I would honestly like to see the candidates step it up for once.
Just one year, I implore, of truly informational, honest campaign ads that could give the viewer a way to have a stance on that politician besides name-calling and demeaning ads.
I am not naive, I know that obviously these bashing, negative advertisements work or else we would not be seeing them.
But I dream of an election where there could be two leaders that actually agree to rise above those immature tactics and tell the public that "this is how we should be electing the head of our country." There has to be a way that we could act in civilized manners instead of each potential groundbreaker skewing information to make someone look worse than they do. I know that politics has always been laced with dishonesty or stretching of the truth, but couldn't this have been the year to leave the reputation-killing ads in the dust?
I'm not a hypocrite, I admit that I respond as much as the next person to those negative ads, I just wish that the race could somehow become more of an ethical practice.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Guided Assignment # 3 - Claire McCaskill
This is the next round of my guided assignments, where we are supposed to research a Missouri Senator. Senator Claire McCaskill was previously auditor for the state of MIssouri. Elected a Missouri Senator in 2006, she has very strict feelings toward many prevalent issues. McCaskill has voiced her stance on illegal immigration laws, and believes in cracking down on those who break the law. She believes that those immigrants here illegally and those who employ them for cheap labor should be exposed and convicted. This also entails that she is not for giving amnesty to those convicted. The Senator does not think this nation is in need of any new guest worker programs. She feels these will "undermine American workers." McCaskill feels that nothing will be done until these special interest groups are abolished, and our borders are secured. She is fighting Washington in this battle to secure funding for Missouri on this issue and secure the nation's borders.
Open ended questions to ask:
1. How does illegal immigration affect you on a personal level?
2. What else would you like to see done to stop illegal immigration?
3. Why not let prisoners have amnesty? Why no tolerance for this issue?
4. What were the conditions that made you only vote with your Democratic party 84.4% of the time?
5. How would you make jobs more appealing to those taken only by immigrant workers?
1. Does your party affiliation primarily affect how you feel about this issue?
2. Do you think more laws should be made on immigration?
3. Would you change how Washington spends their money on immigration boundaries?
4. Is this issue one of your most highly ranked priorities?
5. Do you see any changes in the future for illegal immigrant laws?
Sources:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Claire_McCaskill_Immigration.htm
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m001170/
http://www.claireonline.com/issues/immigration.jsp
Open ended questions to ask:
1. How does illegal immigration affect you on a personal level?
2. What else would you like to see done to stop illegal immigration?
3. Why not let prisoners have amnesty? Why no tolerance for this issue?
4. What were the conditions that made you only vote with your Democratic party 84.4% of the time?
5. How would you make jobs more appealing to those taken only by immigrant workers?
1. Does your party affiliation primarily affect how you feel about this issue?
2. Do you think more laws should be made on immigration?
3. Would you change how Washington spends their money on immigration boundaries?
4. Is this issue one of your most highly ranked priorities?
5. Do you see any changes in the future for illegal immigrant laws?
Sources:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Claire_McCaskill_Immigration.htm
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m001170/
http://www.claireonline.com/issues/immigration.jsp
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Quality of Leads Questioned
"In August, almost a week after Monte Ruby died, the Green County medical examiner ruled the death was due to 'very serious' injuries to the brain stem.
On Tuesday, the man who allegedly delivered those injuries with a single kick was charged with murder."
This lead is amateurish in nature. My meaning behind that is simply that it could be better. The first thing that is told to the reader is "when" the event happened, not the "who." I realize that this is a second day story, so I'm not positive how harshly I should criticize about what comes first, but I'm fairly sure that stories should for the most part start with "who" all the time. The "who" is presented next in line (Monte Ruby and the medical examiner), and we get the "where" somewhat by the description of the medical examiner (from Greene County). This is followed by the "what" (the death cause) and even "how" (injuries to the brain stem... with a single kick). I included the second paragraph in this lead because it seemed crucial to what the story was digging at. The next "when" is again presented before the who, followed by what happened. It seemed more like a teaser than all of the facts presented in a blunt manner. The details come later, but some were needed to know why this man was accused of murder and what happened in the previous story. The details that typically come later, "where" and "how" are given first in the lead, which seems off to me. Now, to the next lead I chose.
" A new city survey may pave the way for safer sidewalks by identifying problem areas in town.
At least 109 miles of sidewalks need to be repaired or improved to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, according to a survey that is nearly completed."
This lead is also broken into two paragraphs. The first seems to be lacking some information that the next paragraph covers, but I'm not experienced enough in this matter to know if that is acceptable most of the time, or if all the info should always, ideally, be found in the first paragraph. First comes the "what" of the story, which is alright because there really isn't a "who" to talk about yet. The "where" is told in a vague way, because it tells us the survey is "in town." This may be clarified in more detail later, which I'm pretty sure is alright. Next is a bit of the "how" of the situation, telling what is going to be done. We do not get a "when," but this is an ongoing story without a real time - it is currently happening.
" A Drury University freshman was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning during an off-campus party apparently organized in response to tougher enforcement of underage drinking laws during Bid Day on campus Saturday."
This lead, as far as thoroughness, has everything right in the first paragraph. As far as inverted pyramid structure, I think this is the best one out of the three leads that I chose. It is declarative, and in one to the point sentence. As far as how the facts are presented, they're not in the exact right order, but I think that it works. The "who" is first, always a good start, followed by the "what". Next we get a little detail in the "why" and "how," but that's insignificant. "Where" is found first, actually, (Drury), but again later (on campus). Last is "when," on Saturday. I think this is a great example of the structure that is supposed to be modeled in the first paragraph of a story.
On Tuesday, the man who allegedly delivered those injuries with a single kick was charged with murder."
This lead is amateurish in nature. My meaning behind that is simply that it could be better. The first thing that is told to the reader is "when" the event happened, not the "who." I realize that this is a second day story, so I'm not positive how harshly I should criticize about what comes first, but I'm fairly sure that stories should for the most part start with "who" all the time. The "who" is presented next in line (Monte Ruby and the medical examiner), and we get the "where" somewhat by the description of the medical examiner (from Greene County). This is followed by the "what" (the death cause) and even "how" (injuries to the brain stem... with a single kick). I included the second paragraph in this lead because it seemed crucial to what the story was digging at. The next "when" is again presented before the who, followed by what happened. It seemed more like a teaser than all of the facts presented in a blunt manner. The details come later, but some were needed to know why this man was accused of murder and what happened in the previous story. The details that typically come later, "where" and "how" are given first in the lead, which seems off to me. Now, to the next lead I chose.
" A new city survey may pave the way for safer sidewalks by identifying problem areas in town.
At least 109 miles of sidewalks need to be repaired or improved to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, according to a survey that is nearly completed."
This lead is also broken into two paragraphs. The first seems to be lacking some information that the next paragraph covers, but I'm not experienced enough in this matter to know if that is acceptable most of the time, or if all the info should always, ideally, be found in the first paragraph. First comes the "what" of the story, which is alright because there really isn't a "who" to talk about yet. The "where" is told in a vague way, because it tells us the survey is "in town." This may be clarified in more detail later, which I'm pretty sure is alright. Next is a bit of the "how" of the situation, telling what is going to be done. We do not get a "when," but this is an ongoing story without a real time - it is currently happening.
" A Drury University freshman was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning during an off-campus party apparently organized in response to tougher enforcement of underage drinking laws during Bid Day on campus Saturday."
This lead, as far as thoroughness, has everything right in the first paragraph. As far as inverted pyramid structure, I think this is the best one out of the three leads that I chose. It is declarative, and in one to the point sentence. As far as how the facts are presented, they're not in the exact right order, but I think that it works. The "who" is first, always a good start, followed by the "what". Next we get a little detail in the "why" and "how," but that's insignificant. "Where" is found first, actually, (Drury), but again later (on campus). Last is "when," on Saturday. I think this is a great example of the structure that is supposed to be modeled in the first paragraph of a story.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
U.S. Census Reports
Do you know the local statistics? Can you quote to your friends, offhand, what percentage of the city of Springfield, MO makes less than $10,000 a year? One never knows when that information may come in handy. Educating yourself today on some local census reports can only help you.
The state of Missouri has, according to the latest U.S. Census, 5,595,211 citizens. Although there are many estimates of what the population might be now, our communities cannot be sure until the next poll - the 2010 Census. We can all be sure, however, that Springfield in the year of 2000 had 151,580 residents within the city limits.
These citizens can be broken down further demographically by race. The largest percentage of Springfield, a whopping 91.7 percent, was of the white race. Obviously not extremely diversified yet in 2000, 3.3 of our city was African-American, 1.4 percent Asian, 0.8 American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.1 percent being Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Not being entirely specific, the Census just classifies 0.9 percent as being "some other race".
Economic breakdowns were varied, and encompassed a broad range of salaries. The income scope was set from $0 to $200,000 or more a year. Those that were making less than $10,000 a year were 12.6 percent. 9.7 percent was making $10,000 to $15,000. Next came 19.8 percent, the highest percentage, making $15,000 to $25,000. 16.6 percent made $25,000 to $35,000, 17.7 earned $35,000 to $50,000, and 13 percent earned $50,000 to $75,000 a year. The scale begins to go down, as 5.2 percent made $75,000 to $100,000, and 0.9 percent made $150,000 to $200,000 per year. 1.4 percent of Springfield made $200,000 or more in the year 2000.
The state of Missouri has, according to the latest U.S. Census, 5,595,211 citizens. Although there are many estimates of what the population might be now, our communities cannot be sure until the next poll - the 2010 Census. We can all be sure, however, that Springfield in the year of 2000 had 151,580 residents within the city limits.
These citizens can be broken down further demographically by race. The largest percentage of Springfield, a whopping 91.7 percent, was of the white race. Obviously not extremely diversified yet in 2000, 3.3 of our city was African-American, 1.4 percent Asian, 0.8 American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.1 percent being Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Not being entirely specific, the Census just classifies 0.9 percent as being "some other race".
Economic breakdowns were varied, and encompassed a broad range of salaries. The income scope was set from $0 to $200,000 or more a year. Those that were making less than $10,000 a year were 12.6 percent. 9.7 percent was making $10,000 to $15,000. Next came 19.8 percent, the highest percentage, making $15,000 to $25,000. 16.6 percent made $25,000 to $35,000, 17.7 earned $35,000 to $50,000, and 13 percent earned $50,000 to $75,000 a year. The scale begins to go down, as 5.2 percent made $75,000 to $100,000, and 0.9 percent made $150,000 to $200,000 per year. 1.4 percent of Springfield made $200,000 or more in the year 2000.
Journalism.org
I chose today to monitor the news flow through Journalism.org. It's a very thorough site, reporting many different angles. If comparing reports is what you are after, this is the site to be surfing. The front pages of many news sources are even broken down so that the eye can see what is being emphasized where. BBC news tended to be less biased, and also more detailed in its report of how the media covered McCain's speech. The Boston Globe seemed to be trying to redeem Palin, and give her an underdog position. This coverage showed her as victimized; I took that as being a bit more biased than other reports I had read. On of the most straightforward and factually sound reports (to my eyes) was from The Washington Post. This article had both sides, but revealed conservative biases. The opinion column I glanced at from the Chicago Tribune seemed to have a very fair approach, and I was inclined to listen to this take on "anti-media." Phil Rosenthal satirically counterattacked Palin's attack on the media. He was very biased, but that was what an opinion article was supposed to be. His report, however, was not the most thorough account, and left one wanting at least one quote from Palin's anti-media speech. The current state of media and how the channels stack up to one another can be found, if one chooses journalism.org as their site.
Enterprise Entry #2- Facts or Judgements?
While watching CNN today, I kept in mind my assumed future career and my classes. It was midway through that I had the realization that journalism today is, in my opinion, excessive and not about "just the facts." Audiences now must be fed their opinions through others. Not only do these reporters not allow for the audience to be free thinkers, but they do not show the audience what is fact and what is mere speculation. Journalism has always had the threat of being "yellow," or sensationalized. Now, however, it is becoming increasingly over-dramatized and over-analyzed. The hype is becoming more and more offensive to me as I watch discussions on at all hours of the day about the same story, just feeding audiences what they are supposed to think.
It synonymous with the presidential campaign. The issues are not present anymore in media. Media has gradually evolved into a game, as it does during this season, and this is why I (n the past) have chosen not to be emotionally involved in political campaigns. But maybe I have been misled. Maybe I should have been more active. I know this is an evasive and ignorant way of explaining why I hadn't been more involved, but perhaps I would have been more intrigued if I had heard more facts, more actual stances and events to sway me in my political choice. The numbers are obvious in pointing to what actually gets printed.
I know my opinions are jaded, and I can see the other side of the media telling me that they do give facts, you just have to look. I just hope that journalism does not drift toward giving only convictions and still presents unbiased facts as well. I realize there is always a place for opinion writing, and I enjoy reading it and producing it (as I am now) as much as anyone. I just hope to see some of both types of writing out there. I'm not completely confident on this subject, so I hope I learn more in our class about types of writing and where they are appropriate.
It synonymous with the presidential campaign. The issues are not present anymore in media. Media has gradually evolved into a game, as it does during this season, and this is why I (n the past) have chosen not to be emotionally involved in political campaigns. But maybe I have been misled. Maybe I should have been more active. I know this is an evasive and ignorant way of explaining why I hadn't been more involved, but perhaps I would have been more intrigued if I had heard more facts, more actual stances and events to sway me in my political choice. The numbers are obvious in pointing to what actually gets printed.
I know my opinions are jaded, and I can see the other side of the media telling me that they do give facts, you just have to look. I just hope that journalism does not drift toward giving only convictions and still presents unbiased facts as well. I realize there is always a place for opinion writing, and I enjoy reading it and producing it (as I am now) as much as anyone. I just hope to see some of both types of writing out there. I'm not completely confident on this subject, so I hope I learn more in our class about types of writing and where they are appropriate.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Enterprise #1 - Changing my view on journalism
The future of journalism is becoming gradually an independent affair, with more mixed media skills required and less of the traditional training than before. As we discussed in JRN 270, our generation is gradually becoming the providers of content, and expecting to participate in that discourse. I completely agree with the fact that we no longer know a time when the public was not really controlling the media. Now more than ever anyone can create a blog, and I feel a sort of intimidation that comes along with that knowledge. When I got into journalism I always had this ideal picture of working in an editorial staff, with the vision of that newspapers carbon paper and bold headlines right before me. I know that the profession is changing, yet I never before have thought of amazing writers as being online with their blogs. I know my viewpoint is about to change dramatically, and I'm ready to read some great blogs regularly.
On that thought though, I heard (actually my sister heard and called to tell me) on NPR the other day that the University of MIssouri is creating a national scene because they were cutting budgets and decided they could not afford the school newspaper. Nationally acclaimed journalists began calling in to protest and explain their frustration. But isn't that just a changing point, not a death of journalism? Shouldn't we be happy about the change? I know we are told we should be, at least, and I am trying to be. On the newspaper's side, there is just something about holding a piece of news, a source of valuable information, in your own hands. Is it really the death of an era, though? Is it something to really be missed, or a chance to be more adequately equip ourselves with knowledge? As another blogger, "Journerdism" says, "The Internet is changing everything in our culture and to ignore the new tools it offers to leverage the vast and wonderfully deep, previously unavailable information to your competitive advantage would be foolish." (You can read his whole article here: http://www.journerdism.com/2008/09/01/new-journalism-tools-data-analytics-and-social-media-tracking/ )
I would have to agree with that observation. I think I'm finally ready for change.
On that thought though, I heard (actually my sister heard and called to tell me) on NPR the other day that the University of MIssouri is creating a national scene because they were cutting budgets and decided they could not afford the school newspaper. Nationally acclaimed journalists began calling in to protest and explain their frustration. But isn't that just a changing point, not a death of journalism? Shouldn't we be happy about the change? I know we are told we should be, at least, and I am trying to be. On the newspaper's side, there is just something about holding a piece of news, a source of valuable information, in your own hands. Is it really the death of an era, though? Is it something to really be missed, or a chance to be more adequately equip ourselves with knowledge? As another blogger, "Journerdism" says, "The Internet is changing everything in our culture and to ignore the new tools it offers to leverage the vast and wonderfully deep, previously unavailable information to your competitive advantage would be foolish." (You can read his whole article here: http://www.journerdism.com/2008/09/01/new-journalism-tools-data-analytics-and-social-media-tracking/ )
I would have to agree with that observation. I think I'm finally ready for change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)