to show what drove this.
I personally feel that the footage should not have been aired. I just think it was too much too soon. And as it was brought up in an article, its an unfortuante 15 minutes of fame that perhaps could drive copycat killers to the same thing. It makes me so upset that someone would take the lives of innocent people, if you are going to kill yourself, how selfish is it to take along others, who are just like me and you, with them? Its a serious, heartbreaking issue. I think its unfortunate that the image of the killer saying, you had a hundred billion ways of stopping this.,,, is not one that I needed to be burned into my memory. I think I understood he was not right in the head already...

I just had an interesting discussion at lunch with workmates about this, and one man, sarcastically, acting like a reporter leaned across the table pretending to hold a mic up to another workmates face and said "how did you feel, sitting next to your best friend who was shot three times..."and he went on from there like....how the heck do you think I should feel?
Exactly.

What better way to spend Easter than watching..

Blood Diamond.

another movie about a journalist whose trying to do good?

I don't see anything ethically challenging here.

(excpet her wanting Leo to go off the record in which he responds
"I like to get kissed before I get f...ed"
Thats one way to put it. And her ways of interviewing...dancing with Leo while asking him questions. Interesting technique, though I might have done the same ;)


"You're a reporter, eh? Well piss off"

You know I'm from the OC

So I had the privilidge of interview Adam Brody, who most might know from the television show The OC. I did my homework and read up a bunch about him, and about his new movie In The Land Of Women (the reason I was interviewing)
I found myself thinking about my ethics of interviewing essay when I started writing out my questions!
I know hes in a band and likes good music so my first question was going to be something like...

You have a great taste in music, what bands are you listening to now? Do you get any imput on the soundtract of the movies you work on? Is there any song you are excited about in The Land Of Women?

Then I realized... This is Adam Brody, an attractive 27 year old, actor, and the first words out of my mouth were going to be something..semi flirtatious? Complimenting him to get a good answer. For such a question as meaningless as this, does it necessarily matter?

I also read that he hates it when people tell him they are from the Real OC. I read a past interview where he says that he doesn't mind if theres teenagers going up to him talking to him about the show, but he really hates it when its people his age or older, he said in another interview "its like, you're 30, like I care if you are from the real oc, or how you feel the show is actually different than your OC, I can't think of a more boring conversation"

If I could ask more questions I almost wanted to dive into that, and tell him I was from the real oc and, to me, it matters how its portrayed and my pride of being from there, but I could see how maybe that might be a better discussion for the producers, but hes the one representing it. But I guess he just doesn't really care.

he was, lackluster, meaning that there was no great personality that came through in his interview. He answered the questions and that was that, It seems he couldn't make up his mind on what he wanted to say and I would almost have to piece together his thoughts to make a coherent sentence.

For Example:

What do you like better? Films or television?
"Well I like flims.....I like tele.....Its hard to sa..... I have a better schedule with it."
With....what now? with it meaning.....film? tv?.. Great sound bite.

Anyway. this was my first 'big' interview and I have to say it was definitely nervewracking and once I started hearing his voice I felt better. But all because of that ethics of interviewing essay I find myself questioning my questions and what would be right or wrong to say!

When I was young I always said, "When I grow up I want to be..

Katie Couric

and John and Elizabeth's interview was very interesting! the tough questions that you know the answer is not going to be an easy one. It seems that she handled it very well. it seems that you could see the human in her voice, and while she was asking the tought questions she asked them with heart. It wasn't like it was a Larry King or a Barbara Walters who asks the harder questions, stricktly as a journalist and does so with an expression-less face. I think Katie Couric acted with pose and compassion, and she didnt shy away from the kinds of questions that were too difficult to ask, and she asked the why and the hows. I was impressed by her tone, and her poise, and her questions, and her comments. Now I'll be interested to see any interviews involving the policies and stances of the presidential hopefull!



(and I still do)

Questions for Susan Sward

-How do you feel about journalists going undercover?

-How does it feel to ask the tough questions? How do you go about talking to people who don't want to be talked to? Did you ever feel threatened by anyone? Or feel you couldn't finish a story because you didn't get the interviews you needed?

-How did it feel doing the NYE piece, when one of the players involved is a part of a prominent social family in SF?
-Do you think the story would have been different if the old owners of the chronicle, who were also a socialte family, were still involved?

Comparisons

I decided to give the news a go...because I know that I don't watch it enought blah blah blah.

So It was the end of the 5:00 news, on channel 11.
There were only a few stories I watched by they were all comparisons!

The first story was a part of their "State of our Unions" series. And they talked about diversity in marriages and I thought, going with the times, they'd talk about gay marriages but no they talked about racial diversity in marriages! (I had no idea it was the 60s) anyway, they talked about the percentage of marriages that were interracial in 1970 compared to today. It was like 1.2% compared to todays around 9%. So are we suppose to think thats better because it raised a lot? but still 9% is nowhere near the majority or very high...so what exactly was the point? In 30 years will we finally have news reports on gay marriages? Seems to be a little bit behind the times...but thats my opinion.

The second was on pedestrian deaths (which hit closer to home with recent events), in San Jose and the opening statement was You are more likely to be killed crossing then street then by a burgeler, and later they said, the number of peopel killed crossing the streets is higher than homicide. And I'm like. What does that mean. Does that mean 2 people are killed on the street and 1 by homicide? or 500 on the street and 250 homicide?
Seems skittish.
Turns out in 2006 the number was like 6. So I'd say ...San Jose is relatively safe, although I understand the point and the number should be zero, but it seemed so unneccessarily dramamtic to say, you are more likely to be killed crossing the street then be murdered.

How ethical are comparasions? How ethical is it to say, this more than this and then not give numbers? Or to use comparisons at all? Seems like an easy way out to say that something is important. I just don't like it. feels lazy

Accurate and Fair

After reading about the horrible tragedy of the dean's wife, I was first incredibly shocked and sad. And I thought more about it and i was more sad, and more shocked. I did not want to run out with a camera. I did not want to contact her husband, or her kids or her family or friends. I wanted them to have peace. of course I had thoughts. What were those drivers thinking? Were they students that I know? Other than that, this reaffirmed what I have been thinking for the past year, that I don't think I am meant to be a hard hitting news journalist! i still deeply appreciate journalism and it has been important for me in college, but I don't want to be a reporter. I don't have that passion, I don't have that drive to run out with a pen and paper to the scene to take quotes from those, probably horrible stunned, witnesses.

As for the title that the Ederly women was run down. I do feel that this title was misleading and inaccurate. Perhaps it was written in a rush. But I would hardly call 59 elderly. I'd be careful to call my 70 plus Nana elderly just because of the connotation surrounding it. Do you know shes not active? not full of life. 59 I think is not elderly. The older I get the more I realize what age is actually is. thirty...is not old, fourty hardly is...59? you are not considered a senior at some places at 59. anyway..
Also run down. That is not the truth. Because of an accident she was struck. An accident involving two cars and she was an innocent bystander. She was not purposely run down by a driver aiming to harm her. This title is misleading and sounds a bit sensational. Who knew that a blogger, just getting what he felt an important story out, would undergo such criticism. (maybe bloggers are journalists after all? if they aren't, would this little blog have made such a big splash?)

In a journalistic sense, I think that it is ethical to ask for interviews with the deceased family and friends. I think there is a polite way of going about it (after reading the packet Robertson gave us on how to interview people of a tragedy, how to offer your condolences, and how to appropriately phrase questions) But I think I would have trouble with this, (hence the reason I have decided not to become that kind of journalist) I tend to cry at even sentimental commercials, I dont know how I could go through an interview with a rape victim or someone who has suffered a loss or a tragedy without crying. Is that ethical? Is that not being a fair and unbiased reporter?
I feel that tragedy is something that is bound to happen. And is most likely going to make Page 1. So it is very important, no matter your time rush, to present a fair and accurate title and story. What else to people have if they don't have the truth? (and without it, what kind of credibility do you have?) This is all a lot to ponder.

Hyperlink

How do you hyperlink within a post? so when I reference an article you can click on it and find it? when i do www. it doesnt work! What is the trick?
Thanks!

Blogs in my future...

I have discovered that blogging is not going to end once I post my final topic for this class on that glorious day in May.

The magazine I work for launched it's website in September and has been growing ever since. It's actually kind of cool if you are interested in learning more about the city.

www.7x7sf.com

Already they have incorportated blogs into the website. There is an Eat+Drink blog, with bloggers including the food editor, and a contributing wine expert. The latest blog talks about the food editors trip to Costco! It has many pictures and gives the inside tibits on restaurants in the city, one recent blog also even talked about food books.
A nightlife blog which does reviews of different concerts,t he most recent from Mickey Avalon from Thursday night. There are also many photos that are done by (thanks to the fact that we bought SPIN magazine last yaer) Misha Vladimirskiy whose photos are seen spread over all music magazines (and I think take a new approach to music photography, and are pretty cool to look at)
And a Social Studies blog that are done by contributing writers. Drew Altzier (known in SF to be THE photographer to the socialites and social scene) which shows his pictures of different events, galas,...gatherings of people who are (which is funny to me) considered the SF socialites. And Hooman (Alice radio personality) has a blog about movies, fashion week...entertainment in general.

What is funny about this is that, after I graduate working in marketing will become my fulltime job (hurray!!! at least thats one less thing to stress about) and also they are allowing me to go to Europe for a month, which I have already completely booked flights and hotels for a month (yay!) but my boss thought this would be a good idea for a blog...
Where in the World is Whitney
And pose with 7x7 at different famous monuments, do a blog about fun finds and the things I have seen.
....and I thought I was getting a vacation.

(I know this isn't journalism related to ethics...but thought it was a fun and funny story!)

Oh Barry Bonds

It seems that most of the news stories I read (or remember reading..or care about reading) has to do something with scandal. Oh muckraking.

What I found interesting about the Barry Bonds article is thinking... How do you write something ethically that is centered around something else that is ethically debated? I dont feel like I said that very eloquently...but Ill try to explain.

Last year in my ethic's class, as part of the CORE for school,our final group project was 'Enhancement' and we could pick a subtopic. One of the boys in my group, who is a USF baseball player chose Steroids. He had a very convincing argument that he was okay with steroids. That enhancement is all around, from Botox to diet pills, it was a part of modernization. And also...major league baseball takes a lot of skill and hard work and its not like a normal person is going to hit a pitch from a major league pitcher if they are on steroids or not. He was basically justifying the fact that major league baseball players taking steroids, isn't a big deal. That taking them isn't an ethical issue. Because whether or not you take steriods, if you aren't at that level to begin with you aren't going to be able to hit a major league pitch.

This is very interesting
So if he were the journalist writing the story on Bonds as he approaches the homerun record, he would not talk about how it would be tainted due to steriod use. but if there were a writer who had strong opinions that the ethics of steriods are extremely wrong, then the story will be centered about that. It was like in the reading where we see that journalists bring their own opinions and ideas to a story and from that will emphasis certain parts, discount otheres and even completely ignore some.
So the Chronicle does have a fine line to walk. whether they are going to go back on their stories from the past, or how they will approach the ones in the future.
It makes you think about each article that is written. What the authors personal ethics are behind the story. Although all stories are suppose to be fair and balanced, there most likely is some other story behind it, the authors own ideals and ethics.

What do you think?

Is it right to add your boss as your friend on myspace?

Bloggers

I find it pretty funny that I have a blog. To be honest I always thought they were sort of cheezy, like diaries, or things you wish you could tell people but don't, but put it on the internet because you know that they can read it.

I think the debate of whether bloggers are journalists is a very very interesting one. I haven't taken any digital journalism classes, only good old fashion paper ones, so I feel like my knowledge isn't as wide as others. I'm not really sure where this blog is going but here it goes...

So if I am writing this blog and it is published online, does that mean that I'm a journalist? can I put my blog on my resume? Will employers actually care that I do have a blog? Maybe one day in the future when kids my age are running things, but maybe not now? Or maybe I underestimate people who are older (than me) ..handle of the internet. I think I receive more Emails from Robertson than anyone in my whole life (do email from your phone to and from wherever you are going? whenever I check my email I'm always happy to get something of substance, and 9 times out of 10 its from robertson!) Will employers ask for a blog? I don't even know what I'd list it under on my resume. Activities? blogging?

What this brings me to is Celebrity Blogging. Often times Perez Hilton has the scoop way before Us Weekly or Star or People can print it. And, the majority of the time its very true. The reason I thought of this is when I signed onto my email, the first story up was about how Britney Spears checked into rehab and out again in 24 hours (poor girl) And I went directly to Perez because I knew he would have more of the dirt on it. Although he does use a great deal of opinion, he coins celebrities. Britney is the hard pAArtying mother of two. And he does feel bad for Sh**ney and doesn't even wish her well. Harsh! But he did have the information on where and when all these happened, more information than my email news gave me. He also was pointed out in Outing out Lance Bass. I was definitely into Perez Hilton when I was studying abroad last year, because I didn't have those magazines to flip through in a salon or checkout at the grocery store. So I looked daily at what was going on in LA...who was dating who, who got divorced, who flashed what where. But he called Lance Bass "Princess frosty locks" and posted pictures of him and his boyfriend Reichen all over the place, including a picture taken in SF during Pride week. Lance hadn't come out to the media or most of his friends yet. But Lance did say that Perez put pressure on him to come out. When he finally did and it was all over the media I felt like. Yah..so what...I knew that like months ago. So my debate is whether Perez (or bloggers similar to him, like Trent from pinkisthenewblog.com, can be considered a journalist or not. He doesn't get direct quotes from celebrities, he uses them from other sources. (usually providing a hyperlink to that article) he uses pictures from other places. His sources some of the time are anyomous (it is said he does this because he is actually friends with celebrities. he can be seen partying with Paris Hilton and others... so its possible quotes and inside information are with his famous connections that don't want to seem like a rat)
What gives him the right to use other peoples pictures and quotes. is it because it is the internet? Is he more credible because he can get insider information and post it a lot faster than a magazine can print? He also isn't afraid to make mistakes, he will post something right away without waiting for confirmed details or an exclusive quote. Can he do all this because hes not a journalist? And its like another blog except for mine has had maybe 30 hits while his gets millions by the day? Does popularity factor into that?
I think this would be a great class discussion.



www.perezhilton.com
www.trent.blogspot.com
www.postsecret.blogspot.com (my personal fav)

my job won't pay me less than 30,000 or I'm bouncing

...but maybe thats because I'm doing the business side of media?

anyway. this week I have been thinking a lot about interviewing, and paying attention to news and interviewing techniques etc.. I think the one reason that I have felt that I will not end up being a journalist is because I don't have the same passion and drive as other people around me. I don't want to have a 'lead' and chase it, unless maybe its something very near and dear to my hear, but I honestly don't see that happening.

All this talk about interviews made me think of why I don't want to be a journalist. I'm not very good at asking questions unless I have prethought them out and they are written down in front of me. If the interviewee goes off topic I tend to get nervous. I'm not really into asking the hard hitting questions. I'd be too nervous. Also when I'm interviewing I feel like I dont have a place to pretend like I know what I am talking about, unless it is on a topic I know well .I know interviewing is done so you can learn more about the person or the thing that they are talking about, but I still feel like I'm not of authority to be asking those kinds of questions.
All these thoughts for some very strange reason kept making me think of Michael Moore. I haven't seen his documentaries in a couple years, but his interviewing techniques have stuck in my brain. From ..what it seems like..rushing politicians on the street to ask questions, usually uncomfortable one. Or his interview during Bowling for Columbine, when he interviewed I think it was the unibombers brother. How could he sit there and act like everything this crazy man was saying was okay? Also, he went to Charleton Heston's house, under the pretense of seeming like he was a fan and then starts turning the tables and bombarding him with questions on is involvement with the NRA and some of his insensitive appearances. This only bothered me because of the false pretense he had, in order to make Charleton Heston meet with him and also....the man is old, and I'm pretty sure senile. I heard later that he didn't really remember a lot of that stuff, and isnt exactly lucid, so it seemed mean to go to this man's house and ask him these kinds of questions with him thinking you were on his side. Is it write to do that kind of thing to get an interview? Is there no line drawn? Would most other journalists consider this a good thing? That he is making progress or is he just being abrasive?

Oh Gavin

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/01/MNGM8NSSD91.DTL

After arriving at work and hearing the buzz about the scandal of Newsom. (who he and alex are both friends of the magazine, Newsom I have met twice, Alex and his wife a few times). I wasn't so shocked per say..but it is sad it involved a close friend of his and that he (alex) stepped down.)
I feel that this is a great show of how the media can be a watchdog of our society. Journalism at its best.
When I got home I watched Kron4, and they were interviewing people on the street at how they felt about this. If their feelings towards Newsom had changed or how they viewed the situation. There were several people interviewed. All said that, this was private and didn't change their opinion of how Newsom handles himself in office. Only one girl said it changed her personal opinion of Newsom himself but doesn't feel it changes how he is as a Mayor. A couple men said they'd rather focus on the city and helping the city. One older woman stated that he was a lot better than Feinstien who 'beautified herself instead of the city'.
A question I have is, is it ethical for a TV station to put several q and a's from the street, all of which who had the same opinion? (that it didn't change their opinion of him as mayor, that he shouldn't step down etc etc). Besides being a watchdog, the media also has a duty to provide fair and balanced information. yes if everyone feels that way then thats the way to report, but I have a hard time thinking thats everyones opinion) I guess this is hard to decide without all the facts. Perhaps no one felt that this was a disgrace or that he should step down or not run for re-election.

I switched to another station and found James Carville, and a Republican advisor (whose name I forget) give their opinions on the matter. They both don't think it will end his career, but James Carville thinks he wouldn't be able to run for a national office anytime soon and the Republican advisor felt that he could never run for national office.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the media and what happens within our city hall. And to see if all information or opinions will be one sided or if the next time I turn on the channel there will be interviews where they are differences of opinion and everyone is represented. (Is kron4 known to be a gavin supporter? or be more liberal than conservative? dare I say democratic than republican?)

Working Ethics

Having a 'real' job, while in school has good and bad qualities. Bad, because I am expected to do the same job as someone who didn't have class to go to, and homework to do. But good for obvious other reasons. I also feel that being at a 'real' job while being in a class such as Journalism Ethics, I scruntize what I am doing a lot more than the people I work with.

Working in a city magazine has its good aspects. I feel like I know a lot more about the city, and the people in it. Working for marketing I don't do as much writing as the people in editorial, but it is small and theres always overlapping. Marketing is in charge of writing the blurbs that appear in the 'social studies' section, where there are write ups about past events and I am also in charge of a lot of the reviews and writings on the website, including the events postings.

The problem I have, an ethical question, is...is it okay for me to write stories about parites that I didn't attend? And to talk about the people there that I have never met? Tell people to go to an event, especially one they will be spending money one, that I didn't go to and really have no personal knowledge of. To choose one restaurant over another because I've heard from a friend its good, or it appeals more to my tastes, or their website was prettier than the other or more comprehensive, or easy to navigate, when I haven't been to either restaurant. To promote one restaurant or business over another because they advertise with us? To put their name first on the search engine of looking up places to go and not putting up another one. To not list events on our website that are sponsered by San Francisco magazine (our competitor), though it may be for a great charity.
I suppose this isn't one story, or something I saw this week, but has been questions on my mind of where do I draw the line. Is it ethical for me to be doing what I do now? Should I set up standards of how I conduct business or is it really that big of a deal?

Lists

I am lost without my list of things to do. Not only do I love making them, and (even better) crossing them out, I am now dependent on them. I carry an agenda and a mini notebook full of lists, to remind me where I need to be and what I need to do. Writing and commenting on blogs have both been permamently added to my list of Things to Do.