Blogging

I just read an article on Poynter.org about live blogging. In class, we've had many discussions on whether a journalist should blog on their story or not. This article said that it makes journalists' better storytellers. They do live blogging during an event to keep readers updated, or they will write a story that wasn't particularly important enough for their AP stories. There was one example of a journalist simply writing about a baseball coach going to pick up a hot dog and peanuts at a concession stand, and afterwards posing for photographs. This isn't a story that would be noteworthy for an AP story, but it adds a little extra touch, so he blogged about it. There were a few downsides from story also. One of those is that liveblogging can distract the journalist from the actual event, and maybe even miss something important. I think journalists should be able to blog, as long as it isn't getting in the way of their professional work. Everyone should have the right to do it, but journlists need to know when they should stop.

I'm blogging this week on Chelsea Clintons answer to a school journalist. At Butler University in Indiana, Chelsea was asked if her mothers credibility was affected after the Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Chelsea's remark was:

''Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business."


It kind of makes me laugh because Butler must be the only college in those 70 colleges that has a good Journalism Department. The journalist did a good job in trying to get the controversial side of politics. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know her real answer to the question.

Chelsea has stated before that people should not vote for Hillary just because of her father, but I think that it absolutely comes with the territory. I think Chelsea should have answered the question that was asked because for one, it would have given her mother a lot of publicity, and for two, people want to know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAO6bZa31o

I saw an article on poynter.org today that was talking about how journalists need to be taught a lot differently than they used to. It's not just about a notebook and a pen anymore, it's about all of the software programs that keep coming out. Journalists need to be taught about Blogger, Dreamweaver, and Flash. Blogger (what I'm obviously doing now) lets journalists use the website to type down their thoughts, stories, etc. Dreamweaver is a program that helps design websites, and Flash is the program that a lot of people use to create animation and interactive stuff on websites.

This makes me think about the journalists that have been around forever. They are kind of being pushed under the covers with all of the young, educated, Internet-savy journalists today. But, I also believe that not every student just out of college has as much experience with these programs as employers would like. For an example, I'm a junior and I've never used Dreamweaver, or Flash. I'm efficient with anything associated with Microsoft Office, and ok with Photoshop, but there are so many programs that I've never heard of, let alone be efficient in all of them. This might also prove my point in why I don't want to be a journalist, but it's almost impossible to learn all of these programs.

Journalism programs today need to try to make an emphasis on all of these new programs coming out, and keep up to date. If a journalist wants to be educated in the field, they are going to have to go above and beyond the pen and paper.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=138410

Facebook Groups

You can now get all then news you want on Facebook. You can become a fan of organizations like The New York Times and even Poynter.org! This is a very smart technique of all of these big news companies that are trying to get the attention of the younger demographic. I'm sure this was a long process that they had, but I'm sure they took into consideration that:

1) Almost every college student has Facebook.

2) Almost every college student checks their Facebook once, twice, multiple times a day.

3) It's like hitting up two websites in one.

This is also a good way to get breaking news out to Facebook users. I also think this is a good way to get older people (out of college) to keep joining Facebook. It's not just a social website anymore, it's becoming a news website like no other.

I checked out The New York Times fan website on Facebook, and it's actually pretty cool. They have links to the actual NYTimes.com, which has the full story, not just the short one. There are videos, quizes, and a wall to post comments. While I was snooping on the "wall", I noticed that The New York Times Facebook group is worldwide. There was a comment from someone in England saying that he checks the NYT Facebook group everyday. It's so cool how a Facebook Organization/Group can reach so many people!

http://www.facebook.com/nytimes?ref=mf

I've been watching the news about New York Governor Spitzer being under fire for being involved with a prostitution ring. After a couple of days, he and his family decided that he should resign. He has paid up to $80,000 to this girl over the course of a few years. Everything about this story has been all over the internet and in the newspapers.

Just today, I was reading an article about "Kristin", the prostitute, being upset about all of the pictures that have been in the tabloids, newspapers, online, etc. They are going to try to put together a case due to it being a violation of federal law to post these photos. So they say. I'm not up to date on all of the laws, but I wasn't aware that you had to have permission from the person to post the pictures. She had most of these available on Myspace, so isn't that enough? She had them online herself, isn't that permission?

Just an end note, she must have been making a lot of money out of this whole ordeal with the Governor. In one of the photos she was on a really nice boat, and if I remember right, those aren't very cheap. All I have to say is that she's going to be one of the most requested prostitutes for the next few months, or even years, now that her name has been put out worldwide.

Favre in the newsroom?

There was an interesting article on Poynter.org this week about the retirement of Brett Favre. The writer related Favre's on the field ethic to something related in the newsroom. This was a pretty cool approach that was made.

The first approach that the writer made was that Favre loved his job. If you love your job, you're going to want to come to work everyday and do a good job at it. The second point, "leave it all on the field," If you give it all at work, and not have to carry it all home with you, the workers are, once again, likely to do a better job (although, I think this probably wouldn't work as well with journalism due to them always having their eye out on news). Another point I found interesting was to take risks. If you're fearing that you're leaving some juicy information out of the story, it's likely not a very good one. Take the chances.

The best point yet, he consulted with his coaches and gave them credit. If the workers would listen to the editors, the editors are more than likely to give more credit where it's owed. All of the points made in the article are pretty interesting, and are worth reading. The writer made 11 different points and related football back to journalism very well.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=139070

CNN starts iReport.com

CNN has unveiled a new website titled iReport.com. It is like Youtube.com, but it's a news version. CNN has received nearly 100,000 submissions, and airs around 10% of those on T.V. But, before they air these user generated videos, they do extensive research to validate them. This is a good way to get their viewers engaged and not just entertained (and maybe both).

This was a very smart move on CNNs part. With all the popularity of Youtube.com and Break.com, it just makes sense that a news channel would created a user generated website, letting the user take control. But, it isn't like Wikipedia...every post gets viewed by CNN to make sure the information is correct. They are letting the users decide what is newsworthy, and what is not.

But, this idea of letting the user decide what is newsworthy and what is not is a really risky idea also. This idea is coming from "the most trusted name in news." So, when something very controversial is posted and maybe doesn't have all of the right facts, CNN may take some harsh ratings if they aren't careful.

http://www.ireport.com/

Shooting Coverage

There has been so much coverage on the shootings at Northern Illinois University since February 14th, when it happened. Six people were killed. Five of them were students, and the shooter killed himself after the hideous act he put forward. There are a couple of things that I just don't get. I don't get how someone could create an act so destructive and get joy out of it. Second, I don't get why there is SOOO much coverage over it.

I think that because of the media coverage over the shootings, people with mental problems are thinking "hey, I'm depressed too, maybe I could get some attention just like he (the shooter) did." These students had so much going for them, and that's worth talking about, but with all the coverage over the shooter and how he had stopped taking his medicine, and was a 'normal person' is too much coverage. Talk about the students, not the shooter. Don't give praise to someone for shooting five students and call him NORMAL. That is anything but NORMAL. Last week when I was watching the news, there were two threats in two different high schools, in the same day. This was just following the NIU shootings.

I looked on the New York Times website, and there were 11 articles over this incident by the 15th, just the day after it had happened. Now, I'm not saying that it's not newsworthy- because I completely think it is, but, I'm maybe proposing that doesn't get as much coverage. I think it's worth trying, for the sake of students across the country.

NYT ventures online

As more and more people use the internet on a daily/hourly basis, NYT has decided to provide online subscriptions. This is not only a great idea on their part, but an even better idea was yet to come. They are offering 18 different versions of it online to appeal to the user. So, a 20 year old college student in Iowa would probably receive a different version than that of a 55 year old exec. in New York City.

The idea is probably even saving NYT money in the long run due to the paper, print, energy not being used. A yearly subscription for the online version runs at $169. A printed yearly subscription is a rediculous amount of $665.60. The obvious choice for me would be to buy the $169 subscription, but, I would actually try to find a different article on the same topic on a different website....FOR FREE!

I do have to admit that this is a very good move for the NYT and they are likely to get more subscribers than before at a lower cost to them. Now, they need to figure out how to lure users in to actually purchase a subscription online.

Ethical?

An article was recently published in the Somerville Journal covering the Naked Run at Tufts University. The article, 2 photos, and 1 video was published online soon after. This article received over 100 comments the first day. Many of the bloggers demanded the photos and the video to be removed as soon as possible.

I guess this is a tradition that happens every year. But, that's besides the point. Although it had never been reported on before, it was on public property and it should be eligible to be fairly reported on. This weird act, that happens late at night, was indeed a public act that hundreds of naked runners participate in.

I can see where there is unethical issues that pertain to this story, like video recording hundreds of people running naked. So, perhaps the photos and the video shouldn't have been published online, viewable to the whole world without permission. I know I wouldn't be too thrilled if I saw a picture of me participating in this event...But, this was a public event and it was newsworthy.

Whole or Disabled?

While I was searching around poynter.org, I came across an interesting article about Kevin Everett, who is a tight end for the Buffalo Bills. He was injured this past season in a game against the Denver Broncos, but it wasn't just a normal injury where they thought he'd come back in the next game, he had a cervical spine injury and they didn't know if he would ever walk again. It turns out, he received experimental technology that cooled his body so it would limit the complications before he went into surgery. Bills fans were happy to hear that Everett came out of surgery and was moving his hands and arms within days.


But, that's not the real issue. The media had a frenzy and created headlines like these: "fallen hero suffering the ultimate tragedy" and "waging an inspirational fight for his life." Like the article pointed out, it's like they are saying that his life is done, like he's dead. Just because he had the chance that he could never walk again, doesn't mean he was dead...he could possibly just never play football again.


Instead, the media needed to be creating articles on how thankful he was that he has the chance to walk again. They need to focus on what he WILL be able to do again and not what he MIGHT not be able to ever do again. There are a lot of possiblities of him being able to play wheelchair football or talk to young inspiring athletes. He can inspire kids, in a wheelchair or not.


But, does that ever make the news?...

This is the link to the article if you'd like to view it: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=58&aid=134759

test blog.