I had my editor review meeting thingy with Scott this week, We had a nice chat, which I later felt bad about because it didn't feel like I got anything done with this Nader story. Theoretically there are still supporters in Columbia. None of them want to return my calls, though. I did get to talk to two political science professors, both of which said that Nader would be mostly irrelevant in this year's presidential election. I'm shocked. Shocked!
I'm pleased to report that the very large video project we are doing for the upcoming school board and city council elections is coming along very nicely. We have almost all of the candidates assigned to reporters, and everyone who is a little shaky or just feels that way will have a convergence editor go along with them to help out, but mostly be there to answer questions. Hopefully this will be a great way for more people to be comfortable with the video camera. When I interviewed with Gannett a couple of weeks ago, the news director from the Springfield paper definitely stressed how important doing video was, and how they were teaching everyone in the newsroom to do multimedia work.
Our web shell meeting today went pretty well. The other members in my group came up with a pretty good idea for posting story ideas in certain categories and listing them and sources on Blackboard in time for next Wednesday's class. I am a little worried about splitting my time between Public Life and the shell... I guess we'll find out Wednesday how that's going to go.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Questions?
Last week was somewhat rough for me because I felt like I was putting time into the Missourian that wasn't being honored. I wrote a blog about it and was asked what I learned.
I don't know.
This week I've had some similar problems with mis-communication.
I worked with a reporter on a story and she didn't use any of my information, I went and covered an event where no one showed up and AFTER I wrote the story was informed that it wouldn't be printed - I'm getting frustrated.
So, maybe the lesson is that I need to be better at communicating with those in the newsroom. I know that I need to be better about keeping in touch with my editors, and I've tried. It just seems like I'm still missing something.
I've been a reporter for six years now, and I've never had this much difficulty. I don't know if my uncertainty about pursuing journalism further is finally seeping it's way into my reporting, if I've outgrown the Missourian (which I doubt because some really great things are happening here), or if my attitude about slipping in and slipping out has finally caught up with me.
I really hope this shells project brings a little excitement for the craft back to me. I just don't believe I made it this far to give up, or start over, now.
I don't know.
This week I've had some similar problems with mis-communication.
I worked with a reporter on a story and she didn't use any of my information, I went and covered an event where no one showed up and AFTER I wrote the story was informed that it wouldn't be printed - I'm getting frustrated.
So, maybe the lesson is that I need to be better at communicating with those in the newsroom. I know that I need to be better about keeping in touch with my editors, and I've tried. It just seems like I'm still missing something.
I've been a reporter for six years now, and I've never had this much difficulty. I don't know if my uncertainty about pursuing journalism further is finally seeping it's way into my reporting, if I've outgrown the Missourian (which I doubt because some really great things are happening here), or if my attitude about slipping in and slipping out has finally caught up with me.
I really hope this shells project brings a little excitement for the craft back to me. I just don't believe I made it this far to give up, or start over, now.
What Am I Doing?
Over lunch yesterday, I talked with one of the K-12 girls about this redaction business.
(School officials "redacted" some information posted on the district website, except whoops, it was electronically done, so it didn't actually work, the information was visable. Not that the information was particularly sensitive — I would call it inconsequential)
Cue the crisis telephone calls and panicked administrator emails. Over on the Tribune's blog, commenters are fuming. I have to file a Sunshine Law request for school district budgets over 10 years old.
This is ridiculous. There is a group of about 25 people in a shouting match and Columbia newspapers seem to be facilitating it. We don't even have to publish an article anymore; a phone call, information request, or rumor of what information we may or may not have is enough.
But of course there is little to nothing that is actually scandal-worthy.
"They think they have these skeletons, but there's not even a closet," is how the other reporter put it.
I think there are questionable things that the district is doing that decision-makers should be held responsible for, but that there is also a lot of mountain-making of molehills.
And now there are these blogs.
The one at the Tribune's been getting more opinionated. Snarky, even. And the reporter is definitely catering to the commenters. I would say that we've kept the tone of the SchoolHouseBlog more... careful/detailed/safe/thoughtful. As a result, comments are nonexistent.
So should we take a page from our competitor's book?
No. No. No. No. No.
Though I have been tempted. The temptation to be petty and vindictive is always there. But it's just that — pettyness. And, as funny as it sounds, "the blog is forever," as the other reporter said. What we write there is just as much a reflection of us and our newspaper as what we put into print.
I think that our obligation to the truth applies to more than just the facts. It also applies to the tone of our coverage in print and everywhere else. Sensationalism of an issue, even if the administrators are playing Pretend Big Brother, is inaccurate. How does that serve the reader? I think that for reporters to point to administrator paranoia constantly is like mentioning that Arch Brooks stole a turkey every time his name comes up.
Yes, it happened. Yes, it's strange, but repeating it gives it more weight than it deserves.
If we want to give this administrator paranoia the thought it deserves, we need to write an article to put these actions into context for the reader.
There was a survey. People answered it honestly. Some of them think that there are certain employees and technology that the district doesn't need. End story.
Progress report:
Met with Reuben and Joy to talk about this upcoming Saturday story about the school levy. My discussion with Reuben totally obliterated my print blinders.
"Figure out what information you have, and then how best how to show that to the reader."
I don't know, for some reason that sentence just made everything click for me. I spent some time drawing out what the Saturday story could look like, and I ended up with a very non-narrative way design.
I'm really excited about all of this. By using visuals, I can take all this information I have and lay it out for the reader, so he can get quickly to exactly what he needs, without wading through 30 inches of text first.
I'm also feeling overwhelmed. All of these things are happening so fast, and I can see all these different ways of looking at this issue, but there just isn't time for me to write 25 inches on each micro issue.
I don't think things are any different; I'm pretty sure this is just what happens when you get a better understanding of the news you're covering
(School officials "redacted" some information posted on the district website, except whoops, it was electronically done, so it didn't actually work, the information was visable. Not that the information was particularly sensitive — I would call it inconsequential)
Cue the crisis telephone calls and panicked administrator emails. Over on the Tribune's blog, commenters are fuming. I have to file a Sunshine Law request for school district budgets over 10 years old.
This is ridiculous. There is a group of about 25 people in a shouting match and Columbia newspapers seem to be facilitating it. We don't even have to publish an article anymore; a phone call, information request, or rumor of what information we may or may not have is enough.
But of course there is little to nothing that is actually scandal-worthy.
"They think they have these skeletons, but there's not even a closet," is how the other reporter put it.
I think there are questionable things that the district is doing that decision-makers should be held responsible for, but that there is also a lot of mountain-making of molehills.
And now there are these blogs.
The one at the Tribune's been getting more opinionated. Snarky, even. And the reporter is definitely catering to the commenters. I would say that we've kept the tone of the SchoolHouseBlog more... careful/detailed/safe/thoughtful. As a result, comments are nonexistent.
So should we take a page from our competitor's book?
No. No. No. No. No.
Though I have been tempted. The temptation to be petty and vindictive is always there. But it's just that — pettyness. And, as funny as it sounds, "the blog is forever," as the other reporter said. What we write there is just as much a reflection of us and our newspaper as what we put into print.
I think that our obligation to the truth applies to more than just the facts. It also applies to the tone of our coverage in print and everywhere else. Sensationalism of an issue, even if the administrators are playing Pretend Big Brother, is inaccurate. How does that serve the reader? I think that for reporters to point to administrator paranoia constantly is like mentioning that Arch Brooks stole a turkey every time his name comes up.
Yes, it happened. Yes, it's strange, but repeating it gives it more weight than it deserves.
If we want to give this administrator paranoia the thought it deserves, we need to write an article to put these actions into context for the reader.
There was a survey. People answered it honestly. Some of them think that there are certain employees and technology that the district doesn't need. End story.
Progress report:
Met with Reuben and Joy to talk about this upcoming Saturday story about the school levy. My discussion with Reuben totally obliterated my print blinders.
"Figure out what information you have, and then how best how to show that to the reader."
I don't know, for some reason that sentence just made everything click for me. I spent some time drawing out what the Saturday story could look like, and I ended up with a very non-narrative way design.
I'm really excited about all of this. By using visuals, I can take all this information I have and lay it out for the reader, so he can get quickly to exactly what he needs, without wading through 30 inches of text first.
I'm also feeling overwhelmed. All of these things are happening so fast, and I can see all these different ways of looking at this issue, but there just isn't time for me to write 25 inches on each micro issue.
I don't think things are any different; I'm pretty sure this is just what happens when you get a better understanding of the news you're covering
Thursday, February 28, 2008
And So It Begins
I knew heading in to this semester that I might not escape with my sanity. School and three days a week at Applebees is challenge enough, but throw in the fact that the baseball plays three games a day in the month of March (only a mild exaggeration, really), and I will likely be "working" 70 hours a week. Disgusting, huh? The fact that some of those hours will be spent watching baseball provides me my only solace.
Anyway, enough whining. I actually wrote a story this week (as well as four recaps) about the baseball team, and it has gotten me fairly excited. One of my biggest problems has always been just getting started, and now that that is out of the way, I think I can get some good work done here. The problem, of course, will be getting my schedule to mesh with the equally busy schedule of the baseball players so that I can pump out some features. I am hopeful, at least.
As far as how the shells are going, the biggest problem seems to be getting teamwork out of a group that, between all its members, has about five minutes a week to spare. I think our direction is good, and I think we have the opportunity to put together a really solid product, it may all come down to how well we can all come together.
Progress Report
-------------
I'm just now getting in to the swing of my beat, so it's hard to announce progress, but I do think my team is coming along on the public safety shell. We have a million ideas, we just need to sort them out, condense, and get cracking. The vision that some of my teammates possess astounds me, and I look forward to drawing off of the way they think.
As far as the article I wrote, I think it was a pretty good one, but I hope to do things far differently the rest of the season. I'd like to pump out as many interesting player/coach profiles as I can, and I think I can do it, provided some access. But we're working on that...
Anyway, enough whining. I actually wrote a story this week (as well as four recaps) about the baseball team, and it has gotten me fairly excited. One of my biggest problems has always been just getting started, and now that that is out of the way, I think I can get some good work done here. The problem, of course, will be getting my schedule to mesh with the equally busy schedule of the baseball players so that I can pump out some features. I am hopeful, at least.
As far as how the shells are going, the biggest problem seems to be getting teamwork out of a group that, between all its members, has about five minutes a week to spare. I think our direction is good, and I think we have the opportunity to put together a really solid product, it may all come down to how well we can all come together.
Progress Report
-------------
I'm just now getting in to the swing of my beat, so it's hard to announce progress, but I do think my team is coming along on the public safety shell. We have a million ideas, we just need to sort them out, condense, and get cracking. The vision that some of my teammates possess astounds me, and I look forward to drawing off of the way they think.
As far as the article I wrote, I think it was a pretty good one, but I hope to do things far differently the rest of the season. I'd like to pump out as many interesting player/coach profiles as I can, and I think I can do it, provided some access. But we're working on that...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Steak to Stake
At about 3 a.m. Saturday, I finished the rough draft of a story that microcosmically embodies the number one obstacle I think I’ll always face as a journalist: it takes me forever to “find the steak.” It’s a term Liz uses, and Audrey’s used it on this blog before.
Basically, you look at a field from which you draw a story like it’s a cow, and the task is to cut away the fat, bones, hide, whatever, and come up with a nice, lean cut of meat…uhr, story.
Journalism is fundamentally challenging for me. I’m not a reporter by nature. I’m a gatherer, and I’m a storyteller, but I’ve never been very good at picking an angle and sticking to it. If you turn me loose with a topic, I’ll come back with a novel’s worth of information and no clue what’s actually most important. Ask me how my day was, and I’m likely to give you a full, start-to-finish report. I’m like a Native American with a buffalo — I’m not just interested in a nice, juicy steak. I want to use everything. Even the spleen. (Do buffalo have spleens?)
So when I was turned loose on a story after I suggested an incredibly nebulous idea — “Hey, there’s an exhibit on pre-Columbian artifacts at the museum, so I want to do something on Missouri’s prehistory” — it could’ve been a recipe for disaster, and for a while, it was. I fumbled and stuttered, rambled and ran myself around in circles, casting a net here and there until I was completely tangled up.
I’d talked to all my sources about possible approaches and angles, and I started to wonder if the story was worth pursuing. In my gut, I knew there was something there. I knew that buried within my stack of notes — a collection thick enough to incite envy in an anthropology student looking for an easy way out of a thesis paper — there had to be a great story. Something smooth. Something simple. A yarn.
Then, about a week ago, the light bulb in my head didn’t just click on, it exploded: If I wanted to find the steak, I had to start with a stake…or at least a stakeholder.. With a story about a historical topic, I’d need a timely, real world connection with an actual human being who could breathe life into the past. I needed a character people could follow.
Screaming from the pages of my notes was a man named Ray Wood. He still works on campus. He’s an engaging guy. And if I’d been smart enough to see where the news in my story was from the very beginning, I’d have called him right away…because he was the guy who discovered the Fairfield Gorget — a key component of the museum’s exhibit and arguably the coolest thing anyone’s ever dug up in the state.
So, at about 11 a.m. Friday, I started writing. In a little more than 12 hours, I had a damn good story, and I only kind of killed myself finding it.
In my meandering and, I think, successful search for an angle, I learned an important lesson that will hopefully help keep me grounded when I’m given big projects in the future. When in doubt, think about the people who make a story tick. Because where there’s a soul, there’s a story.
Progress Report:
Finished a 70-inch rough draft for the Saturday cover some time in mid-April, organized a photo session and met with the graphics team. I also did accuracy checks. I’ve said this before, but man: 90% of my advanced reporting experience is stuff that goes on behind the scenes…the kind of stuff that makes the news process run a great deal more smoothly but never shows up with column inches and a byline.
For our shells project, I’ve taken a leadership role along with Matt, since we’re both type-A-ish and like firm outlines and specific delegation. Our group met a couple times this week, and we’re just about ready to dole out assignments and start reporting. We’re definitely on track.
Back to the paper, I’m getting started on two pieces for dailies: one offering a status update on the Missouri Theatre, and another about Tim Page, a music critic with an interesting form of autism who’ll be on campus in a few weeks. After that, Liz and I think it’s time to get started on another Saturday cover…now, I just need to find another really fantastic topic to take a bite out of. Maybe this time, I’ll be able to recognize the soul of the story a little earlier in the reporting process.
Basically, you look at a field from which you draw a story like it’s a cow, and the task is to cut away the fat, bones, hide, whatever, and come up with a nice, lean cut of meat…uhr, story.
Journalism is fundamentally challenging for me. I’m not a reporter by nature. I’m a gatherer, and I’m a storyteller, but I’ve never been very good at picking an angle and sticking to it. If you turn me loose with a topic, I’ll come back with a novel’s worth of information and no clue what’s actually most important. Ask me how my day was, and I’m likely to give you a full, start-to-finish report. I’m like a Native American with a buffalo — I’m not just interested in a nice, juicy steak. I want to use everything. Even the spleen. (Do buffalo have spleens?)
So when I was turned loose on a story after I suggested an incredibly nebulous idea — “Hey, there’s an exhibit on pre-Columbian artifacts at the museum, so I want to do something on Missouri’s prehistory” — it could’ve been a recipe for disaster, and for a while, it was. I fumbled and stuttered, rambled and ran myself around in circles, casting a net here and there until I was completely tangled up.
I’d talked to all my sources about possible approaches and angles, and I started to wonder if the story was worth pursuing. In my gut, I knew there was something there. I knew that buried within my stack of notes — a collection thick enough to incite envy in an anthropology student looking for an easy way out of a thesis paper — there had to be a great story. Something smooth. Something simple. A yarn.
Then, about a week ago, the light bulb in my head didn’t just click on, it exploded: If I wanted to find the steak, I had to start with a stake…or at least a stakeholder.. With a story about a historical topic, I’d need a timely, real world connection with an actual human being who could breathe life into the past. I needed a character people could follow.
Screaming from the pages of my notes was a man named Ray Wood. He still works on campus. He’s an engaging guy. And if I’d been smart enough to see where the news in my story was from the very beginning, I’d have called him right away…because he was the guy who discovered the Fairfield Gorget — a key component of the museum’s exhibit and arguably the coolest thing anyone’s ever dug up in the state.
So, at about 11 a.m. Friday, I started writing. In a little more than 12 hours, I had a damn good story, and I only kind of killed myself finding it.
In my meandering and, I think, successful search for an angle, I learned an important lesson that will hopefully help keep me grounded when I’m given big projects in the future. When in doubt, think about the people who make a story tick. Because where there’s a soul, there’s a story.
Progress Report:
Finished a 70-inch rough draft for the Saturday cover some time in mid-April, organized a photo session and met with the graphics team. I also did accuracy checks. I’ve said this before, but man: 90% of my advanced reporting experience is stuff that goes on behind the scenes…the kind of stuff that makes the news process run a great deal more smoothly but never shows up with column inches and a byline.
For our shells project, I’ve taken a leadership role along with Matt, since we’re both type-A-ish and like firm outlines and specific delegation. Our group met a couple times this week, and we’re just about ready to dole out assignments and start reporting. We’re definitely on track.
Back to the paper, I’m getting started on two pieces for dailies: one offering a status update on the Missouri Theatre, and another about Tim Page, a music critic with an interesting form of autism who’ll be on campus in a few weeks. After that, Liz and I think it’s time to get started on another Saturday cover…now, I just need to find another really fantastic topic to take a bite out of. Maybe this time, I’ll be able to recognize the soul of the story a little earlier in the reporting process.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Last Weeks Blog (The Tuesday Edition)
This past week was a good week of reporting. I got the League of Women Voter’s story finished by Friday, but I think I struggled through this article too much. I overemphasized the writing aspect of the story, when I should have been focusing on the reporting aspect of the story. This was a news piece, and I wanted to infuse verbose description of characters that I thought were interesting. This might be acceptable if I was writing a lifestyle piece about Bertrice Bartlett, but it was not.
What is interesting is that about a year ago I would have felt shy in my writing. To infuse description of characters based on my own words, without relying on video or a quote was so intimidating. Now it is slightly addictive, even would I should simply be reporting. I think this is part of learning balance in my writing and recognizing what type of writing is appropriate for each environment.
Lastly my group needs to get back together for another Shells project meeeting. We didn’t have a meeting last week, so this is something that is definitely on my radar for this week.
What is interesting is that about a year ago I would have felt shy in my writing. To infuse description of characters based on my own words, without relying on video or a quote was so intimidating. Now it is slightly addictive, even would I should simply be reporting. I think this is part of learning balance in my writing and recognizing what type of writing is appropriate for each environment.
Lastly my group needs to get back together for another Shells project meeeting. We didn’t have a meeting last week, so this is something that is definitely on my radar for this week.
Friday, February 22, 2008
What a week...
This week was a little bit of a mess. It's really tough to be in the newsroom coordinating all of the convergence editors and reporters AND be working on Advanced Reporting at the same time. Monday I wasn't around much. Tuesday I worked on a story on the caucus, Wednesday the barbershop guys (who got canceled :( ) and Thursday on Five Ideas, which we didn't get to edit until today. At the same time, there have been more issues than is healthy in the convergence department - no conflicts, just lots of arrangement that has to happen. But that is why the SWAT team is there. To take care of those kinds of arrangement things. We get things done.
That said, this was my best week yet as far as the reporting side goes. My clips weren't terribly in-depth or exciting, but I got some, and that is the important thing. And I'm learning how to day-turn. Which probably sounds silly to everyone in this class, but it's not something I've had to do before. I didn't take the reporting class. My internship last summer was at a weekly online publication, and before that most of my experience has been convergence or Vox, which has the most ridiculous editorial system ever.
This week has not been without frustration, but I've made steps towards getting the hang of things. If I had to do it again, I would want to take both Advanced Reporting and my convergence capstone, but not at the same time. We'll see if I feel the same way in a couple of weeks.
That said, this was my best week yet as far as the reporting side goes. My clips weren't terribly in-depth or exciting, but I got some, and that is the important thing. And I'm learning how to day-turn. Which probably sounds silly to everyone in this class, but it's not something I've had to do before. I didn't take the reporting class. My internship last summer was at a weekly online publication, and before that most of my experience has been convergence or Vox, which has the most ridiculous editorial system ever.
This week has not been without frustration, but I've made steps towards getting the hang of things. If I had to do it again, I would want to take both Advanced Reporting and my convergence capstone, but not at the same time. We'll see if I feel the same way in a couple of weeks.
The Business of Education
Now that Gary Forsee is officially the new UM System president, it brings to Columbia for the first time a debate that other university communities have had to deal with in recent years. Despite the fact that appropriations nationwide to state colleges and universities has dropped in relation to inflation this decade, many professors have significant worries about bringing in someone unfamiliar to the day-to-day operations of a higher education institution. Will s/he truly have educational interests at heart, or is this a hire for a boost in finances?
I think those questions are legitimate with Forsee, and a fair number of professors are asking them. After talking with MU Faculty Council Chair Frank Schmidt, who said faculty are taking a "wait-and-see" approach, I think the faculty at the flagship campus are guardedly optimistic. I think they want to trust that Forsee has everyone's best interests in mind on the faculty, and some of the proposals he has set out in his initial agenda speak to faculty support. However, Schmidt said, and I agree, that these efforts will have to be prolonged in order to fully gain the trust of the system's intellectual capital. It will be an interesting transitional period for the system.
Progress: Three-fold juggling act going on right now. Getting closer to wrapping up some study abroad information, hopefully will begin talking to some math professors soon about the state of their department, and then to start working on the shells project. I'm sure it will be a full-out sprint, at least until Spring Break, anyway.
Ouch, and then some
This week was painful.
It started well enough, I had wrapped up all those interviews and readings about school district finance. I had an article that I felt explained the situation and was written clearly.
Of course, I had been talking to people in the thick of this finance stuff, and taking classes on the side where "marginal benefit of social cost" was one of the clearer phrases used.
Liz edited the story on Tuesday and blessed it, I went to St. Louis that afternoon to see a nationally known economist talk about school policy, was inspired, blah blah blah...
...and was told Wednesday that the article I had taken for finished was un-understandable, should incorporate story-telling and had to be totally rewritten.
Which violated the first and most important of my goals for this semester: to explain this financial situation so that anyone could understand it.
Crash. boom.
Back to the drawing board. I moved things around, added embellishments, tried a really bad rainy-day/typhoon metaphor, threw in a paragraph addressing you, the reader, and tried to make it more conversational.
The result was a longer piece, unsimplified, but prettier to sit through, if you had to.
And I found myself sitting in Liz's office yesterday afternoon, unable to go anywhere new with what felt at this point like scraps.
Throughout this process, Liz asked several people how to "tell" a technical story. Here's what I heard, many of which we tried:
1. Relate it to something the reader can understand.
2. Find a common thread to the questions you ask, and frame your story around that constant theme.
3. Tell the story the numbers tell, without relying on the numbers.
4. Begin with "Once upon a time..." and tell the story in the language of a children's book.
5. Use concrete examples, like rent, that would give the reader perspective.
6. Translate jargon into language.
7. Lead with the news.
So. These were swimming around upstairs while I was staring at the three apparently unusable versions, and I felt like I was being asked to reach deep and find a way to tell this story clearly, with sparkling language and suddenly become the writer I've always wanted to be.
And I'm not there. And I knew that I wouldn't get there with the story that ran today, and I felt that it was futile to wait until I got there, because what the article was about was something that's happening and will soon stop happening, and people need to understand the basics of it as soon as possible, without having to wait for my magnum opus.
This is what makes the Missourian hard. Not only do we have to be reporters, we are expected to learn and grow. Articles get pushed back because they could be better.
There was some fuming on my part. It ran along the lines of: "how can you tell a finance story without numbers? I could be writing about school events, but no, I'm here, caring about this which apparently no one else cares about enough to wade through some of these numbers with me." Grumble, grumble, grumble.
...
At which point Liz found me in the newsroom and said, "Tom just told me something. He said if you had written this like a blog entry, you wouldn't be having this much trouble. What's making you write this differently?"
That was one of "those" moments for me.
The Answer:
At the Missourian, we are always taught to lead with the news. Get it up top, get it condensed, bang the reader over the head with that rock, and then when he regains consciousness, smile and say, "but I can explain it."
With a blog post, I feel like there's trust between the reader and writer. The writer trusts the reader to finish reading the post.
In writing an article, there's this mania to hook the reader. And that's necessary, but trying to find that 2-sentence hook while translating the technical felt impossible yesterday.
So, we began with the context. And that felt like stepping out onto nothing. But when blogging, it's the most natural thing in the world. Because there, I get to assume a reader's trust. He trusts me to find things out, care about them, and speak to him, as one human being to another.
That assumption lets me in turn trust him. I get to trust him to follow my links if he needs more information, and I get to trust him to remember what I said and build from there the next time I write.
The end product was equal parts blog post, article, frustration, translation, and dare I say it, growth.
We ran it by Scott, he blessed it, asked for a few details, and it wound up in today's paper.
And of course, there is already a post on the SchoolHouseTalk blog about the issue. And, yes, before you ask, it was easy to write.
It started well enough, I had wrapped up all those interviews and readings about school district finance. I had an article that I felt explained the situation and was written clearly.
Of course, I had been talking to people in the thick of this finance stuff, and taking classes on the side where "marginal benefit of social cost" was one of the clearer phrases used.
Liz edited the story on Tuesday and blessed it, I went to St. Louis that afternoon to see a nationally known economist talk about school policy, was inspired, blah blah blah...
...and was told Wednesday that the article I had taken for finished was un-understandable, should incorporate story-telling and had to be totally rewritten.
Which violated the first and most important of my goals for this semester: to explain this financial situation so that anyone could understand it.
Crash. boom.
Back to the drawing board. I moved things around, added embellishments, tried a really bad rainy-day/typhoon metaphor, threw in a paragraph addressing you, the reader, and tried to make it more conversational.
The result was a longer piece, unsimplified, but prettier to sit through, if you had to.
And I found myself sitting in Liz's office yesterday afternoon, unable to go anywhere new with what felt at this point like scraps.
Throughout this process, Liz asked several people how to "tell" a technical story. Here's what I heard, many of which we tried:
1. Relate it to something the reader can understand.
2. Find a common thread to the questions you ask, and frame your story around that constant theme.
3. Tell the story the numbers tell, without relying on the numbers.
4. Begin with "Once upon a time..." and tell the story in the language of a children's book.
5. Use concrete examples, like rent, that would give the reader perspective.
6. Translate jargon into language.
7. Lead with the news.
So. These were swimming around upstairs while I was staring at the three apparently unusable versions, and I felt like I was being asked to reach deep and find a way to tell this story clearly, with sparkling language and suddenly become the writer I've always wanted to be.
And I'm not there. And I knew that I wouldn't get there with the story that ran today, and I felt that it was futile to wait until I got there, because what the article was about was something that's happening and will soon stop happening, and people need to understand the basics of it as soon as possible, without having to wait for my magnum opus.
This is what makes the Missourian hard. Not only do we have to be reporters, we are expected to learn and grow. Articles get pushed back because they could be better.
There was some fuming on my part. It ran along the lines of: "how can you tell a finance story without numbers? I could be writing about school events, but no, I'm here, caring about this which apparently no one else cares about enough to wade through some of these numbers with me." Grumble, grumble, grumble.
...
At which point Liz found me in the newsroom and said, "Tom just told me something. He said if you had written this like a blog entry, you wouldn't be having this much trouble. What's making you write this differently?"
That was one of "those" moments for me.
The Answer:
At the Missourian, we are always taught to lead with the news. Get it up top, get it condensed, bang the reader over the head with that rock, and then when he regains consciousness, smile and say, "but I can explain it."
With a blog post, I feel like there's trust between the reader and writer. The writer trusts the reader to finish reading the post.
In writing an article, there's this mania to hook the reader. And that's necessary, but trying to find that 2-sentence hook while translating the technical felt impossible yesterday.
So, we began with the context. And that felt like stepping out onto nothing. But when blogging, it's the most natural thing in the world. Because there, I get to assume a reader's trust. He trusts me to find things out, care about them, and speak to him, as one human being to another.
That assumption lets me in turn trust him. I get to trust him to follow my links if he needs more information, and I get to trust him to remember what I said and build from there the next time I write.
The end product was equal parts blog post, article, frustration, translation, and dare I say it, growth.
We ran it by Scott, he blessed it, asked for a few details, and it wound up in today's paper.
And of course, there is already a post on the SchoolHouseTalk blog about the issue. And, yes, before you ask, it was easy to write.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Orange Couch, or: Give Fluff a Chance
I wrote an article this week about a couch.
Yes, a couch. You could probably say it was the epitome of a “fluff” story, although the couch is anything but fluffy. In fact, that was kind of the point.
The article was a sort of final farewell to the old Ragtag as it moves into its new location. We said goodbye by paying homage to the most notorious couch in the theatre — a lumpy, rust-colored 70s holdout with shredded corners and virtually no cushion left in the seats. To me, the story was kind of a turbo-charged version of the feature journalist’s “show, don’t tell” mantra…although in this case, I’m not talking about a writing technique, but a way of approaching a story. The whole goal I had in mind when I wrote the story was to SHOW readers the closing of a chapter of a well-loved Columbia hot spot’s history by giving them something tangible to read about.
As fate would have it, the mysterious donor of the couch stumbled upon the story. Now, at the bottom of the online version, there’s a blurb with her reaction that also reveals some of the couch’s history before it came to the Ragtag. We even linked to the former owner’s blog. To me, this was a fun example of “fostering community conversation,” and I was really excited to see that such a silly little story made (very small) waves in a few folk’s lives. I was even more excited that those folks told us about those waves.
It’s funny to me, though, how some of the silliest little ideas are the ones I love best. It’s the slice-of-life stuff, the everyday pieces that I’m always most drawn to in any paper. I have classmates, friends, and even best friends, who utterly disagree with me on the merits of a good slice-of-life, “fluffy” feature. One even had to bite her tongue after mentioning she’d read the story. I knew it was because an instinctive rant from the hard-news advocate was soon to follow.
Obviously, hard news is crucial and should be the primary component in any serious publication’s coverage, but when people scoff at alternative stories — ones that put a feature flare on a news story or are simply fun little features on their own — it frustrates me to no end. Because when you dismiss everyday articles that shine the spotlight on REAL LIFE, you’re dismissing the readers. Sure, what’s happening with Capitol Hill, presidential primaries, school board elections and crime statistics…it’s all important. Those stories are vital. But fun, über-local stories about the little things in life are, to me, the articles that best demonstrate we really have our fingers on the pulse of the community. People’s everyday, ordinary lives are worth writing about, too. Should we make a whole paper out of those stories? Of course not. But scoffing at the occasional silly feature and dismissing it as being stupid or fluffy directly insults the readers who see that story and identify with it.
Progress Report:
After several interviews and exhausting background research, I’m ready to sit down and write the Saturday cover story I’ve been preparing for all semester. It’s changed focus quite a bit, but I’m excited about it and think I have a pretty strong angle. Basically, I’m using an extremely unique prehistoric artifact dug up in Missouri almost exactly 50 years ago that is, coincidentally, being featured in an exhibit right now even though it’s usually hidden away from the public eye, as a tool to give people a quick taste of Missouri’s rich pre-history. I think I’ll be really proud of this clip.
Other than that, this week’s progress was mainly embodied in the couch article. I’ve only had three real “clips” so far, but given how much attention I’ve been giving to my other classes and to my long-term story, I’m pretty satisfied. The long-term cover should be wrapped up by the end of next week, leaving me about three-fifths of my semester to focus on producing strong clips on a regular basis.
Yes, a couch. You could probably say it was the epitome of a “fluff” story, although the couch is anything but fluffy. In fact, that was kind of the point.
The article was a sort of final farewell to the old Ragtag as it moves into its new location. We said goodbye by paying homage to the most notorious couch in the theatre — a lumpy, rust-colored 70s holdout with shredded corners and virtually no cushion left in the seats. To me, the story was kind of a turbo-charged version of the feature journalist’s “show, don’t tell” mantra…although in this case, I’m not talking about a writing technique, but a way of approaching a story. The whole goal I had in mind when I wrote the story was to SHOW readers the closing of a chapter of a well-loved Columbia hot spot’s history by giving them something tangible to read about.
As fate would have it, the mysterious donor of the couch stumbled upon the story. Now, at the bottom of the online version, there’s a blurb with her reaction that also reveals some of the couch’s history before it came to the Ragtag. We even linked to the former owner’s blog. To me, this was a fun example of “fostering community conversation,” and I was really excited to see that such a silly little story made (very small) waves in a few folk’s lives. I was even more excited that those folks told us about those waves.
It’s funny to me, though, how some of the silliest little ideas are the ones I love best. It’s the slice-of-life stuff, the everyday pieces that I’m always most drawn to in any paper. I have classmates, friends, and even best friends, who utterly disagree with me on the merits of a good slice-of-life, “fluffy” feature. One even had to bite her tongue after mentioning she’d read the story. I knew it was because an instinctive rant from the hard-news advocate was soon to follow.
Obviously, hard news is crucial and should be the primary component in any serious publication’s coverage, but when people scoff at alternative stories — ones that put a feature flare on a news story or are simply fun little features on their own — it frustrates me to no end. Because when you dismiss everyday articles that shine the spotlight on REAL LIFE, you’re dismissing the readers. Sure, what’s happening with Capitol Hill, presidential primaries, school board elections and crime statistics…it’s all important. Those stories are vital. But fun, über-local stories about the little things in life are, to me, the articles that best demonstrate we really have our fingers on the pulse of the community. People’s everyday, ordinary lives are worth writing about, too. Should we make a whole paper out of those stories? Of course not. But scoffing at the occasional silly feature and dismissing it as being stupid or fluffy directly insults the readers who see that story and identify with it.
Progress Report:
After several interviews and exhausting background research, I’m ready to sit down and write the Saturday cover story I’ve been preparing for all semester. It’s changed focus quite a bit, but I’m excited about it and think I have a pretty strong angle. Basically, I’m using an extremely unique prehistoric artifact dug up in Missouri almost exactly 50 years ago that is, coincidentally, being featured in an exhibit right now even though it’s usually hidden away from the public eye, as a tool to give people a quick taste of Missouri’s rich pre-history. I think I’ll be really proud of this clip.
Other than that, this week’s progress was mainly embodied in the couch article. I’ve only had three real “clips” so far, but given how much attention I’ve been giving to my other classes and to my long-term story, I’m pretty satisfied. The long-term cover should be wrapped up by the end of next week, leaving me about three-fifths of my semester to focus on producing strong clips on a regular basis.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Too Close to Home
I'm struck by how close to home the news is, yet how far away, remote and desensitized it is. Northern Illinois University is 45 minutes away from my home. My parents met each other there. Countless friends and acquaintances go there. My little sister talked about going there to get a teaching degree. I even checked out their journalism program back in the day. It's strange that with all the connections to that place, I'm not grieving, traumatized or upset. THAT bothers me more than anything because I feel like I should be. I'm disheartened that random act of violence - or intentional acts, whichever this one turns out to be - are showing up so frequently. I'm also disheartened by the way I see it covered.
I was in the newsroom most of the day today, sick, stressed, on deadline and completely unable to focus because I have to watch CNN's coverage of the "Campus Rampage." Again and again and again. The same headlines. The same photos. The same video. Occasionally something new. I can't even hear what they're saying, but I know it's probably repeated again and again and again. And I begin to wonder, who decided to call it a rampage? Did it occur to anyone the headline had such a strong connotation? The effect of CNN's coverage was numbing. It reminds me of something my mom used to make my sister do - repeat a mantra. My little sister used to think she was the boss; and whenever she tried to tell my mom what to do, my mom would turn to her and ask her to repeat the mantra: "You are the mother and I am the child." And after a while it began to work. My sister was able to changed her talking back habits. She altered her thinking after a while. You could argue it was voluntary brainwashing. What CNN was doing today was, I believe, unintended brainwashing. By repeating the same things over and over and over, the view had no time to sit and weigh the gravity of the situation. Its coverage told the viewer how to react. It told them it was a rampage. Not a tragedy, a rampage. A massacre. It told them. First it showed the aftermath - the ambulances and then the police cars - and then it told them: it was a rampage. CNN, while trying to capture the situation's gravity, stole it's greater impact from the viewers. It made the moral judgement for them, letting each viewer take it for what CNN said it was. There was no need, no time even, to stop, reflect, and come to the moral understanding on an individual basis.
This is why I believe I was so numb, and why so many others felt the same way. Cable television has to fill its time someway, somehow. And in its quest to fill time, it's short circuited the viewers' moral thinking. Truly understanding a tragedy takes time and thought. Who needs to put in time or thought when CNN does it for you? Especially when it's something that's so unpleasant to think about. And it's not a new topic, Virginia Tech anyone? Columbine? Kirkwood? We hear so often about guns, gun violence and mass shootings. The same thing happened with all of that coverage. The larger world is lost, and all we see are the shootings. The acts are anomalies, not something that happens everywhere or in all situations. Something caused it and that cause is often so muddled or hard to determine that it's reported and understood after the damage is done to the viewers, after it's banged over their heads that it's just another senseless killing. Over time, the effect adds up. Each new shooting, each new tragedy, it's played up until the feeling is no longer genuine. And it makes any lessons people might learn less poignant. People don't have to process or interpret the situation according to their morals and values or try to gain an understanding of the essential question in journalism: why?
Understanding the answer to that question is what makes the difference between being reactive and being proactive. The way CNN's coverage worked, it was conditioning people to respond reactively, by pulling on the strings of drama, danger, death. To find any proactive solution(s) to the problem of violence in schools, you have to look at the root causes and to the social fabric surrounding it. Taking away guns is not the answer. Tightening security is a reactive response. We have to look at this generation and ask, why? What's missing? What's causing this?
I was in the newsroom most of the day today, sick, stressed, on deadline and completely unable to focus because I have to watch CNN's coverage of the "Campus Rampage." Again and again and again. The same headlines. The same photos. The same video. Occasionally something new. I can't even hear what they're saying, but I know it's probably repeated again and again and again. And I begin to wonder, who decided to call it a rampage? Did it occur to anyone the headline had such a strong connotation? The effect of CNN's coverage was numbing. It reminds me of something my mom used to make my sister do - repeat a mantra. My little sister used to think she was the boss; and whenever she tried to tell my mom what to do, my mom would turn to her and ask her to repeat the mantra: "You are the mother and I am the child." And after a while it began to work. My sister was able to changed her talking back habits. She altered her thinking after a while. You could argue it was voluntary brainwashing. What CNN was doing today was, I believe, unintended brainwashing. By repeating the same things over and over and over, the view had no time to sit and weigh the gravity of the situation. Its coverage told the viewer how to react. It told them it was a rampage. Not a tragedy, a rampage. A massacre. It told them. First it showed the aftermath - the ambulances and then the police cars - and then it told them: it was a rampage. CNN, while trying to capture the situation's gravity, stole it's greater impact from the viewers. It made the moral judgement for them, letting each viewer take it for what CNN said it was. There was no need, no time even, to stop, reflect, and come to the moral understanding on an individual basis.
This is why I believe I was so numb, and why so many others felt the same way. Cable television has to fill its time someway, somehow. And in its quest to fill time, it's short circuited the viewers' moral thinking. Truly understanding a tragedy takes time and thought. Who needs to put in time or thought when CNN does it for you? Especially when it's something that's so unpleasant to think about. And it's not a new topic, Virginia Tech anyone? Columbine? Kirkwood? We hear so often about guns, gun violence and mass shootings. The same thing happened with all of that coverage. The larger world is lost, and all we see are the shootings. The acts are anomalies, not something that happens everywhere or in all situations. Something caused it and that cause is often so muddled or hard to determine that it's reported and understood after the damage is done to the viewers, after it's banged over their heads that it's just another senseless killing. Over time, the effect adds up. Each new shooting, each new tragedy, it's played up until the feeling is no longer genuine. And it makes any lessons people might learn less poignant. People don't have to process or interpret the situation according to their morals and values or try to gain an understanding of the essential question in journalism: why?
Understanding the answer to that question is what makes the difference between being reactive and being proactive. The way CNN's coverage worked, it was conditioning people to respond reactively, by pulling on the strings of drama, danger, death. To find any proactive solution(s) to the problem of violence in schools, you have to look at the root causes and to the social fabric surrounding it. Taking away guns is not the answer. Tightening security is a reactive response. We have to look at this generation and ask, why? What's missing? What's causing this?
Go Team Growth!
This week was productive, but it doesn’t feel that way. I got my section of an article finished. I am hoping this article can go in a weekend edition of the Missourian. The article is on Yoga Nidra. I am working on this article with Rose Raymond. She has been great and so patient as we have been working on this project together and trying to sort out how we want the article to be written and sorted. I really appreciate working with her as I feel that she stays calm even though she is very busy.
Also I met with my group today to discuss the shells idea. We came up with some strong ideas and I think the brainstorming was very effective. I am glad that we sorted out how we want to be covering this topic and that we were able to brain storm layout.
Lastly I picked up an article today to cover for Monday and hopefullly later next week. I am excited to work on this article, mostly because I feel a little antsy not having had anything in print for about a week.
Also I met with my group today to discuss the shells idea. We came up with some strong ideas and I think the brainstorming was very effective. I am glad that we sorted out how we want to be covering this topic and that we were able to brain storm layout.
Lastly I picked up an article today to cover for Monday and hopefullly later next week. I am excited to work on this article, mostly because I feel a little antsy not having had anything in print for about a week.
Planning for Web Shells and Getting Hung out to Dry
This week my group met on Friday to talk about ideas for our web shells. We decided to divide "growth in Columbia" into groups of people/population/culture growth, government growth, and small business growth. We also talked about website design ideas for a long time. Everyone contributed sketches (that included malfunctioning search engines... hmm...) and we talked about what kinds of elements would make our web page. I was really pleased with the depth that our discussion got into and I'm really excited to get started on this page.
I spent the week trying to talk to parents and the principal for my backpack story, which has been essentially done for a week but parents have been hard to track down and the principal won't answer my phone calls about getting a photographer into the school. He was soo nice when I talked to him the first time! What's the deal?
I also started working on an update story on the smoking cessation program that the city is doing. I hopefully will get to talk to some of the people who have been through the program with they city. I'm crossing my fingers on that one.
I spent the week trying to talk to parents and the principal for my backpack story, which has been essentially done for a week but parents have been hard to track down and the principal won't answer my phone calls about getting a photographer into the school. He was soo nice when I talked to him the first time! What's the deal?
I also started working on an update story on the smoking cessation program that the city is doing. I hopefully will get to talk to some of the people who have been through the program with they city. I'm crossing my fingers on that one.
Smaller Shells of Our Former Selves?
I'm definitely ready to get going with the shells project — I think it will be an exciting endeavor for us to take on, whether it ultimately be successful or a moderate failure. The fact that we're allowed to encounter this experience in the first place is a great opportunity to fully dig in to the idea of developing a story package for the Internet, which, for me, is one of my weakest areas in reporting, for sure.
However, as I'm in the environment shell, we got a fairly clear idea of what's ahead of us based on our discussion in class Tuesday. Our group will meet Sunday to more fully flesh out our idea, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't reduce the range of our shell to create a more manageable project. I think we came up with enough story styles and story ideas to make our whole project revolve around the energy idea. Furthermore, including archived stories that still have current relevance will take up even more space on the page. We'll see where this weekend takes us, but I think we will quickly start seeing some structure come together.
Progress: Got a couple more bits and pieces this week. I've been pressed for time a bit recently with my work for the Newman Center Musical, but that ends tis weekend, and then I'll have about 2.5 hours more per night to work on reporting and schoolwork, etc. I have the Study Abroad story and a new tip on big problems in MU's math program to work with, for starters. Also next week I will be following Gary Forsee's first day on the job as UM System president, so we'll see what that turns up as well.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Election? What Election?
Seems as though everyone contributing to this blog has been nothing short of entranced by the election this past week...and there is no shame in this. Fortunately for me, I've been busy as I can be this week with school, the newspaper, working my butt off at Applebee's and trying to extract all the fun I can out of my last collegiate semester. Needless to say, I've paid little to no attention to what is going on, which is in stark contrast to all the energy I spent following it in every week prior.
In tagging along with some of the other sentiments here, however, I guess I just have one question:
Would the United States be better off if people had no idea who the candidates were or what they looked like, and simply filled out one of those candidate match things, than they currently are with the media portraying them and trying to show the public a picture of them?
Just based on ideas, past voting history and experience, are Hillary, Barack and McCain really the best candidates out there?
And is it journalism's role to show which candidates are best, or is it merely our job to write stories about them that may or may not let people decide?
I don't know the answer. But it's been bugging me. What if Mitt Romney wasn't pegged as a robotic mormon? What if Hillary's last name was Smith? What if Barack was white? What if Dennis Kucinich didn't kind of look like a mouse? Are they there right now? And how much are we, the media, responsible for this?
Progress Report
--------------
Finally getting into my beat this week...attended the MU baseball fundraising dinner on Saturday for a little background, and media day is tomorrow. Otherwise, I've just been working on these shells...and trying to pay my bills. I should have loads more to report next week. Or at least I hope.
In tagging along with some of the other sentiments here, however, I guess I just have one question:
Would the United States be better off if people had no idea who the candidates were or what they looked like, and simply filled out one of those candidate match things, than they currently are with the media portraying them and trying to show the public a picture of them?
Just based on ideas, past voting history and experience, are Hillary, Barack and McCain really the best candidates out there?
And is it journalism's role to show which candidates are best, or is it merely our job to write stories about them that may or may not let people decide?
I don't know the answer. But it's been bugging me. What if Mitt Romney wasn't pegged as a robotic mormon? What if Hillary's last name was Smith? What if Barack was white? What if Dennis Kucinich didn't kind of look like a mouse? Are they there right now? And how much are we, the media, responsible for this?
Progress Report
--------------
Finally getting into my beat this week...attended the MU baseball fundraising dinner on Saturday for a little background, and media day is tomorrow. Otherwise, I've just been working on these shells...and trying to pay my bills. I should have loads more to report next week. Or at least I hope.
Rebecca's longest post ever or: Sleep deprivation kills conciseness
I’m in a class about conspiracy theories this semester, and I think Jay Rosen’s “Beast without a Brain” is strangely applicable to the course. I’m always kind of excited when I see thematic overlaps in my classes, even if the crossover is a little fuzzy and abstract. The overlap always has a cool way of bringing central themes into my intellectual spotlight for a little while.
Anyway, a common theme in U.S.-based conspiracies is that “the media” is, in one way or another, brainwashing the American public. Some conspiracy theorists cast the collective media as the puppet of an elite few masterminds bent on controlling the country. Others think the media itself is the root of conspiracy…that there’s some “boy’s club” out there where Tom Brokaw, Wolf Blitzer and whoever else meet together in secret performing Satanic rituals while they plan the next step they’ll take toward world domination. (Something like that…it’s all so silly.) Regardless, these guys look at the news like it’s purely evil.
The thing is, and Rosen brings this up…the idea that the media has a mind, that we plot out coverage to cater to our motives — election of our favorite candidate, prejudice against (insert group here), world domination — is pretty widespread. It isn’t limited to fanatics living in basements on ranches in Utah waiting for one form or another of a conspiratorial holocaust to arrive. And that’s a problem…because obviously we know we newspaper and TV folks don’t cluster together and form a conscious plot for the timbre of the week’s news coverage.
I agree with Rosen. In political coverage especially, the news rides on a tide. We rely on repetitive mantras: one week it’s about how Obama’s going to sweep the nation because he won Iowa; the next week, Clinton and McCain are “comeback kids;” and the next week, Huckabee’s giving McCain a run for his money (but is he really?) while Obama’s back to his “momentum.” I don’t know if I completely agree with Rosen’s assessment of how those mantras evolve and dominate the thread of political discourse, but I think he’s pretty close to being on target. Closer than anyone else I’ve read or heard discuss the issue…but that could be because he’s the first person to address it I’ve paid any attention to. (Thanks for the link, Tom!)
Here’s the problem, I think, but I’m limiting my thinking to primary coverage. I think that because we put so much emphasis on removing conflicts of interest, on keeping bias toward a particular candidate out of our discourse, we destroy our coverage. Elections are about democracy. They’re about finding the best candidate. It seems to me that the folks who dedicate themselves to political coverage tend to be the ones who are most passionate about politics and, consequently, are going to be passionate about a party and a candidate. Can political coverage ever really be any good if it’s being done by a bunch of people who are constantly afraid they’ll reveal their political leanings?
Maybe that’s why coverage of campaigns so often focuses on statistics and strategies. Maybe coverage amalgamates in these broad themes that make it seem like the media really does have one mind because we tend to rally behind a consensus, a vibe, drawn from the sum total of political coverage. When the threads of individual stories come together on a common trend, they weave a sort of safety net we can safely fall back on. If everyone’s saying the same thing, we can rely on repeating it. It’s hard to get called out for being wrong when every one of your competitors is wrong, too. Furthermore, you can’t accidentally let slip too many of your political leanings with independent, enterprising coverage if you let “the beast without a brain” take over.
And we wonder why people think there’s a mass media conspiracy. We really do repeat a lot of the same messages, and I don’t think there’s any way to deny that…especially not when it comes to politics. I don’t know how to fix it, either, but you’d better believe I’ll keep thinking about it.
Progress Report:
I don’t get how I can do so much work and feel so exhausted all the time with so little to show for it. I’m learning, more and more, that my advanced reporting experience is more about the things I do behind the scenes than the bylines I get in the paper.
Even though I can’t cover a story about the Ragtag actually moving on Sunday, I set up all of the meeting times and details so that a couple convergence students would be able to cover it instead without having to do too much extra legwork. I managed to write a decent story on True/False selling out of passes…by frantically typing between classes on a very busy Tuesday. I’m going to the Ragtag tonight to interview people about a couch. (Yes, a couch.) The story to come should be a lot of fun.
Other than that, I’ve been pouring most of my focus into my prehistoric Missouri story. I only hope to God it’ll work out, because man…I’ve poured a lot of hours into this only to find that I have no idea what angle I want to take. Oh boy.
Anyway, a common theme in U.S.-based conspiracies is that “the media” is, in one way or another, brainwashing the American public. Some conspiracy theorists cast the collective media as the puppet of an elite few masterminds bent on controlling the country. Others think the media itself is the root of conspiracy…that there’s some “boy’s club” out there where Tom Brokaw, Wolf Blitzer and whoever else meet together in secret performing Satanic rituals while they plan the next step they’ll take toward world domination. (Something like that…it’s all so silly.) Regardless, these guys look at the news like it’s purely evil.
The thing is, and Rosen brings this up…the idea that the media has a mind, that we plot out coverage to cater to our motives — election of our favorite candidate, prejudice against (insert group here), world domination — is pretty widespread. It isn’t limited to fanatics living in basements on ranches in Utah waiting for one form or another of a conspiratorial holocaust to arrive. And that’s a problem…because obviously we know we newspaper and TV folks don’t cluster together and form a conscious plot for the timbre of the week’s news coverage.
I agree with Rosen. In political coverage especially, the news rides on a tide. We rely on repetitive mantras: one week it’s about how Obama’s going to sweep the nation because he won Iowa; the next week, Clinton and McCain are “comeback kids;” and the next week, Huckabee’s giving McCain a run for his money (but is he really?) while Obama’s back to his “momentum.” I don’t know if I completely agree with Rosen’s assessment of how those mantras evolve and dominate the thread of political discourse, but I think he’s pretty close to being on target. Closer than anyone else I’ve read or heard discuss the issue…but that could be because he’s the first person to address it I’ve paid any attention to. (Thanks for the link, Tom!)
Here’s the problem, I think, but I’m limiting my thinking to primary coverage. I think that because we put so much emphasis on removing conflicts of interest, on keeping bias toward a particular candidate out of our discourse, we destroy our coverage. Elections are about democracy. They’re about finding the best candidate. It seems to me that the folks who dedicate themselves to political coverage tend to be the ones who are most passionate about politics and, consequently, are going to be passionate about a party and a candidate. Can political coverage ever really be any good if it’s being done by a bunch of people who are constantly afraid they’ll reveal their political leanings?
Maybe that’s why coverage of campaigns so often focuses on statistics and strategies. Maybe coverage amalgamates in these broad themes that make it seem like the media really does have one mind because we tend to rally behind a consensus, a vibe, drawn from the sum total of political coverage. When the threads of individual stories come together on a common trend, they weave a sort of safety net we can safely fall back on. If everyone’s saying the same thing, we can rely on repeating it. It’s hard to get called out for being wrong when every one of your competitors is wrong, too. Furthermore, you can’t accidentally let slip too many of your political leanings with independent, enterprising coverage if you let “the beast without a brain” take over.
And we wonder why people think there’s a mass media conspiracy. We really do repeat a lot of the same messages, and I don’t think there’s any way to deny that…especially not when it comes to politics. I don’t know how to fix it, either, but you’d better believe I’ll keep thinking about it.
Progress Report:
I don’t get how I can do so much work and feel so exhausted all the time with so little to show for it. I’m learning, more and more, that my advanced reporting experience is more about the things I do behind the scenes than the bylines I get in the paper.
Even though I can’t cover a story about the Ragtag actually moving on Sunday, I set up all of the meeting times and details so that a couple convergence students would be able to cover it instead without having to do too much extra legwork. I managed to write a decent story on True/False selling out of passes…by frantically typing between classes on a very busy Tuesday. I’m going to the Ragtag tonight to interview people about a couch. (Yes, a couch.) The story to come should be a lot of fun.
Other than that, I’ve been pouring most of my focus into my prehistoric Missouri story. I only hope to God it’ll work out, because man…I’ve poured a lot of hours into this only to find that I have no idea what angle I want to take. Oh boy.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Journalism, Democracy, and Campaigns
Several posts last week touched on campaigns, campaigning and journalism's role. I recommend to you a piece by Jay Rosen, called "The Beast without a Brain." It was published in tomdispatch a couple of weeks ago.
I know we won't have a chance to discuss it in class this week, but perhaps it will engender some conversation here. Be sure to read it two ways: for the content, of course, but also for the writing.
The opening graf:
"Just so you know, 'the media' has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not 'get behind' candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy... or gal. Nor does it "buy" this line or 'swallow' that one. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn't know what it's doing."
Look at those sentences again. The longest is 10 words. There's not a single adjective. Rosen uses a simple subject-verb-object construction. Now notice the power of the intro. That's writing, folks, regardless of your views of his opinion.
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174883/
I know we won't have a chance to discuss it in class this week, but perhaps it will engender some conversation here. Be sure to read it two ways: for the content, of course, but also for the writing.
The opening graf:
"Just so you know, 'the media' has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not 'get behind' candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy... or gal. Nor does it "buy" this line or 'swallow' that one. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn't know what it's doing."
Look at those sentences again. The longest is 10 words. There's not a single adjective. Rosen uses a simple subject-verb-object construction. Now notice the power of the intro. That's writing, folks, regardless of your views of his opinion.
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174883/
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Good week with articles, but want to improve the election multimedia coverage
This past week was a very strong week for me as I was able to get the center spread story for this Sundays paper, an article published in VOX, and contributed to an article on the Obama primary party at the Blue Note.
I feel really good about the Avenue of the Columns story and I am so glad that Scott Swafford is my editor. He is very helpful with communicating what I need to tighten up in my article and ways of improving my writing. I also am very excited to see the Aveneu of the Columns story printed as the center spread on Sunday, because I have been working on this story for about two weeks. Working on this article is also great because it makes me feel more like a member of the community of Columbia as I have had the opportunity to report on something that informs the public about proposed renovations to 8th Street.
I was slightly disappointed that I didn’t think of something for the Primary coverage. I feel like it would have been really great to get some video footage of the Missourian newsroom on the Tuesday evening to put in the Smart Decision vlog. This is a great way to combine the efforts of the election beat and my current capstone. I realize that for future campaign, political, and election coverage getting a behind the scene video montage would be a very beneficial way to break the preverbial third wall and bring the viewers into our election night experience.
Articles this week:
Avenue of the Columns
Chantix
Obama Primary (contributed to this story, Story By Rachel Heaton)
P.S.
I want to discuss the shells project more, and I am dissapointed that I couldn't make the discussion on Friday. Can't wait to get more involved in the project.
I feel really good about the Avenue of the Columns story and I am so glad that Scott Swafford is my editor. He is very helpful with communicating what I need to tighten up in my article and ways of improving my writing. I also am very excited to see the Aveneu of the Columns story printed as the center spread on Sunday, because I have been working on this story for about two weeks. Working on this article is also great because it makes me feel more like a member of the community of Columbia as I have had the opportunity to report on something that informs the public about proposed renovations to 8th Street.
I was slightly disappointed that I didn’t think of something for the Primary coverage. I feel like it would have been really great to get some video footage of the Missourian newsroom on the Tuesday evening to put in the Smart Decision vlog. This is a great way to combine the efforts of the election beat and my current capstone. I realize that for future campaign, political, and election coverage getting a behind the scene video montage would be a very beneficial way to break the preverbial third wall and bring the viewers into our election night experience.
Articles this week:
Avenue of the Columns
Chantix
Obama Primary (contributed to this story, Story By Rachel Heaton)
P.S.
I want to discuss the shells project more, and I am dissapointed that I couldn't make the discussion on Friday. Can't wait to get more involved in the project.
Friday, February 8, 2008
2/8
Like everyone else, I was entranced by election coverage just about that whole week. And it seems like we even had our own little "Dewey defeats Truman" moment here in Missouri when some networks and media outlets (Fox News, KC Star, AP among them) called the state for Hillary too early and ended up eating crow.
Even though Obama's win really only provided him with a little momentum, the premature projections show that the same inclination that existed for networks in 2000 when calling the state of Florida for Gore. Is getting it early on election night still that much more important than getting it right?
I was at home watching the returns with my roommates and following a number of web sites with the data, including CNN and Robin Carnahan's SOS page. And even I could tell that the state was way too close to call, given that returns from pro-Obama Boone Co., Jackson Co., and StL counties weren't in yet. What good is election coverage if the "projections" made can't be relied upon? Let's hope that networks look closely at election night coverage or the media could gain another black eye like it did in 2000.
Progress Report- Finished 2 spot stories this week, one on election night eve and one covering an immigration hearing. I hope to really get entrenched in coverage of the immigration debate this year hopefully.
Even though Obama's win really only provided him with a little momentum, the premature projections show that the same inclination that existed for networks in 2000 when calling the state of Florida for Gore. Is getting it early on election night still that much more important than getting it right?
I was at home watching the returns with my roommates and following a number of web sites with the data, including CNN and Robin Carnahan's SOS page. And even I could tell that the state was way too close to call, given that returns from pro-Obama Boone Co., Jackson Co., and StL counties weren't in yet. What good is election coverage if the "projections" made can't be relied upon? Let's hope that networks look closely at election night coverage or the media could gain another black eye like it did in 2000.
Progress Report- Finished 2 spot stories this week, one on election night eve and one covering an immigration hearing. I hope to really get entrenched in coverage of the immigration debate this year hopefully.
Are you capable of Murder?
I hope that everyone has read their newspaper today and saw the cover story about the city council shooting. Unfortunately, Two police officers and three city officials died after a Kirkwood man took murderous action on his frustration toward city officials. After reading the story, my best friend Melissa became unusually concerned. "He was the nicest man" was her response.
It turned out that she was very familiar with the shooter in Kirkwood. She grew up in the Kirkwood area, and they lived in the same neighborhood. She said that he was always friendly and gave Melissa and her sister candy wen he saw them. This lead me to think about various other murderers, and the news coverage of their neighbors, relatives or close friends saying how shocked were. So my question is: What makes a murderer? Does it take a crazy person to take someone's life, or is anyone capable of loosing control and committing the act? Considering the how often shootings take place in America and my life experiences, I find it more and more difficult to find the answer.
Week 3
So, this week I worked on Super Tuesday, but I also worked a lot on a story about a weird rule about backpacks. No one I need to talk to is very quick about getting back to me, so it's making a relatively simple story pretty difficult to get done. Which is worrisome because I have yet to publish a print story of my own. I wrote 5 Ideas once, did a video story, and did work on Super Tuesday but didn't have a byline. My story about backpacks is as good as done, but I don't have people not actually involved in the school district (they're hopefully calling me back soon). I'm not really sure what the expectations are, since I didn't take the first reporting class, but Scott and I sat down and talked about things, so... I'm working on it.
Meanwhile, I'm a little concerned about the web shells project. I won't be able to make the meeting on Friday because I work at 3, but honestly I am very afraid that we are biting off more than we can chew. We've got big dreams, and that's good, but we simply don't have the manpower to do a lot of the things the class has suggested. Wikis would be cool, but let's be honest - the people working on ColumbiaMissourian.com couldn't even embed the YouTube video of Governor Blunt in our webpage. I think we're going to end up planning a lot of things we aren't capable of doing if we don't take a step back and look at what is actually feasible with the people we have, the website we have and the amount of content that we will have. Web shells are a possibility and would be an asset to the Missourian, but unless people are already at work making the web shells more capable (and that is a months-long process), we're going to have to scale-down our plans, and make them for broader subjects.
Meanwhile, I'm a little concerned about the web shells project. I won't be able to make the meeting on Friday because I work at 3, but honestly I am very afraid that we are biting off more than we can chew. We've got big dreams, and that's good, but we simply don't have the manpower to do a lot of the things the class has suggested. Wikis would be cool, but let's be honest - the people working on ColumbiaMissourian.com couldn't even embed the YouTube video of Governor Blunt in our webpage. I think we're going to end up planning a lot of things we aren't capable of doing if we don't take a step back and look at what is actually feasible with the people we have, the website we have and the amount of content that we will have. Web shells are a possibility and would be an asset to the Missourian, but unless people are already at work making the web shells more capable (and that is a months-long process), we're going to have to scale-down our plans, and make them for broader subjects.
Election frustration
The reason I majored in journalism is because I wanted to be involved in the political process, but the problem I am having with this election is I am not allowed to report anything to do with the presidential candidates. I worked for Obama's campaign over the summer, and I had a great time, but because of that I am not allowed to work on stories about the candidates.
I enjoyed my job with the Obama campaign and think I made a difference, but at the same time I think it compromises my ability to become a political reporter. The biggest story in the world for the next 9 months will be this, and I can't write a word about it as a journalist. There are also other things I had not thought about before taking the job, like if Obama were to win the presidency, would any story about him be off-limits for me for the next 4-8 years?
It is a frustrating situation for me, because this story is something that I live for, and I know a lot about it, but there is nothing I can do. I've taken some solace in the fact that I have been able to help some of the other reporters at the Missourian on the story with background info and possible source, but it isn't how I imagined reporting on politics would be.
I think in a way politics can be a bit like writing about sports, because to really care about an election or sport, you probably have to have a rooting interest. At the same time, this changes the way you view it, and may make you less objective and useful to the readers. It is a catch-22 that I am having a hard time resolving in my head, and it is hard to sit on the sidelines for something this big.
I enjoyed my job with the Obama campaign and think I made a difference, but at the same time I think it compromises my ability to become a political reporter. The biggest story in the world for the next 9 months will be this, and I can't write a word about it as a journalist. There are also other things I had not thought about before taking the job, like if Obama were to win the presidency, would any story about him be off-limits for me for the next 4-8 years?
It is a frustrating situation for me, because this story is something that I live for, and I know a lot about it, but there is nothing I can do. I've taken some solace in the fact that I have been able to help some of the other reporters at the Missourian on the story with background info and possible source, but it isn't how I imagined reporting on politics would be.
I think in a way politics can be a bit like writing about sports, because to really care about an election or sport, you probably have to have a rooting interest. At the same time, this changes the way you view it, and may make you less objective and useful to the readers. It is a catch-22 that I am having a hard time resolving in my head, and it is hard to sit on the sidelines for something this big.
Continue the Conversation
I wrote my first 5 Ideas column of the semester this week, and the concept behind the column drew upon a lot of why I've always seemed to find journalism so attractive. Ideally, every story that we put in print or on the Web is designed to foster conversation somewhere down the line. Of course, the stories we write are meant to inform, enlighten, be a voice for the voiceless, and so on and so forth.
But the 5 Ideas column's primary purpose is to continue the news conversation. In a way, I feel like an old-fashioned journalist, being more of a gatekeeper to the week's most influential stories, both nationally and locally. You summarize the events, and then you ask a thought-provoking (or perhaps even slightly charged) question in relation to the information you've given. I'll confess, I don't know how many people read and respond to the column on a regular basis, but, nevertheless, I think the idea behind it is great and is a noble venture to help initiate further discussion on important or popular issues for mid-Missourians. Oh, and making tongue-in-cheek titles for the columns can be fun if you make it fun.
Progress: Well, I was sick the first part of the week, dragging myself to classes on Monday and Wednesday and trying to recuperate most of the day Tuesday. I spent Thursday afternoon writing the 5 Ideas column and a short story on the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. The clip count is fine, so I'm not frustrated in that regard. I'm starting to get frustrated, though, that every time I come into the newsroom, some sort of spot news on my beat happens to break out. It's keeping me from working on my Study Abroad piece. I feel like a broken record, but I really hope I can take a big bite out of it next week, instead of finding little crumbs of information here and there. I've never actually hoped for the "no news is good news" adage while I've been reporting, but I wouldn't mind it next week to have time to do some digging.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Journalism...bad for democracy?
What? I've been expelled? But I haven't even written anyth...
-----
*Disclaimer: I was a big supporter of Joe Biden who, in today's media climate, never had a real chance. Currently, I'm strongly in favor of an Obama/McCain election, and am leaning slightly toward the latter.
-----
Post-super Tuesday, the Democratic candidates for president are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the Republicans are...well it's basically just John McCain.
Or is it? And did it have to be this way? And what role did journalists play in creating it?
Let me start off by saying that there are few bigger defenders of journalism than me...my roomates constantly complain about the news and bias and this and that, I try to set them straight, and they mostly just ignore me. When I was confronted yesterday about the idea that the news media basically decides who the candidates are going to be, though, I could only hang my head. In my opinion, we do...and that certainly isn't good for this nation.
Think about who those that are still in it are, and think about those that are gone. Who were the best stories? Who got the most play? Who was most interesting? These are the people that get all the attention. Who has the best policies...well...that's nice too, but if they used to be the First Lady, or if they just so happen to be black, well...it's the stories about them that bring in the readers/viewers.
Now, don't get me wrong here...the current front-runners are all very worthy candidates...but I just wonder how much their ability to lead our nation had to do with anything. If there were no TV, papers only printed the facts rather than speculation, and all we had were debates to help us decide whom to vote for, would these still be our choices? Or would it be Joe Biden? Or John Edwards? Or Sam Brownback? The media proclaiming front-runners and saying who is in and who is out and who doesn't have a chance does a serious disservice to the public we serve.
My point: The media has a bias towards that which is interesting. I don't know any journalists that purposely slant in favor of one party or another...but there sure were a lot more stories/information about the candidates that happened to be really different than your average white male presidential candidate. Is this our fault? Probably not. It's a business, too.
Would Americans be better off if they only knew the issues and experience levels of the candidates? You bet.
-----
Progress Report: I finally got my beat yesterday: MU baseball. Pretty excited about it, considering that I want to be a baseball writer when I grow up. I haven't done any stories yet, but I will be attending a dinner for the team on Saturday, and have been absorbing everything I can about the team.
The shells thing is making more sense to me now after missing the first class with illness, and our last class was actually kind of exciting. My favorite thing about the j-school is just how smart/thought provoking everyone is. Solid work.
-----
*Disclaimer: I was a big supporter of Joe Biden who, in today's media climate, never had a real chance. Currently, I'm strongly in favor of an Obama/McCain election, and am leaning slightly toward the latter.
-----
Post-super Tuesday, the Democratic candidates for president are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the Republicans are...well it's basically just John McCain.
Or is it? And did it have to be this way? And what role did journalists play in creating it?
Let me start off by saying that there are few bigger defenders of journalism than me...my roomates constantly complain about the news and bias and this and that, I try to set them straight, and they mostly just ignore me. When I was confronted yesterday about the idea that the news media basically decides who the candidates are going to be, though, I could only hang my head. In my opinion, we do...and that certainly isn't good for this nation.
Think about who those that are still in it are, and think about those that are gone. Who were the best stories? Who got the most play? Who was most interesting? These are the people that get all the attention. Who has the best policies...well...that's nice too, but if they used to be the First Lady, or if they just so happen to be black, well...it's the stories about them that bring in the readers/viewers.
Now, don't get me wrong here...the current front-runners are all very worthy candidates...but I just wonder how much their ability to lead our nation had to do with anything. If there were no TV, papers only printed the facts rather than speculation, and all we had were debates to help us decide whom to vote for, would these still be our choices? Or would it be Joe Biden? Or John Edwards? Or Sam Brownback? The media proclaiming front-runners and saying who is in and who is out and who doesn't have a chance does a serious disservice to the public we serve.
My point: The media has a bias towards that which is interesting. I don't know any journalists that purposely slant in favor of one party or another...but there sure were a lot more stories/information about the candidates that happened to be really different than your average white male presidential candidate. Is this our fault? Probably not. It's a business, too.
Would Americans be better off if they only knew the issues and experience levels of the candidates? You bet.
-----
Progress Report: I finally got my beat yesterday: MU baseball. Pretty excited about it, considering that I want to be a baseball writer when I grow up. I haven't done any stories yet, but I will be attending a dinner for the team on Saturday, and have been absorbing everything I can about the team.
The shells thing is making more sense to me now after missing the first class with illness, and our last class was actually kind of exciting. My favorite thing about the j-school is just how smart/thought provoking everyone is. Solid work.
Writers Strike for Democracy. Mk, maybe not.
Super Tuesday
I have a theory about the youth vote this year. Does anyone else think the “Year of the Youth Vote” (as TIME would put it) is energized not just because the political stakes are massive but because, well…there’s nothing else on TV?
I know that as a journalist and political junkie, I’m way out of touch with the reality of the way the broader public views politics. But I can’t help wondering if the writers’ strike has helped stoke the flames, ever so slightly, of political ownership among people my age…people who were, in a lot of ways, raised by cable TV. We have few sitcoms and dramas left to watch. Pseudo-news is pretty much the only new material on television besides actual news. Even MTV’s “TRL” seems more political than it used to.
I hope I’m wrong, and I know I probably am; it’d be nice to think that people are just so fed up with the status quo that they’re finally getting energized about their political system. Still, I’d find it entertaining to see a by-the-numbers breakdown. Are more young people watching the news? Are fewer young people watching re-runs and reality shows? It’s something interesting to ponder, if nothing else.
Progress Report:
Monday morning, I interviewed the curator of the Art and Archaeology museum on campus. Since then, I’ve been to the library and have done some background research on Missouri’s pre-Columbian civilizations and the Southeast Ceremonial Complex. Missouri, apparently, was once home to civilizations that produced artwork with some pretty amazing consistencies from Wisconsin all the way down to the Gulf Coast and throughout the Mississippi River Valley. Symbols in artwork from the Mississippian time period (about 1000-1600 AD) are impressively, even mysteriously, similar over a large region. The similarities transcend language and cultural boundaries and are the subject of hot debate and curiosity among archaeologists. I want to explore the Southeast Ceremonial Complex and the place Missouri has within it for my story inspired by the Art & Archaeology Museum’s “Before Columbus” exhibit featuring iconography from the Americas. I’ll be interviewing the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences for this story Monday afternoon, as he’s an expert in North American Archeology and is also curator of the Anthropology museum here. I will probably visit some rock art sites across Missouri next weekend and may venture all the way to East St. Louis to visit Cahokia.
It’s weird to feel like I’m making progress when I’m not producing tangible clips every day, but I’m feeling pretty good nonetheless. It’s just taking me a while to get used to working on long term, in-depth stories instead of breaking news.
I have a theory about the youth vote this year. Does anyone else think the “Year of the Youth Vote” (as TIME would put it) is energized not just because the political stakes are massive but because, well…there’s nothing else on TV?
I know that as a journalist and political junkie, I’m way out of touch with the reality of the way the broader public views politics. But I can’t help wondering if the writers’ strike has helped stoke the flames, ever so slightly, of political ownership among people my age…people who were, in a lot of ways, raised by cable TV. We have few sitcoms and dramas left to watch. Pseudo-news is pretty much the only new material on television besides actual news. Even MTV’s “TRL” seems more political than it used to.
I hope I’m wrong, and I know I probably am; it’d be nice to think that people are just so fed up with the status quo that they’re finally getting energized about their political system. Still, I’d find it entertaining to see a by-the-numbers breakdown. Are more young people watching the news? Are fewer young people watching re-runs and reality shows? It’s something interesting to ponder, if nothing else.
Progress Report:
Monday morning, I interviewed the curator of the Art and Archaeology museum on campus. Since then, I’ve been to the library and have done some background research on Missouri’s pre-Columbian civilizations and the Southeast Ceremonial Complex. Missouri, apparently, was once home to civilizations that produced artwork with some pretty amazing consistencies from Wisconsin all the way down to the Gulf Coast and throughout the Mississippi River Valley. Symbols in artwork from the Mississippian time period (about 1000-1600 AD) are impressively, even mysteriously, similar over a large region. The similarities transcend language and cultural boundaries and are the subject of hot debate and curiosity among archaeologists. I want to explore the Southeast Ceremonial Complex and the place Missouri has within it for my story inspired by the Art & Archaeology Museum’s “Before Columbus” exhibit featuring iconography from the Americas. I’ll be interviewing the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences for this story Monday afternoon, as he’s an expert in North American Archeology and is also curator of the Anthropology museum here. I will probably visit some rock art sites across Missouri next weekend and may venture all the way to East St. Louis to visit Cahokia.
It’s weird to feel like I’m making progress when I’m not producing tangible clips every day, but I’m feeling pretty good nonetheless. It’s just taking me a while to get used to working on long term, in-depth stories instead of breaking news.
How Can We Make Ourselves Columbia's Coffee House?
First, I'm a lot more excited about this shells project now. The idea of an organically growing "uncalendar" really appeals to me. Maybe "information hub" is a better name for
what we're trying to create than shells. At least, that's what appeals to me about this project — the chance to create something that buzzes. We add information in different formats, organize the structure and then allow the community to add what they know/interact with the information.
That same idea has been driving my work this week. It's been a thrill. The district announced the formation of another community advisory committee on Tuesday, and we broke the story on our blog. Even better, the breaking news box on the Missourian's webpage linked to our blog as the source of information which was intense. Because people kept coming to the blog, there was this huge drive to provide more and new information as quickly as possible, as well as using links to provide context for the story.
We got over five times the amount of hits that day. The coolest part though, was that yesterday our traffic was twice as high as it has been all this semester. People came back.
Other beat reporters have begun posting, both on their required days and independently as news occurs. So far, their commentary posts have been thoughtful and directed to the reader. The internet is changing the way we cover news; I think projects like this illustrate how the internet is making news coverage better by becoming reader-directed.
Progress Report:
I had one article in the paper this week,and more blog posts than I can count on one hand. I've had a meeting or interview nearly every day. I wish I had more to show for those, but alone, they haven't merited articles. It's a classic example of what Liz calls The Cow. There's a huge cow here, the district's finances, and I have to find the steaks and then tease them into articles.
The angles emerging from all those meetings are: 1. How much do people want to teach in the district and what effect does the current system of benefits and salary have on that, 2. Who will actually be paying this tax levy (property owners), and who won't (government-owned property)?
I've also been emailing the major players in current district issues to ask them to send us a heads up about meetings or events so that we can put up notices on the blog as soon as possible. Hopefully those updates will make it more of a one-stop noticeboard/conversation nexus.
what we're trying to create than shells. At least, that's what appeals to me about this project — the chance to create something that buzzes. We add information in different formats, organize the structure and then allow the community to add what they know/interact with the information.
That same idea has been driving my work this week. It's been a thrill. The district announced the formation of another community advisory committee on Tuesday, and we broke the story on our blog. Even better, the breaking news box on the Missourian's webpage linked to our blog as the source of information which was intense. Because people kept coming to the blog, there was this huge drive to provide more and new information as quickly as possible, as well as using links to provide context for the story.
We got over five times the amount of hits that day. The coolest part though, was that yesterday our traffic was twice as high as it has been all this semester. People came back.
Other beat reporters have begun posting, both on their required days and independently as news occurs. So far, their commentary posts have been thoughtful and directed to the reader. The internet is changing the way we cover news; I think projects like this illustrate how the internet is making news coverage better by becoming reader-directed.
Progress Report:
I had one article in the paper this week,and more blog posts than I can count on one hand. I've had a meeting or interview nearly every day. I wish I had more to show for those, but alone, they haven't merited articles. It's a classic example of what Liz calls The Cow. There's a huge cow here, the district's finances, and I have to find the steaks and then tease them into articles.
The angles emerging from all those meetings are: 1. How much do people want to teach in the district and what effect does the current system of benefits and salary have on that, 2. Who will actually be paying this tax levy (property owners), and who won't (government-owned property)?
I've also been emailing the major players in current district issues to ask them to send us a heads up about meetings or events so that we can put up notices on the blog as soon as possible. Hopefully those updates will make it more of a one-stop noticeboard/conversation nexus.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Looking forward to Super Tuesday
So, who's excited for next Tuesday? I am, but I'm also a little scared. The newsroom is going to be ridiculous, and I've never been around during breaking news, really.
Public life is hitting the ground running. We will be sending print reporters everywhere, along with as many convergence students as we can find. That's not really the part I'm worried about, though. I'm worried about what happens when they all get back. I'm excited to see how we synthesize the information, and make sure that all those reporters aren't overlapping each other. How often are we going to update the website (with copy or with just statistics)? Are there enough editors to go around? Probably for print, although it will be busy. I can tell you right now that there won't be enough computers or editors for all of that video. We will probably have to send at least half of them across the street to Gannett to work there. I hope the server doesn't crash!
Despite the crazieness, it's going to be a really fun day. We will all sleep well that night, haha (or maybe that depends on the election results...)
Public life is hitting the ground running. We will be sending print reporters everywhere, along with as many convergence students as we can find. That's not really the part I'm worried about, though. I'm worried about what happens when they all get back. I'm excited to see how we synthesize the information, and make sure that all those reporters aren't overlapping each other. How often are we going to update the website (with copy or with just statistics)? Are there enough editors to go around? Probably for print, although it will be busy. I can tell you right now that there won't be enough computers or editors for all of that video. We will probably have to send at least half of them across the street to Gannett to work there. I hope the server doesn't crash!
Despite the crazieness, it's going to be a really fun day. We will all sleep well that night, haha (or maybe that depends on the election results...)
Friday, February 1, 2008
News flash: Katie is easily distracted
Cluttered newspaper websites drive me crazy. Take this morning: I wanted to read about the Democratic debates because I didn’t get a chance to watch last night. I wanted to know what they discussed, whether they were more cordial this time around, what it was like without Edwards. I went to CNN because I hadn’t checked out their election coverage since the ’06 midterms. But before I could get there I was distracted by a story on the front page about the importance of the youth vote. While somewhat related, it was about Obama’s appeal to youth. I really enjoyed the article but the point is that I never got to reading about the debate. I wanted to get to the issues.
The article accomplished its goal, but the website did not. Layout of websites need to be conducive to readers like me – ones who are easily distracted and have a hard time passing up an in depth article when it randomly jumps into view.
Just for clarity, this happens to me all the time. I get onto a news website wanting to read one thing, actually reading something completely unrelated and forgetting to read what I wanted to read in the first place. I think if the youth voting article was on the same page as the debate coverage, I would have read both. This is where I think the web shells concept can really come in handy because it puts them together and reminds me what I wanted to read in the first place. There are certain news stories and topics I have continued interest in and if I found reliable, well organized web shells on these topics, it just might convert me to internet news fan. Might.
Progress: My first article of the semester was published today as the Second Front centerpiece. I think the writing and reporting was solid. Next on my plate is a story about a rouge water company that’s being sued by the Public Service Commission on behalf of Blue Acres trailor park residents.
The article accomplished its goal, but the website did not. Layout of websites need to be conducive to readers like me – ones who are easily distracted and have a hard time passing up an in depth article when it randomly jumps into view.
Just for clarity, this happens to me all the time. I get onto a news website wanting to read one thing, actually reading something completely unrelated and forgetting to read what I wanted to read in the first place. I think if the youth voting article was on the same page as the debate coverage, I would have read both. This is where I think the web shells concept can really come in handy because it puts them together and reminds me what I wanted to read in the first place. There are certain news stories and topics I have continued interest in and if I found reliable, well organized web shells on these topics, it just might convert me to internet news fan. Might.
Progress: My first article of the semester was published today as the Second Front centerpiece. I think the writing and reporting was solid. Next on my plate is a story about a rouge water company that’s being sued by the Public Service Commission on behalf of Blue Acres trailor park residents.
2/1
Our various brainstorming sessions about shells has raised an interesting question to me about my consumption of the news. I, like just about everyone else in my generation, consume most of my news via the net, and while I still look at the Digmo page, and usually the Post-Dispatch page, I find my use of "traditional" media web sites to be declining.
One of the major reasons is that I don't see improvement in a lot of the web sites I used to follow almost religiously like ESPN or CNN. Unless I want to check a certain score or updated election data, I rarely, if ever visit these websites, instead choosing sites with more entertainment value or commentary.
Another reason is probably the election season, and the coverage of it. On CNN, you'll find two election stories on the front page: "Coulter wants Clinton over McCain" and "Clinton, Obama change tones at debate". While the news value of the first story is debatable, neither story provides much of anything in the way of new coverage. As candidates rehash their arguments in the latest of a long line of relatively meaningless debates, it seems the manufactured tension between Obama and Clinton is the only story that holds us over until we get actual numbers in next Tuesday. Far more entertaining and important political coverage exists on more non-traditional media sites.
Here are some cool links if you have a couple minutes to kill
LA Times Editor farewell remarks-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/media/22papertext.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=LA%20Times%20editor&st=nyt&scp=1&oref=slogin
Great Seattle Times coverage of the 2000 Washington Huskies team that will utterly depress you about college sports--
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/victoryandruins/
Progress Report- Changed my beat from health care to crime/immigration because my editor Phill said it would be the most important topic of session. Finished a story on cyber harrassment on Wednesday.
One of the major reasons is that I don't see improvement in a lot of the web sites I used to follow almost religiously like ESPN or CNN. Unless I want to check a certain score or updated election data, I rarely, if ever visit these websites, instead choosing sites with more entertainment value or commentary.
Another reason is probably the election season, and the coverage of it. On CNN, you'll find two election stories on the front page: "Coulter wants Clinton over McCain" and "Clinton, Obama change tones at debate". While the news value of the first story is debatable, neither story provides much of anything in the way of new coverage. As candidates rehash their arguments in the latest of a long line of relatively meaningless debates, it seems the manufactured tension between Obama and Clinton is the only story that holds us over until we get actual numbers in next Tuesday. Far more entertaining and important political coverage exists on more non-traditional media sites.
Here are some cool links if you have a couple minutes to kill
LA Times Editor farewell remarks-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/media/22papertext.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=LA%20Times%20editor&st=nyt&scp=1&oref=slogin
Great Seattle Times coverage of the 2000 Washington Huskies team that will utterly depress you about college sports--
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/victoryandruins/
Progress Report- Changed my beat from health care to crime/immigration because my editor Phill said it would be the most important topic of session. Finished a story on cyber harrassment on Wednesday.
Lampe's Week Two Post
This was a productive week, yet ironically it feels like no much happened. I had two interviews for two stories that are being printed next week and finished another story yesterday that is being printed next week.
It feels like not much happened, but this is simply a by product of my scheduling throughout the week. I am very happy that the article about Chantix, a perscription drug that helps people quit someking will be published in VOX next week. I’m also happy that I got the two interviews done this week. My guess is that the two articles will be published early to mid week next week.
One of the articles is on the Avenue of the Columns renovations set to take place over the next year. I am estimating the article to be between 600 and 700 words. I am really excited about this article though, because the city manager will be sending me a copy of the newest updates to the architectural design at the beginning of next week, so the Missourian will be graphically showing this to the public before the city council or any other media outlet.
I guess this week has been beneficial also, because I have had the opportunity to manage three stories, but don’t feel overwhelmed. I must say though as the primary is coming up I am and I am wrapping up these three stories, I am really excited for a few day turn stories next week. The adrenaline rush is an addcition.
It feels like not much happened, but this is simply a by product of my scheduling throughout the week. I am very happy that the article about Chantix, a perscription drug that helps people quit someking will be published in VOX next week. I’m also happy that I got the two interviews done this week. My guess is that the two articles will be published early to mid week next week.
One of the articles is on the Avenue of the Columns renovations set to take place over the next year. I am estimating the article to be between 600 and 700 words. I am really excited about this article though, because the city manager will be sending me a copy of the newest updates to the architectural design at the beginning of next week, so the Missourian will be graphically showing this to the public before the city council or any other media outlet.
I guess this week has been beneficial also, because I have had the opportunity to manage three stories, but don’t feel overwhelmed. I must say though as the primary is coming up I am and I am wrapping up these three stories, I am really excited for a few day turn stories next week. The adrenaline rush is an addcition.
Online future
It seems to me the discussion our class is addressing is what the future of newspaper journalism is, not as much newspapers. I am for one relieved, because too often I feel like we are talking about income is shrinking for newspapers and people freaking out about where the business it going. I feel like I am a writer, let me write. It's not that I don't care about where the business is going, there seems too often to be a non-productive freak-out rather than a discussion about ways to improve.
I think shells are a niche market, which is where online sites are going. There is a continual fracturing of the market share in all forms of media, as more websites, blogs, and TV. This is something that is unavoidable, and thats why I think we need to have as many different features on our website as possible. I think having a City Council shell, for example, is something that many citizens would bookmark. We could have stories about the council, our video of recent debates and meetings, links to the council sites, and discussion forums for citizens to react. I am very excited about this project, and I think it will force some of us (like me) to finally learn some of the online technology and convergence tools.
I think shells are a niche market, which is where online sites are going. There is a continual fracturing of the market share in all forms of media, as more websites, blogs, and TV. This is something that is unavoidable, and thats why I think we need to have as many different features on our website as possible. I think having a City Council shell, for example, is something that many citizens would bookmark. We could have stories about the council, our video of recent debates and meetings, links to the council sites, and discussion forums for citizens to react. I am very excited about this project, and I think it will force some of us (like me) to finally learn some of the online technology and convergence tools.
Crochety
As a class project, I'm really excited about the concept of shells. How cool — we approach an issue from different angles, different media and end up with a well-organized launching pad for readers to get as much information they want in the way they want.
As a reader, I'm less than thrilled. I realized when looking for good examples of shells online, that I never get drawn in by shells. I like to find what I want from the person closest to the action. No news source can do that for even a single issue. Maybe it's just me. But, as a reader, I see shells as a new answer to an old newspaper question: "How do we make ourselves the source of news for our readers?"
I think the question is flawed. With the internet, no news source can ever hope for that. If someone is online, reading our website, it costs them absolutely nothing to go to a different website — which means they will the moment they want better information. As a reader, I was frustrated by some parts of the God, Sex and Family example. About.com was used as a source, and my immediate reaction was, "why am I here and bothering with this giant hand? I could have found a better answer much more quickly using Google."
At the same time, I loved "Now Leaving Colorado City," because it was great presentation of a perspective I couldn't have gotten anywhere else.
Shells are a great way to organize information. But they take time. And we really have to think about time. How many minutes should we spend making a flash graphic to dress up information our readers could find in seconds?
Progress Report:
No articles from me this week. Instead, I've been learning all I can about Missouri school finance and how it is driving what we're experiencing with the deficit. There's a lot to this issue and it's also numerically intimidating. I've been taking a few of the other K-12 reporters to interviews this week and I think we'll be soon be able to write about this with some authority.
The blog is also getting more posts (and more hits!), next week we'll each have an assigned day to post something.
As a reader, I'm less than thrilled. I realized when looking for good examples of shells online, that I never get drawn in by shells. I like to find what I want from the person closest to the action. No news source can do that for even a single issue. Maybe it's just me. But, as a reader, I see shells as a new answer to an old newspaper question: "How do we make ourselves the source of news for our readers?"
I think the question is flawed. With the internet, no news source can ever hope for that. If someone is online, reading our website, it costs them absolutely nothing to go to a different website — which means they will the moment they want better information. As a reader, I was frustrated by some parts of the God, Sex and Family example. About.com was used as a source, and my immediate reaction was, "why am I here and bothering with this giant hand? I could have found a better answer much more quickly using Google."
At the same time, I loved "Now Leaving Colorado City," because it was great presentation of a perspective I couldn't have gotten anywhere else.
Shells are a great way to organize information. But they take time. And we really have to think about time. How many minutes should we spend making a flash graphic to dress up information our readers could find in seconds?
Progress Report:
No articles from me this week. Instead, I've been learning all I can about Missouri school finance and how it is driving what we're experiencing with the deficit. There's a lot to this issue and it's also numerically intimidating. I've been taking a few of the other K-12 reporters to interviews this week and I think we'll be soon be able to write about this with some authority.
The blog is also getting more posts (and more hits!), next week we'll each have an assigned day to post something.
Sam Miles 2/1
After being run over by the train that is strep throat last week, I actually made it to my first lecture this week. Unfortunately, it was pretty obvious that I was behind with regard to the discussions on shells that were had, and it has taken a little bit of catching up to get on the same page with everyone. As far as I can tell…and this is pretty early on in the game…but it does seem to be a worthwhile endeavor, and one that might serve our readers better. That said, I really wish I had been able to make it to class the first week, because I would have loved to hear everyone’s opinions on the matter.
As far as my progress, I’m still waiting until baseball/softball season before I’ll be up to too much at the newspaper. I’ve been backloaded with work lately, but hopefully I can make it in most nights this next week and pick up something to do, just to keep me sharp. In that same vein, I’ve been brushing up on my AP and Missourian style books to get back in the habit (I’ve kept writing, but not in the same format).
As far as my progress, I’m still waiting until baseball/softball season before I’ll be up to too much at the newspaper. I’ve been backloaded with work lately, but hopefully I can make it in most nights this next week and pick up something to do, just to keep me sharp. In that same vein, I’ve been brushing up on my AP and Missourian style books to get back in the habit (I’ve kept writing, but not in the same format).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)