-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?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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
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
Sunday, March 4, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 2, 2007
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!
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
