Chapter 7 – A point of interest from the chapter
Susie Eisenhuth mentions student journalists try to be ‘stylish’ in their writing, instead of just explaining information step by step.
I agree with the comment, but I would also like to try and explain it from a student’s perspective.
In my opinion, students try so hard to make their stories/articles sound intelligent and informed, and I think that’s where the problem lies. We, students, are constantly reading academically written texts. The written style is, in most cases, sophistically written, using academic terminology – or ‘big’ words.
Another contributing factor in students writing in a ‘stylish’ manner could be essay writing. Students are taught to write fuller paragraphs, and not always put the most important information first. An introduction in an essay provides a bit of a background to the rest of the essay, however the introduction of a news story is THE most important part of the story.
Sally White further supports this and believes students who are used to writing essays with lengthy paragraphs are uncomfortable with short news paragraphs:
“The news paragraph is basically a fact unit. It may include extra information to make the fact clear, but it is not an idea unit. Because of that, it will always be relatively brief. Indeed, most news paragraphs – as distinct from feature article paragraphs – contain only a single sentence” (quoted in Conley & Lamble 2006, p. 155)
This had me thinking - given the popularity of the Communication degree at University, maybe schools could add journalism/a journalism component to their curriculum? That might provide future journalism students with some background into what is required when writing a news story.
And in the journalism course, teachers could concentrate on correct use of grammar!
Most schools simply teach students how to write essays, and concentrate on essay structure.
I wanted to write about Susie’s comment because I found it interesting and thought I might be able to clarify it from a student’s perspective.
I hope I may have done that, to some extent anyway.
I agree students should stick to simple, step-by-step writing styles.
Readers will appreciate it.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Chapter 7 - A word's worth
1. I believe it depends on the purpose of the newspaper.
For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reports more national news, business news and financial news, which are not likely to interest readers at a secondary school education level.
Using Newcastle as an example, the majority of secondary school students probably would not understand the world of business, or the full extent of the implications of interest rate rises – nor might they care.
But they might pick up the daily Newcastle Herald.
Not only is it physically easier to read because it’s smaller, the stories mainly deal with local issues readers can relate to and understand.
I do not think newspapers need to write for a specific ‘educational level’, but I do think they should write simple, easy to understand stories.
Most people these days do not have much spare time to read a full newspaper, especially if they do not understand the stories.
Conley & Lamble quote Ernest Hemingway, who said “Use short sentences. Use short paragraphs” (quoted in Conley & Lamble 2006, p. 141). This is what newspapers should aim for, not a particular educational level.
News articles/stories are more comprehensible if presented in step by step style, as suggested by Susie Eisenhuth (Conley et al 2006).
The Newcastle Herald stories are written in this style and are therefore hitting the mark. Stories in the Herald are, usually, one sentence paragraphs and not overly wordy.
This allows the reader to easily comprehend what is being written.
But short sentences and comprehension are not the only factor to consider when aiming for readability.
Katherine McAdams challenged this notion by saying “readability depends more on whether readers consider a topic ‘interesting’ rather than easy to comprehend” (quoted in Conley et al 2006, p. 154).
This may be the case, however I believe ‘interesting’ and ‘comprehension’ are closely related. If you are interested in a story, you are more than likely to comprehend what is being written.
For example, if you are a keen sports supporter reading about interest rates and world politics, you are probably not going to comprehend what you’re reading compared to if you were reading a sports report. And vice versa.
So ultimately I do not think there should be a specific ‘educational level’ aimed at. If newspapers stick to Hemingway’s opinion of writing style, they are guaranteed their stories will be read. In my opinion anyway…
2. If a reporter is reporting a factual news story, I do not think their own opinion should be included.
The inclusion of a reporter’s opinion could mean the story is biased toward a particular view. Even if the reporter had innocently done this, it could still restrict the reporter in what they are allowed to report/who they work for in the future.
For example, if the reporter writes an article with an obvious negative view on the privatisation of South Sydney Football Club, it is not likely they will ever work for the club. Nor might they want to work for the club, I was merely using it as an example.
However, if the article was more about a character profile on someone, I think it would be reasonable for the reporter to inject their own opinion.
It may be that their opinion is similar to the reader’s opinion anyway. I’m sure if a profile was written on Matthew McConaughey and the reporter added their opinion of Matt’s unbelievably good looks, I mean superior acting ability, I wouldn’t have a problem with that!
3. A global language would be easier, but so would a global newspaper writing style! Writing styles change between states, I can only imagine how different they are country to country. Even the date style varies, September 11 or 11th September, for example.
Each country has their own way of communicating with each other, and I think that’s what makes the world so interesting. If language was the same all over the world, it would be boring. Yes it would be easier, but easier isn’t always better.
Currencies are different, road rules are different, dress codes are different – it’s inevitable our language would be different.
It does matter that our language is tainted with Americanisms. Is the American language tainted with “Australianisms”? We are our own country and have our own way of life, our language should be unique to us and so should every other country’s language.
To adopt an American language – it’s just not Australian!
4. To some extent I think newspapers are committed to accuracy.
For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reports more national news, business news and financial news, which are not likely to interest readers at a secondary school education level.
Using Newcastle as an example, the majority of secondary school students probably would not understand the world of business, or the full extent of the implications of interest rate rises – nor might they care.
But they might pick up the daily Newcastle Herald.
Not only is it physically easier to read because it’s smaller, the stories mainly deal with local issues readers can relate to and understand.
I do not think newspapers need to write for a specific ‘educational level’, but I do think they should write simple, easy to understand stories.
Most people these days do not have much spare time to read a full newspaper, especially if they do not understand the stories.
Conley & Lamble quote Ernest Hemingway, who said “Use short sentences. Use short paragraphs” (quoted in Conley & Lamble 2006, p. 141). This is what newspapers should aim for, not a particular educational level.
News articles/stories are more comprehensible if presented in step by step style, as suggested by Susie Eisenhuth (Conley et al 2006).
The Newcastle Herald stories are written in this style and are therefore hitting the mark. Stories in the Herald are, usually, one sentence paragraphs and not overly wordy.
This allows the reader to easily comprehend what is being written.
But short sentences and comprehension are not the only factor to consider when aiming for readability.
Katherine McAdams challenged this notion by saying “readability depends more on whether readers consider a topic ‘interesting’ rather than easy to comprehend” (quoted in Conley et al 2006, p. 154).
This may be the case, however I believe ‘interesting’ and ‘comprehension’ are closely related. If you are interested in a story, you are more than likely to comprehend what is being written.
For example, if you are a keen sports supporter reading about interest rates and world politics, you are probably not going to comprehend what you’re reading compared to if you were reading a sports report. And vice versa.
So ultimately I do not think there should be a specific ‘educational level’ aimed at. If newspapers stick to Hemingway’s opinion of writing style, they are guaranteed their stories will be read. In my opinion anyway…
2. If a reporter is reporting a factual news story, I do not think their own opinion should be included.
The inclusion of a reporter’s opinion could mean the story is biased toward a particular view. Even if the reporter had innocently done this, it could still restrict the reporter in what they are allowed to report/who they work for in the future.
For example, if the reporter writes an article with an obvious negative view on the privatisation of South Sydney Football Club, it is not likely they will ever work for the club. Nor might they want to work for the club, I was merely using it as an example.
However, if the article was more about a character profile on someone, I think it would be reasonable for the reporter to inject their own opinion.
It may be that their opinion is similar to the reader’s opinion anyway. I’m sure if a profile was written on Matthew McConaughey and the reporter added their opinion of Matt’s unbelievably good looks, I mean superior acting ability, I wouldn’t have a problem with that!
3. A global language would be easier, but so would a global newspaper writing style! Writing styles change between states, I can only imagine how different they are country to country. Even the date style varies, September 11 or 11th September, for example.
Each country has their own way of communicating with each other, and I think that’s what makes the world so interesting. If language was the same all over the world, it would be boring. Yes it would be easier, but easier isn’t always better.
Currencies are different, road rules are different, dress codes are different – it’s inevitable our language would be different.
It does matter that our language is tainted with Americanisms. Is the American language tainted with “Australianisms”? We are our own country and have our own way of life, our language should be unique to us and so should every other country’s language.
To adopt an American language – it’s just not Australian!
4. To some extent I think newspapers are committed to accuracy.
Often if a mistake is made, an apology and correction is published within a day or so.
But I do think some stories can be misleading or directed toward a particular view.
For example, on the front page of The Newcastle Herald dated 13 August 2007 was an article headlined “Rudderless”.
The article was about Newcastle wanting to salvage the rudder of the Pasha Bulker and make it an exhibit at the Museum. The owners of the Pasha Bulker did not want Newcastle to take ownership of the rudder.
If you reader further into the article, the reporter mentioned there had been a “public outcry” by Newcastle residents to keep the rudder.
This is not true at all, therefore it’s inaccurate. There was no public outcry.
I will not detail the whole article, but it was fairly clear it was in fact the newspaper, or a person of high standing at the Newspaper, who wanted to keep the rudder.
So while it seems Newcastle will stay “rudderless” – an accurate headline – the story itself was quite exaggerated and not accurate at all.
It’s only being a journalism student I was aware of the bias in the story. I may otherwise have been oblivious to the politics behind it all and been persuaded into thinking we should keep the rudder, or that it would in fact make a worthwhile “tourist attraction”.
As Conley & Lamble say “inaccurate journalism is ineffective journalism..” (2006, p. 156).
5. If I made a mistake but no one contacted the paper and noted the mistake, I would still dob myself in!
It’s not just the readers you are writing for. Other journalists are reading your article and if they use your work as a reference tool in the future the mistake will be repeated. Ultimately it will affect your credibility because you were the source of the mistake in the first place.
Not only is it important for readers and other journalists that your information is accurate, it’s important if you have gained information from a source. Incorrectly spelling a person’s name, or incorrectly implicating a person in a situation, could be embarrassing or even have potential legal ramifications.
I expect to make mistakes, everyone does, but it’s the way you handle the mistake which I believe to be important.
You would gain more credibility, and maybe self pride, admitting the mistake and correcting it instead of dismissing it.
But I do think some stories can be misleading or directed toward a particular view.
For example, on the front page of The Newcastle Herald dated 13 August 2007 was an article headlined “Rudderless”.
The article was about Newcastle wanting to salvage the rudder of the Pasha Bulker and make it an exhibit at the Museum. The owners of the Pasha Bulker did not want Newcastle to take ownership of the rudder.
If you reader further into the article, the reporter mentioned there had been a “public outcry” by Newcastle residents to keep the rudder.
This is not true at all, therefore it’s inaccurate. There was no public outcry.
I will not detail the whole article, but it was fairly clear it was in fact the newspaper, or a person of high standing at the Newspaper, who wanted to keep the rudder.
So while it seems Newcastle will stay “rudderless” – an accurate headline – the story itself was quite exaggerated and not accurate at all.
It’s only being a journalism student I was aware of the bias in the story. I may otherwise have been oblivious to the politics behind it all and been persuaded into thinking we should keep the rudder, or that it would in fact make a worthwhile “tourist attraction”.
As Conley & Lamble say “inaccurate journalism is ineffective journalism..” (2006, p. 156).
5. If I made a mistake but no one contacted the paper and noted the mistake, I would still dob myself in!
It’s not just the readers you are writing for. Other journalists are reading your article and if they use your work as a reference tool in the future the mistake will be repeated. Ultimately it will affect your credibility because you were the source of the mistake in the first place.
Not only is it important for readers and other journalists that your information is accurate, it’s important if you have gained information from a source. Incorrectly spelling a person’s name, or incorrectly implicating a person in a situation, could be embarrassing or even have potential legal ramifications.
I expect to make mistakes, everyone does, but it’s the way you handle the mistake which I believe to be important.
You would gain more credibility, and maybe self pride, admitting the mistake and correcting it instead of dismissing it.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Chapter 6 - Upside-down pyramid and Kell's say
1. If I knew a comment/statement was untrue, but couldn't prove it and it was insisted the comment be included, I would publish it.
However, I would definitely include balancing comment in the story. This would give the reader both sides of a story, which adds fairness and a 'two-sides to every story' approach.If balancing comment wasn't added in this story, I think the journalist's credibility could be jeopardised. It is no use the journalist later claiming they knew the comment to be untrue but they were forced into publishing it anyway.
In my opinion, the best articles are the unbiased ones where both sides of a story are included and the reader can make an informed judgement and opinion.
2. It would depend on the story I was writing. If by not including balancing comment another person's reputation is at stake, I wouldn't write the story.
If the story dealt with two companies in argument over a particular matter, I would publish it but make a note one of the companies was unavailable for comment.To me, it still comes down to credibility and honesty.
If another paper wanted to write the story without balancing comment which would in effect reduce the value of my effort, I think I would be disappointed. However I would also be proud of the fact I hadn't written an untrue, biased story.
For example, if a journalist was writing something about me in a paper - something untrue or dishonest - and I didn't have a chance to defend myself, not only is the journalist's credibility in question but so is my reputation.
And that, to me, isn't fair.
3. Firstly, you would make sure you were in no immediate danger from a falling building! You would also ensure you were not in the way of fire-fighters trying to extinguish the fire. Ensuring you are not in direct danger of suffering smoke inhalation would probably be helpful too.
If it's possible, I would first interview a fire-fighter. They would be the best source of accurate information in this instance, especially relating to the number of people trapped in the fire and an account of what lead to/caused the fire. Paramedics, if required/called to the scene, would be another interview source. By reporting of casualties or serious injury, it adds to the drama of the story. Especially if the fire was deliberately lit....
After establishing background information, I would look to interview any witnesses/bystanders. If the fire broke out within an apartment complex, I would definitely attempt to interview other residents who were not directly affected by the fire.
I would start writing my story straight away. 'Breaking news' causes a sense of excitement and drama, so I think it would be vital to write and release the story as soon as possible.
4. Yes, I think the inverted pyramid is the most effective method of news story structuring.As a newspaper reader, putting the most important information in the first paragraph is essential if I am going to continue reading the story. What would be the point putting the most important part of a story in the concluding paragraphs? The aim is to make people read the story, not be bored by it.I also think the inverted pyramid is every journalists best friend. By having a 'template' to work from, you can ensure you are providing the information which audiences are interested in.
KELL'S SAY
I think the inverted pyramid is extremely useful for journalists.
Without using this formula, I don't think stories would have anywhere near the effect on readers as they currently do.
Placing the most important information at the start of a story provides the reader with the information most relevant to the story. In some cases this can save the reader from having to read the whole story.
But with this in mind, if information from the bottom of a story could potentially be edited out anyway, it could be asked why don't editors ask journalists for shorter stories?
Firstly, there may be an allocated amount of space for the story to fill. Therefore, if a journalist provides the editor with the 500 word story it can be placed straight into the allocated space.
Secondly, an editor cannot predict how relevant all the details of a journalist's story will be. Perhaps they really only want a 300 word story but by requesting a 500 word story they can potentially cut out irrelevant information.
Either way, I do believe the inverted pyramid is a fantastic guide for journalists to follow and a great way for students to learn how to write news stories.
However, I would definitely include balancing comment in the story. This would give the reader both sides of a story, which adds fairness and a 'two-sides to every story' approach.If balancing comment wasn't added in this story, I think the journalist's credibility could be jeopardised. It is no use the journalist later claiming they knew the comment to be untrue but they were forced into publishing it anyway.
In my opinion, the best articles are the unbiased ones where both sides of a story are included and the reader can make an informed judgement and opinion.
2. It would depend on the story I was writing. If by not including balancing comment another person's reputation is at stake, I wouldn't write the story.
If the story dealt with two companies in argument over a particular matter, I would publish it but make a note one of the companies was unavailable for comment.To me, it still comes down to credibility and honesty.
If another paper wanted to write the story without balancing comment which would in effect reduce the value of my effort, I think I would be disappointed. However I would also be proud of the fact I hadn't written an untrue, biased story.
For example, if a journalist was writing something about me in a paper - something untrue or dishonest - and I didn't have a chance to defend myself, not only is the journalist's credibility in question but so is my reputation.
And that, to me, isn't fair.
3. Firstly, you would make sure you were in no immediate danger from a falling building! You would also ensure you were not in the way of fire-fighters trying to extinguish the fire. Ensuring you are not in direct danger of suffering smoke inhalation would probably be helpful too.
If it's possible, I would first interview a fire-fighter. They would be the best source of accurate information in this instance, especially relating to the number of people trapped in the fire and an account of what lead to/caused the fire. Paramedics, if required/called to the scene, would be another interview source. By reporting of casualties or serious injury, it adds to the drama of the story. Especially if the fire was deliberately lit....
After establishing background information, I would look to interview any witnesses/bystanders. If the fire broke out within an apartment complex, I would definitely attempt to interview other residents who were not directly affected by the fire.
I would start writing my story straight away. 'Breaking news' causes a sense of excitement and drama, so I think it would be vital to write and release the story as soon as possible.
4. Yes, I think the inverted pyramid is the most effective method of news story structuring.As a newspaper reader, putting the most important information in the first paragraph is essential if I am going to continue reading the story. What would be the point putting the most important part of a story in the concluding paragraphs? The aim is to make people read the story, not be bored by it.I also think the inverted pyramid is every journalists best friend. By having a 'template' to work from, you can ensure you are providing the information which audiences are interested in.
KELL'S SAY
I think the inverted pyramid is extremely useful for journalists.
Without using this formula, I don't think stories would have anywhere near the effect on readers as they currently do.
Placing the most important information at the start of a story provides the reader with the information most relevant to the story. In some cases this can save the reader from having to read the whole story.
But with this in mind, if information from the bottom of a story could potentially be edited out anyway, it could be asked why don't editors ask journalists for shorter stories?
Firstly, there may be an allocated amount of space for the story to fill. Therefore, if a journalist provides the editor with the 500 word story it can be placed straight into the allocated space.
Secondly, an editor cannot predict how relevant all the details of a journalist's story will be. Perhaps they really only want a 300 word story but by requesting a 500 word story they can potentially cut out irrelevant information.
Either way, I do believe the inverted pyramid is a fantastic guide for journalists to follow and a great way for students to learn how to write news stories.
Chapter 5 - The lead: will the reader follow and Kell's say
1. When I read a paper, I initially read the headlines but not the main story. I flip over and immediately read the sports section. After sport, I read the health section or marriages and births pages (just to see if I know anyone who recently married or gave birth!), then I flip back to the front for the main stories.
The reason I read sport first is because I understand it. I have a genuine interest in nearly every sport, except golf, so I understand what is written. Also, I like reading the journalist's spin on how they viewed the game, and the fact quotes from coaches are included - especially the quotes about unfair refereeing decisions!
Stemming from my interest in sport, I enjoy reading health related articles or lift outs. It's just something I understand and enjoy. I find many of the front page stories are political or sensationalised and that doesn't interest me.
Ignorantly so, before i started this journalism course, I didn't realise the extent of politics involved in journalism. Why can't journalists just report the truth? Why are stories edited or angled favourably towards a person/organisation? Perhaps an independent newspaper should circulate, with honest, unbiased articles.
2. I watch one to two hours of television a day and probably half an hour reading the paper.
Personally, and slightly embarrassingly so, I find it easier to watch someone speak than read the paper. My comprehension levels have always been poor, so I find I understand things better when they are explained or spoken about.
Additionally, by watching the television, you can visualise situations and watch body language. With regards to news programs, for example the sports report, if a player has been injured, the viewer has the chance to see the situation and injury happen. This may be completely different to the visual image created by simply reading about the injury.
But there is nothing better than a relaxing Sunday morning reading the papers!
Maybe local papers could have more colour, or even competitions/giveaways. That would encourage people to buy the paper, which might in turn interest them enough to read a few articles.
3. I think, hesitantly, I would run with the story. Only on the condition the whole story is honest and unbiased.
If writing a 'trick intro' was purposeful to gain reader attention, then I do not see a problem with writing it. As long as the story does not become misleading, or dishonest, then I think it would be reasonable to write and publish the whole story.
Iwould have a problem writing a 'trick intro' to have readers read my article, only to realise the article is incorrect or biased. I think the issue of credibility needs to be thought of prior to writing/publishing the story.
4. I would focus on writing the main story and the concluding paragraphs.
Often it is easier to write the body of the story first, then the conclusion, then go back and write the intro.
If you have done all your research and have all the relevant information, the words will come. It might just mean doing something different or concentrating on something else first.
5. I would immediately notify my sources.
I would explain the situation to them, then definitely pursue the matter. Not only has your hard work been ruined, so has your credibility. The article could be read by thousands of people and your name is attached to it.
You are the person audiences will complain about and who knows what effect that could have on you, both personally and professionally.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is made up mostly in my answer in question 1.
While the chapter explains the use of introductions, question 1 asked which sections of the newspaper do I read and why.
I have always loved sport and watched it since I was young. I understand the rules of most sports and recognise players, teams, and which country players come from.
Sport is of interest to me because more often than not, watching sport means a few beers with a bunch of mates! What can be better than that?!
I don't have an extensive knowledge of politics or business, so it's always the sport section I read first.
Sport=competition too. Often there are bets placed or footy tipping competitions (which I won this year!). So not only is the game of sport I enjoy watching but it's also the competitive nature of sport.
To me, sport=fun=laughs and I guess that's why I enjoy reading the sport section/watching the sport segment so much.
(I couldn't resist...here is the logo of the best sporting team in the world!)
Other great sporting pics:
Cathy Freeman:
Don Bradman:
Mohammed Ali:
The reason I read sport first is because I understand it. I have a genuine interest in nearly every sport, except golf, so I understand what is written. Also, I like reading the journalist's spin on how they viewed the game, and the fact quotes from coaches are included - especially the quotes about unfair refereeing decisions!
Stemming from my interest in sport, I enjoy reading health related articles or lift outs. It's just something I understand and enjoy. I find many of the front page stories are political or sensationalised and that doesn't interest me.
Ignorantly so, before i started this journalism course, I didn't realise the extent of politics involved in journalism. Why can't journalists just report the truth? Why are stories edited or angled favourably towards a person/organisation? Perhaps an independent newspaper should circulate, with honest, unbiased articles.
2. I watch one to two hours of television a day and probably half an hour reading the paper.
Personally, and slightly embarrassingly so, I find it easier to watch someone speak than read the paper. My comprehension levels have always been poor, so I find I understand things better when they are explained or spoken about.
Additionally, by watching the television, you can visualise situations and watch body language. With regards to news programs, for example the sports report, if a player has been injured, the viewer has the chance to see the situation and injury happen. This may be completely different to the visual image created by simply reading about the injury.
But there is nothing better than a relaxing Sunday morning reading the papers!
Maybe local papers could have more colour, or even competitions/giveaways. That would encourage people to buy the paper, which might in turn interest them enough to read a few articles.
3. I think, hesitantly, I would run with the story. Only on the condition the whole story is honest and unbiased.
If writing a 'trick intro' was purposeful to gain reader attention, then I do not see a problem with writing it. As long as the story does not become misleading, or dishonest, then I think it would be reasonable to write and publish the whole story.
Iwould have a problem writing a 'trick intro' to have readers read my article, only to realise the article is incorrect or biased. I think the issue of credibility needs to be thought of prior to writing/publishing the story.
4. I would focus on writing the main story and the concluding paragraphs.
Often it is easier to write the body of the story first, then the conclusion, then go back and write the intro.
If you have done all your research and have all the relevant information, the words will come. It might just mean doing something different or concentrating on something else first.
5. I would immediately notify my sources.
I would explain the situation to them, then definitely pursue the matter. Not only has your hard work been ruined, so has your credibility. The article could be read by thousands of people and your name is attached to it.
You are the person audiences will complain about and who knows what effect that could have on you, both personally and professionally.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is made up mostly in my answer in question 1.
While the chapter explains the use of introductions, question 1 asked which sections of the newspaper do I read and why.
I have always loved sport and watched it since I was young. I understand the rules of most sports and recognise players, teams, and which country players come from.
Sport is of interest to me because more often than not, watching sport means a few beers with a bunch of mates! What can be better than that?!
I don't have an extensive knowledge of politics or business, so it's always the sport section I read first.
Sport=competition too. Often there are bets placed or footy tipping competitions (which I won this year!). So not only is the game of sport I enjoy watching but it's also the competitive nature of sport.
To me, sport=fun=laughs and I guess that's why I enjoy reading the sport section/watching the sport segment so much.
(I couldn't resist...here is the logo of the best sporting team in the world!)
Other great sporting pics:
Cathy Freeman:
Don Bradman:
Mohammed Ali:
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Kell's say....
I have started to realise how selfish people are becoming.
Is it just me or are people happy talking about themselves and what they have been up to, without asking you about things in your own life? By nature, I am honestly interested in other peoples lives. I'm genuinely interested in how old they are, do they have kids, how is their job going, how did they get their job, do they enjoy their job, where do they live etc etc. But I am starting to notice those same questions are not being directed back.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't ask questions with the intent of having them asked back but to me it indicates a sense of interest and thoughtfulness from the other party. Something as simple as someone sending you an email or a text message is an indication they are thinking about you, which is a fantastic feeling.
Is it not also polite to engage in some sort of conversation?!
I don't know, I may be way off with this, but it's just been an observation of mine recently. I will definitely keep up my investigative work and perhaps next time I do engage in conversation with someone, be it a friend or someone I've not met before, I will take note of how long it takes for two-way communication to take place!
Is it just me or are people happy talking about themselves and what they have been up to, without asking you about things in your own life? By nature, I am honestly interested in other peoples lives. I'm genuinely interested in how old they are, do they have kids, how is their job going, how did they get their job, do they enjoy their job, where do they live etc etc. But I am starting to notice those same questions are not being directed back.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't ask questions with the intent of having them asked back but to me it indicates a sense of interest and thoughtfulness from the other party. Something as simple as someone sending you an email or a text message is an indication they are thinking about you, which is a fantastic feeling.
Is it not also polite to engage in some sort of conversation?!
I don't know, I may be way off with this, but it's just been an observation of mine recently. I will definitely keep up my investigative work and perhaps next time I do engage in conversation with someone, be it a friend or someone I've not met before, I will take note of how long it takes for two-way communication to take place!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Chapter 4 - A 'know' for news and Kell's say
1. Australian news outlets gave proximity to the 2004 Tsunami because Indonesia is a popular Australian tourist destination, and with so many Australians visiting Indonesia it was a likely possibility that Australians were killed or injured in the Tsunami which is obviously going to gain audience attention.
For those reasons, while it was geographically quite distant from Australia, it was close the hearts of many of the Australian public.
2. The main news value I would focus on is conflict, between the police, immigration officials and human rights activists - especially if it was close to election time! The woman appears to have done nothing wrong, so to put her in an immigration detention centre appears too harsh and the human rights activists would be all over it!This would cause a huge uproar in the human rights circles, especially with current detainees being held without charge (Mohammed Haneef for example).
For that reason, the next news values I would focus on are timeliness and currency. With currency relating to controversy and trends, it would certainly flow on from the Conflict value. And terrorism is a very topical issue at the moment, so currency and timeliness would both suit this story.
3. I think it would depend on which publication I was writing for. For the purpose of this question, let's say I was writing for the Newcastle Herald.
It's no secret most Novocastrians love Newcastle.
Novocastrians are supportive of local sport representatives, or anyone else who has managed some sort of achievement. Over the last six months, crime has been a constant reported issue on the news and in the paper. There are calls to introduce curfews in clubs and pubs, and clubs and pubs have already stopped serving shots, all in the hope of reducing crime in Newcastle.
This all leads me to writing the story of the mayoral announcement about an urban renewal plan to resolve inner-city crime. It has a timeliness angle to it, as well as proximity. If written accurately and on behalf of Novocastrians, I think the people of Newcastle would appreciate it much more than an entertainment-type of article on a comment Prince Charles made. While I think this would still make some sort of story, it's not a story I would choose to write about.
4. 'News' is anything new we learn or hear today that we didn't yesterday.
5. I think it depends on the news article being written and who the article is being written for. If the article was about an actor who was tragically killed, obviously the who/how/where/when would be more important than why/what.
The Six Strong Serving Men theory is definitely an important concept when writing a story. Including the main point/s in the introduction, or even the headline, is what makes the story appeal to a reader. The main aim of a reporter/journalist is to have people read their articles and to do that, they need to write an interesting, impacting story with an equally impressive introduction.
KELL'S SAY
On page 79 of this chapter, I loved Turner Catledge's definition of news: "anything you can find out today that you didn't know before"
The reason I liked it so much is because it's straight to the point and I just really agreed with it.
Would readers read an article if they'd read it before? They might know something about the topic, but they might not have a full understanding of it.
People read the news so they can find out what is happening on a local, national and international level.
I thought I would try and search other definitions of "what is news" and found this internetLink
In particular, the line which says it is "the journalists' responsibility to determine what is news."
This also is very true. Journalists need to be able to determine news which is appealing to the majority of people.
Above all, journalists have a great influence over what the audience reads.
This highlights the point that "news" needs to be 'new' and interesting, something readers didn't know before.
So Catledge is definitely on the mark - 'anything you can find out today that you didn't know before' (I loved it!)
For those reasons, while it was geographically quite distant from Australia, it was close the hearts of many of the Australian public.
2. The main news value I would focus on is conflict, between the police, immigration officials and human rights activists - especially if it was close to election time! The woman appears to have done nothing wrong, so to put her in an immigration detention centre appears too harsh and the human rights activists would be all over it!This would cause a huge uproar in the human rights circles, especially with current detainees being held without charge (Mohammed Haneef for example).
For that reason, the next news values I would focus on are timeliness and currency. With currency relating to controversy and trends, it would certainly flow on from the Conflict value. And terrorism is a very topical issue at the moment, so currency and timeliness would both suit this story.
3. I think it would depend on which publication I was writing for. For the purpose of this question, let's say I was writing for the Newcastle Herald.
It's no secret most Novocastrians love Newcastle.
Novocastrians are supportive of local sport representatives, or anyone else who has managed some sort of achievement. Over the last six months, crime has been a constant reported issue on the news and in the paper. There are calls to introduce curfews in clubs and pubs, and clubs and pubs have already stopped serving shots, all in the hope of reducing crime in Newcastle.
This all leads me to writing the story of the mayoral announcement about an urban renewal plan to resolve inner-city crime. It has a timeliness angle to it, as well as proximity. If written accurately and on behalf of Novocastrians, I think the people of Newcastle would appreciate it much more than an entertainment-type of article on a comment Prince Charles made. While I think this would still make some sort of story, it's not a story I would choose to write about.
4. 'News' is anything new we learn or hear today that we didn't yesterday.
5. I think it depends on the news article being written and who the article is being written for. If the article was about an actor who was tragically killed, obviously the who/how/where/when would be more important than why/what.
The Six Strong Serving Men theory is definitely an important concept when writing a story. Including the main point/s in the introduction, or even the headline, is what makes the story appeal to a reader. The main aim of a reporter/journalist is to have people read their articles and to do that, they need to write an interesting, impacting story with an equally impressive introduction.
KELL'S SAY
On page 79 of this chapter, I loved Turner Catledge's definition of news: "anything you can find out today that you didn't know before"
The reason I liked it so much is because it's straight to the point and I just really agreed with it.
Would readers read an article if they'd read it before? They might know something about the topic, but they might not have a full understanding of it.
People read the news so they can find out what is happening on a local, national and international level.
I thought I would try and search other definitions of "what is news" and found this internet
In particular, the line which says it is "the journalists' responsibility to determine what is news."
This also is very true. Journalists need to be able to determine news which is appealing to the majority of people.
Above all, journalists have a great influence over what the audience reads.
This highlights the point that "news" needs to be 'new' and interesting, something readers didn't know before.
So Catledge is definitely on the mark - 'anything you can find out today that you didn't know before' (I loved it!)
Chapter 3 - Discussion questions and Kell's say
1. I think there are two important points in considering this hypothetical dilemma.
Firstly, one quote from the chapter is "the media control the flow of information to the public, which decides who its politicians will be." With this in mind, if a new national daily newspaper was introduced which was funded by the Federal Government as well as having a government-appointed board, would it not be safe to assume readers could be entitled to question the content of the newspaper? Would the paper still hold a bias towards certain views?
I understand this is just a hypothetical situation, but I think it is reasonable to question the intention of the paper prior to deciding if it should be produced for circulation.
Secondly, given taxes will be increased if this newspaper is supported, does that not add to the possibility of bias stories? Federal government money (ultimately at taxpayer's expense), with a federal government appointed board - perhaps I'm a bit of a skeptic, but I think the stories published, or at least the angle of the stories published, would still favour a certain political party/view.
At the end of the day, it's all about business, and business means money. Personally, I just prefer to read a story based on fact and truth - i'm not interested in the politics of it all. Just write an unbiased story, how hard could that possibly be?! I wouldn't support the paper - petrol prices and taxes are high enough.
2. To me the apology appeared somewhat sarcastic, but I enjoyed it! It seems as though he is apologising for expressing an opinion, and why should he have to? When we are all out with friends, or sitting around the dinner table, we share our ideas and opinions. Rarely is it the case of all parties agreeing with each other, but it's a discussion about what each of us thinks. No one later apologises for having their say or voicing their opinion. So why should printers/journalists?
If we think hard enough, society would probably be without the hours of conversation and discussion if it weren't for reporters/journalists' articles. If we have a differing opinion to that of the article we have just read, would the journalist/reporter apologise to us for not writing our opinion? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether it be written or spoken, and I don't think anyone has the right to oppose the opinion of someone else. As Franklin said
"That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed."
The above quote epitomises my argument - we can all have our own say, but we won't all agree with it.
3. I believe journalists should be given independence to write their story without interference. If the journalist is reporting a factual article, written on investigative research, who has the right to interfere with the article? If you look at it from the other angle, would an editor/editorial department put their name to something which has been interfered with, and in doing so potentially discredit themselves?
4. I do not think the internet, web and online news will cause trouble for these countries. As is stated in the chapter "blocked sites include overseas Chinese-language news websites....and most news sites originating in Taiwan and Hong Kong." From this quote it appears much of the problematic websites are in fact originating in these countries anyway. The world is becoming such a technological place, people are more open to different perspectives and different views, and we also have more say and freedom in our life. If people from China, Vietnam and North Korea have a problem with the content of alternative media formats, then don't access that media format.
It is the way the content is interpreted and used which is the problem, not the media format. For example, the Melbourne teens who were in a suicide pact apparently found out from a website how to correctly tie the rope/what knots to use etc etc. Now I personally don't access those sites anyway, but I know they exist. So instead of looking at the actual media format, I think the most important point to consider is simply the content of the media.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is an extension of my response in question 2 above; opinions. So while this is not directly related to the chapter's topic, the issue of opinions sparked my interested after reading Franklin's apology.
I understand most journalists have a specific area they report on - crime reporting, political reporting, sport reporting etc. If the journalists are simply reporting facts of a case or a sporting match, their opinion can't influence the story too much.
However, other journalists have an opinion column in the newspaper or a blog on the web.
Journalists such as Mike Gibson, Peter Fitzsimmons, Miranda Kerr etc. They all have their own opinion columns but not all audiences will agree with their point of view.
But is there really a problem with that? Why can't journalists simply express their opinion without being scruitinsed for doing so? One particular person, author Germaine Greer, certainly comes to mind in this respect.
While I don't agree with everything Greer says, she is still entitled to have her own opinion. The only difference is her opinion is published for the world to talk about. Our opinions are simply discussed around the dinner table, in the classroom or with a bunch of friends.
I enjoy reading journalists' opinion pieces because it gives me the chance to see an issue from another perspective.
And while I might not agree with their opinion, it generates thought and perhaps some indepth discussion - that's not a bad thing at all.
The article on the link below is a story written by Greer on the death of Steve Irwin. Greer believes the animal world finally took its revenge on Irwin, who distressed animals everytime they were put near the camera, according to Greer.
I don't agree with this article, but I can also understand how Greer might come to the conclusions she has.
But again, it's her opinion and she's entitled to it.
Murdoch should start a newspaper publishing only opinion columns - interesting!
Link
Firstly, one quote from the chapter is "the media control the flow of information to the public, which decides who its politicians will be." With this in mind, if a new national daily newspaper was introduced which was funded by the Federal Government as well as having a government-appointed board, would it not be safe to assume readers could be entitled to question the content of the newspaper? Would the paper still hold a bias towards certain views?
I understand this is just a hypothetical situation, but I think it is reasonable to question the intention of the paper prior to deciding if it should be produced for circulation.
Secondly, given taxes will be increased if this newspaper is supported, does that not add to the possibility of bias stories? Federal government money (ultimately at taxpayer's expense), with a federal government appointed board - perhaps I'm a bit of a skeptic, but I think the stories published, or at least the angle of the stories published, would still favour a certain political party/view.
At the end of the day, it's all about business, and business means money. Personally, I just prefer to read a story based on fact and truth - i'm not interested in the politics of it all. Just write an unbiased story, how hard could that possibly be?! I wouldn't support the paper - petrol prices and taxes are high enough.
2. To me the apology appeared somewhat sarcastic, but I enjoyed it! It seems as though he is apologising for expressing an opinion, and why should he have to? When we are all out with friends, or sitting around the dinner table, we share our ideas and opinions. Rarely is it the case of all parties agreeing with each other, but it's a discussion about what each of us thinks. No one later apologises for having their say or voicing their opinion. So why should printers/journalists?
If we think hard enough, society would probably be without the hours of conversation and discussion if it weren't for reporters/journalists' articles. If we have a differing opinion to that of the article we have just read, would the journalist/reporter apologise to us for not writing our opinion? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether it be written or spoken, and I don't think anyone has the right to oppose the opinion of someone else. As Franklin said
"That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed."
The above quote epitomises my argument - we can all have our own say, but we won't all agree with it.
3. I believe journalists should be given independence to write their story without interference. If the journalist is reporting a factual article, written on investigative research, who has the right to interfere with the article? If you look at it from the other angle, would an editor/editorial department put their name to something which has been interfered with, and in doing so potentially discredit themselves?
4. I do not think the internet, web and online news will cause trouble for these countries. As is stated in the chapter "blocked sites include overseas Chinese-language news websites....and most news sites originating in Taiwan and Hong Kong." From this quote it appears much of the problematic websites are in fact originating in these countries anyway. The world is becoming such a technological place, people are more open to different perspectives and different views, and we also have more say and freedom in our life. If people from China, Vietnam and North Korea have a problem with the content of alternative media formats, then don't access that media format.
It is the way the content is interpreted and used which is the problem, not the media format. For example, the Melbourne teens who were in a suicide pact apparently found out from a website how to correctly tie the rope/what knots to use etc etc. Now I personally don't access those sites anyway, but I know they exist. So instead of looking at the actual media format, I think the most important point to consider is simply the content of the media.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is an extension of my response in question 2 above; opinions. So while this is not directly related to the chapter's topic, the issue of opinions sparked my interested after reading Franklin's apology.
I understand most journalists have a specific area they report on - crime reporting, political reporting, sport reporting etc. If the journalists are simply reporting facts of a case or a sporting match, their opinion can't influence the story too much.
However, other journalists have an opinion column in the newspaper or a blog on the web.
Journalists such as Mike Gibson, Peter Fitzsimmons, Miranda Kerr etc. They all have their own opinion columns but not all audiences will agree with their point of view.
But is there really a problem with that? Why can't journalists simply express their opinion without being scruitinsed for doing so? One particular person, author Germaine Greer, certainly comes to mind in this respect.
While I don't agree with everything Greer says, she is still entitled to have her own opinion. The only difference is her opinion is published for the world to talk about. Our opinions are simply discussed around the dinner table, in the classroom or with a bunch of friends.
I enjoy reading journalists' opinion pieces because it gives me the chance to see an issue from another perspective.
And while I might not agree with their opinion, it generates thought and perhaps some indepth discussion - that's not a bad thing at all.
The article on the link below is a story written by Greer on the death of Steve Irwin. Greer believes the animal world finally took its revenge on Irwin, who distressed animals everytime they were put near the camera, according to Greer.
I don't agree with this article, but I can also understand how Greer might come to the conclusions she has.
But again, it's her opinion and she's entitled to it.
Murdoch should start a newspaper publishing only opinion columns - interesting!
Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)