I do not think it was right for the NPR to fire Juan Williams. Juan Williams was a reporter who was having a discussion with Bill O’ Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor, giving his honest opinion on how he feels towards a certain situation.
Even of Fox News, when Williams spoke about the NPR firing him, he stated that unfortunately, it was an honest experience, and when he sees a Muslim dressed in their garb, he gets nervous, and that of course he would have that initial moment of fear because of what happened on 911. It’s something that many people can relate to because of the tragic impact this incident had on our country and many people would feel being in the same situation as he was. He was not being a bigot; he was explaining his personal feelings towards a specific situation. As someone who defended bigotry, he was stating that it is just a reality, and something that cannot be ignored.
I think that there are fine lines between journalism and being a commentator. Williams was not reporting at this time, and the fact that he was being fired for giving his opinion on a certain situation was too harsh. I’m not sure what the details of his contract are, but to me, I find it hard to believe that he breached the terms of it. It would have been a different situation if he was reporting hard news at the time, because, it wouldn’t be considered true, ethical reporting, it would be his biased opinion towards a situation, and if that was the case, then he should have been examined. For commenting on this specific experience, I find that it was a harsh choice for the NPR to do, and should have been examined more carefully. Where is the line drawn between journalism and commentary? It seems like the rules have changed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Journalism and NPR- by Hasime Ukperaj
Journalism and NPR
NPR's action to fire news analyst, Juan Williams was not justified correctly. Williams should not have been fired for the phrase he spoke of on the Bill O'Reilly Factor regarding being afraid of Muslims. Although his statement was moronic and should not have been maded public at all, a better justification for his actions would have been to sit down and talk to the vice president of NPR.
A news analyst is objective, they should analyzing the issue being brought before them and should not inject their personal views. The analyst has the responsibility to interpret the news and examine the different sides. A news commentator on the other hand is responsible for using his personal opinion in order to get other sides swayed in.
The rules have changed today in terms of the way different journalists handle themselves in different situations. The code of ethics limits journalists from refraining from use of public opinion, this however could be argued. In many instances there are various journalists that express public opinions on other shows than theirs, yet they do not get punished or fired for their actions. We need to take a closer look at why instances such as Williams' case are often forgoed by others.
written by Hasime Ukperaj
NPR's action to fire news analyst, Juan Williams was not justified correctly. Williams should not have been fired for the phrase he spoke of on the Bill O'Reilly Factor regarding being afraid of Muslims. Although his statement was moronic and should not have been maded public at all, a better justification for his actions would have been to sit down and talk to the vice president of NPR.
A news analyst is objective, they should analyzing the issue being brought before them and should not inject their personal views. The analyst has the responsibility to interpret the news and examine the different sides. A news commentator on the other hand is responsible for using his personal opinion in order to get other sides swayed in.
The rules have changed today in terms of the way different journalists handle themselves in different situations. The code of ethics limits journalists from refraining from use of public opinion, this however could be argued. In many instances there are various journalists that express public opinions on other shows than theirs, yet they do not get punished or fired for their actions. We need to take a closer look at why instances such as Williams' case are often forgoed by others.
written by Hasime Ukperaj
Journalism Today- C.Ferrante comments on NPR's decision to fire Juan Williams
I don’t believe NPR’s action to fire Juan Williams is justified. Juan Williams wasn’t acting as a journalist; he wasn’t reporting on a specific news story instead he was having an open discussion with television host Bill O’Reilly. After watching the video of Juan Williams on the O’Reilly Factor I did not feel that what Williams said was from a bigoted or unethical place. Instead, Williams was describing how he felt and later in the conversation even defended that Muslims shouldn’t be condemned to such stereotypes. Williams was acting as a commentator, he was simply expressing his opinion and feeling. NPR claims that he violated their “standards as well as values” but, he wasn’t acting as an NPR journalist- he was simply being himself –candid, blunt, and to the point.
I think the lines of journalism have been blurred. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate between a news journalist and a commentator because; most news organizations are not objective and many sway to one side or another when reporting the news. Even in the case of a news analyst and a news commentator it can be confusing to differentiate between the two. A news analyst is supposed to gather, examine, and then report on facts about a news story whereas, a commentator is suppose to give their opinions about the facts. But, it seems to be more common that the two have blended into one. I think news organizations need to make more of an effort to distinguish what is a news “entertainment” program and what is a hard news program.
written by Christina Ferrante
I think the lines of journalism have been blurred. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate between a news journalist and a commentator because; most news organizations are not objective and many sway to one side or another when reporting the news. Even in the case of a news analyst and a news commentator it can be confusing to differentiate between the two. A news analyst is supposed to gather, examine, and then report on facts about a news story whereas, a commentator is suppose to give their opinions about the facts. But, it seems to be more common that the two have blended into one. I think news organizations need to make more of an effort to distinguish what is a news “entertainment” program and what is a hard news program.
written by Christina Ferrante
Journalism vs. Entertainment
In modern media, questions of journalistic ethics can be bent or even ignored. Professional journalists have an obligation to provide objective coverage of a story to their readers free from bias AND personal opinion. The roles of journalist and performing artist are conflated in modern media. Such shows as “The Colbert Report” or “The O’Reilly Factor” both manipulate news headlines to make different statements about the news, not report the news itself. In effect, these “commentators” are artists, not journalists. The realm of artistic expression does not have any of the restrictions that new reporting does, and therefore, relieves the hosts of any ethical issues. The case of Juan Williams is not surprising, then; nor will it be the last. When a journalist, or a professional news analyst, appears to provide commentary on a headline, they are still under the role of ‘journalist,’ and must conform to ethical journalist standards. When a journalist appears on a purely entertainment show, they are recognized by the public watching that show as a journalist, despite their role reversal or practical function as a commentator in a “relaxed” setting. The public will hold journalists to an unfair standard, even on a program which may not have any standards at all.
The case revolving around Juan Williams is tragic, not because he was fired, but because it demonstrates that our society treats entertainers and journalists the same way. If his statements were taken in context, they would not have caused the controversy they had. As our class discussion revealed, there is little malice behind his statement. Loose lips sink ships, and unfortunately the boat went down for Juan Williams. NPR, whatever their reasoning behind his dismissal had been, fairly represented both aspects of his dismissal on their program, and The O’Reilly Factor provided a telling foil to NPR’s journalistic reporting on the event itself. Was it fair for NPR to fire him based on his statement the way they did? Was it wise for Williams, as a journalist, to appear on The O’Reilly Factor at all? Both of these questions have the same answer.
As a copy editor, I recognize that print material is a very different medium than the spoken word, and can therefore be manipulated to avoid unintentional mistakes such as Williams’. It is the responsibility of a copy editor to ensure that these crossed wires of journalism and entertainment are not represented in the (ideally) objective reporting of facts.
The case revolving around Juan Williams is tragic, not because he was fired, but because it demonstrates that our society treats entertainers and journalists the same way. If his statements were taken in context, they would not have caused the controversy they had. As our class discussion revealed, there is little malice behind his statement. Loose lips sink ships, and unfortunately the boat went down for Juan Williams. NPR, whatever their reasoning behind his dismissal had been, fairly represented both aspects of his dismissal on their program, and The O’Reilly Factor provided a telling foil to NPR’s journalistic reporting on the event itself. Was it fair for NPR to fire him based on his statement the way they did? Was it wise for Williams, as a journalist, to appear on The O’Reilly Factor at all? Both of these questions have the same answer.
As a copy editor, I recognize that print material is a very different medium than the spoken word, and can therefore be manipulated to avoid unintentional mistakes such as Williams’. It is the responsibility of a copy editor to ensure that these crossed wires of journalism and entertainment are not represented in the (ideally) objective reporting of facts.
Juan Williams
Is NPR's action to fire Williams justified? What is the difference between a news analyst and a news commentator? As copy-editor, your role is to identify and revise language that expresses bias.
How have the rules changed in journalism today? What is the conflict in the case mentioned above. What would you have done as the commentator? What would you have done as NPR in this case?
In order to completely for an opinion on whether or not Juan Williams firing was justified, you would have to review his contract and see if he breached any terms of that contract. However, based solely on his comments, it was not grounds to fire him. Williams strictly stated his own opinion and his comments were not connected to any news story or anyone else’s opinion. Williams only stated how he felt and did so in an educated manner without using offensive or crude terms.
A news analyst, such as Williams, is an individual that reports the news and has to do so accurately and objectively. A news commentator on the other hand, is someone that commentates on the news and has the ability to state their opinion on a certain topic since they are not the ones that are actually breaking the story. A news commentator is an individual that is solely employed to express their own feelings and allow others to express their feelings in an open forum.
Journalism is constantly changing. The conflict between Williams and NPR would not have happened in past years when there was not the abundance of news channels that there are now. Television is also changing the way journalism works and the avenues in which it is reported.
I believe that NPR had an ulterior behind the Williams firing. The rash comments that Don Imus made regarding the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team were far worse than Williams’s opinion on Muslims. If I was in NPR’s position I would have spoken directly with Williams instead of terminating him through email without giving him a chance to defend himself.
How have the rules changed in journalism today? What is the conflict in the case mentioned above. What would you have done as the commentator? What would you have done as NPR in this case?
In order to completely for an opinion on whether or not Juan Williams firing was justified, you would have to review his contract and see if he breached any terms of that contract. However, based solely on his comments, it was not grounds to fire him. Williams strictly stated his own opinion and his comments were not connected to any news story or anyone else’s opinion. Williams only stated how he felt and did so in an educated manner without using offensive or crude terms.
A news analyst, such as Williams, is an individual that reports the news and has to do so accurately and objectively. A news commentator on the other hand, is someone that commentates on the news and has the ability to state their opinion on a certain topic since they are not the ones that are actually breaking the story. A news commentator is an individual that is solely employed to express their own feelings and allow others to express their feelings in an open forum.
Journalism is constantly changing. The conflict between Williams and NPR would not have happened in past years when there was not the abundance of news channels that there are now. Television is also changing the way journalism works and the avenues in which it is reported.
I believe that NPR had an ulterior behind the Williams firing. The rash comments that Don Imus made regarding the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team were far worse than Williams’s opinion on Muslims. If I was in NPR’s position I would have spoken directly with Williams instead of terminating him through email without giving him a chance to defend himself.
Juan Williams Scandal reaction
Journalism today is constantly evolving. New forms of media have opened new doors and with it, new sets of challenges. Among the challenges is the changing landscape of ethics and objectivity.
The primary role of a journalist is to cover a story without showing bias or prejudice. Personal opinion, unless in an individual's column, is definitely frowned upon. The question, though, is what happens when a reporter crosses lines and acts as a commentator? Should they be held to the same standard as written journalists are? Should they be given more lee-way to express their own opinion? These are just some of the many points to consider.
In the case of Juan Williams, I believe he was unjustly fired. While he expressed his own opinion that he would feel nervous if he saw Muslims in traditional garb on a plane he was flying on, he did not say that all people should feel that way. He also did not indicate that those views were those of NPR. I can see how this may reflect negatively on NPR and cause some outcry, however, I do not believe they were just in their actions. If I were him, I would have done the same thing, though it is important to chose one's words wisely.
If I was NPR, I would have contacted Williams immediately following the comment to discuss it with him. I would not have waited 36 hours as O'Rielly indicated on his show. Being that Williams is a respected writer and, at the time, member of their staff, I would have treated with more courtesy and professionalism. If in fact there was a large out cry, I would have sat him down and issued him an ultimatum: Either apologize, resign, or be fired. This action could have allowed everyone to "save face" and the incident would have been over with instead of becoming bigger then it needed to be. NPR could have also issued a press release regarding the statement, after its discussion with Williams, as a disclaimer to what was said. There are many ways they could have went about this, but I believe they chose the wrong one.
The primary role of a journalist is to cover a story without showing bias or prejudice. Personal opinion, unless in an individual's column, is definitely frowned upon. The question, though, is what happens when a reporter crosses lines and acts as a commentator? Should they be held to the same standard as written journalists are? Should they be given more lee-way to express their own opinion? These are just some of the many points to consider.
In the case of Juan Williams, I believe he was unjustly fired. While he expressed his own opinion that he would feel nervous if he saw Muslims in traditional garb on a plane he was flying on, he did not say that all people should feel that way. He also did not indicate that those views were those of NPR. I can see how this may reflect negatively on NPR and cause some outcry, however, I do not believe they were just in their actions. If I were him, I would have done the same thing, though it is important to chose one's words wisely.
If I was NPR, I would have contacted Williams immediately following the comment to discuss it with him. I would not have waited 36 hours as O'Rielly indicated on his show. Being that Williams is a respected writer and, at the time, member of their staff, I would have treated with more courtesy and professionalism. If in fact there was a large out cry, I would have sat him down and issued him an ultimatum: Either apologize, resign, or be fired. This action could have allowed everyone to "save face" and the incident would have been over with instead of becoming bigger then it needed to be. NPR could have also issued a press release regarding the statement, after its discussion with Williams, as a disclaimer to what was said. There are many ways they could have went about this, but I believe they chose the wrong one.
Juan Williams
Based solely off the evidence that has been released I would not have fired Juan Williams for his comments made on Fox News. However, if my organization was liberal leaning I can see the conflict of interest NPR raises. I believe a short suspension and a public apology to anyone offended would have sufficed as fair punishment but firing is a little extreme. I do not listen to NPR that often -- so this may have already been a story -- but I think this was a perfect opportunity to expose an untapped topic that many Americans feel strongly about. Having Juan explain his position a little more and going out and doing a report on the topic would have been a nice follow up to the public apology.
I believe an analyst is somebody who delivers the facts, all of them, that provide two or maybe three sides to the story and let the viewer draw their own conclusion. A commentator has chosen one of those sides and now gives some facts but more inferences and opinions of why they feel that way. An analyst should never be proven wrong, a commentator can. That is the difference.
The rules have changed today because we are living in an ultra-sensitive politically correct era. I can't explain how the past used to be but presently any public speaker needs to think out every response they say, especially on topics that are known to raise emotions. The problem is now-a-days everything can can be clipped and edited for a biased person to make a point. Someone on television needs to choose their words carefully in order to avoid public ridicule.
As the commentator I would have not brought up this topic at all, I would have provided another example or just reworded the point in a different way.
I believe an analyst is somebody who delivers the facts, all of them, that provide two or maybe three sides to the story and let the viewer draw their own conclusion. A commentator has chosen one of those sides and now gives some facts but more inferences and opinions of why they feel that way. An analyst should never be proven wrong, a commentator can. That is the difference.
The rules have changed today because we are living in an ultra-sensitive politically correct era. I can't explain how the past used to be but presently any public speaker needs to think out every response they say, especially on topics that are known to raise emotions. The problem is now-a-days everything can can be clipped and edited for a biased person to make a point. Someone on television needs to choose their words carefully in order to avoid public ridicule.
As the commentator I would have not brought up this topic at all, I would have provided another example or just reworded the point in a different way.
Journalism Today
I think the rules of journalism have changed today in the sense that what journalists can and cannot say, at the riskof sounding either offensive or politically incorrect. Despite the current mood of the country being anti-Muslim, one cannot report their own opinions as news because it is simply not objective. what Williams did was inexcusable: he forgot himself and stated his personal opinion on national television, causing an immediate backlash.
Williams (and O'Reilly) seem to believe that there is a difference between a feeling and an opinion, when they are essentially the same thing. To say "I feel" or "I think" is in no way fact, so despite William's constant protest of innocence, he is very much guilty of giving his opinion where it did not belong. If I were in his shoes, I would go on camera and give an apology to all those he offended. He claims he's not a bigot because of all the books he wrote on the civil rights movement, but the plight of black people and of Muslims are two very different situations. If I were the CEO of NPR, I still would have terminated his contract--I think they have acted accordingly in this case.
Williams (and O'Reilly) seem to believe that there is a difference between a feeling and an opinion, when they are essentially the same thing. To say "I feel" or "I think" is in no way fact, so despite William's constant protest of innocence, he is very much guilty of giving his opinion where it did not belong. If I were in his shoes, I would go on camera and give an apology to all those he offended. He claims he's not a bigot because of all the books he wrote on the civil rights movement, but the plight of black people and of Muslims are two very different situations. If I were the CEO of NPR, I still would have terminated his contract--I think they have acted accordingly in this case.
NPR Controversy: Juan Williams and Vivian Schiller
The newest controversy in journalism lately is the recent firing of Juan Williams, Senior News Analyst of NPR. Apparently, he was fired due to remarks he made as a guest on O'Reilly Factor on FOX News regarding being "nervous" around Muslims when at an airport. This got the NPR station flooded with viewer complaints all the way up to the President of the station and 36 hours from when he guested on FOX News, he was fired via email. Personally, I don't think this should have happened, or at least in this manner. Likewise, I think Williams could have dealt with the situation better. For both Williams and the president of NPR, Vivian Schiller, they could have handled this situation a bit differently.
If I was Juan Williams, I would probably have not stated such a rough opinion on the air, even if it wasn't on NPR airwaves. This kind of stuff has a way of getting back to you if people are upset about it enough. In this case, there was plenty of people upset at him. The president of NPR saw this as a negative light on her radio station and saw it fit to fire him as a way to show him what he had done was ultimately an unintelligent thing to do. He should have thought his statement through before he said it on national TV. On an interview with O'Reilly in the aftermath of this scandal, Williams stated that this wasn't his own opinion, but a "feeling." I don't think you can really justify saying it's a "feeling" when it obviously came off as his own opinion. Regardless of what he meant, it came out on FOX News to many other people as an insult to the Muslim community. Maybe next time he'll think before he speaks, if only to save his own job.
Now on the flip side, if I were Vivian Schiller, I would absolutely do something different than the way she handled this. For one, to fire one of the biggest personalities over such a small statement, regardless of the public backlash, is ridiculous. Secondly, to fire him via email and never have a chance for Williams to speak on his own behalf or defend his actions seems very unprofessional. To not even speak with the man and just fire him based on either talking with FOX News (whom NPR might not want to affiliate themselves with) or based on people's reactions (which would easily go away a few days later) was not the way to handle this at all. Maybe if she were to talk with him one-on-one, this whole situation would work out differently.
If I was Juan Williams, I would probably have not stated such a rough opinion on the air, even if it wasn't on NPR airwaves. This kind of stuff has a way of getting back to you if people are upset about it enough. In this case, there was plenty of people upset at him. The president of NPR saw this as a negative light on her radio station and saw it fit to fire him as a way to show him what he had done was ultimately an unintelligent thing to do. He should have thought his statement through before he said it on national TV. On an interview with O'Reilly in the aftermath of this scandal, Williams stated that this wasn't his own opinion, but a "feeling." I don't think you can really justify saying it's a "feeling" when it obviously came off as his own opinion. Regardless of what he meant, it came out on FOX News to many other people as an insult to the Muslim community. Maybe next time he'll think before he speaks, if only to save his own job.
Now on the flip side, if I were Vivian Schiller, I would absolutely do something different than the way she handled this. For one, to fire one of the biggest personalities over such a small statement, regardless of the public backlash, is ridiculous. Secondly, to fire him via email and never have a chance for Williams to speak on his own behalf or defend his actions seems very unprofessional. To not even speak with the man and just fire him based on either talking with FOX News (whom NPR might not want to affiliate themselves with) or based on people's reactions (which would easily go away a few days later) was not the way to handle this at all. Maybe if she were to talk with him one-on-one, this whole situation would work out differently.
Journalism Now
When you sit back and compare journalism, ten to twenty years ago, to today you notice just how much it has actually changed. Journalists in general are more to the point and straight to the facts trying to get the news across in a timely yet, in a manner that comes across as unbiased and factual.
When it comes to Juan Williams, when he visited the O'Reilly Factor he was caught up in the commentary aspect of news reporting, and it showed. O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he spits out facts that he sees as true, and will try and sway your viewpoint on the matter into his side, to make him look more favorable.
The conflict in this matter is that an analyst, someone who just lays out factual evidence without showing any biased entered the O'Reilly factor and got sucked in as a commentator, and expressed his opinion, something that NPR is not about. Williams, quite frankly got caught up in the discussion, and while he probably didn't mean to share his opinion did, and in the end it cost him his job with NPR. Do I feel the firing is fair? No, sometimes these accidents happen, but do I feel Williams could of controlled himself better and been a little less biased, or worded his opinions differently to make it seem less biased.? Of course.
When it comes to Juan Williams, when he visited the O'Reilly Factor he was caught up in the commentary aspect of news reporting, and it showed. O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he spits out facts that he sees as true, and will try and sway your viewpoint on the matter into his side, to make him look more favorable.
The conflict in this matter is that an analyst, someone who just lays out factual evidence without showing any biased entered the O'Reilly factor and got sucked in as a commentator, and expressed his opinion, something that NPR is not about. Williams, quite frankly got caught up in the discussion, and while he probably didn't mean to share his opinion did, and in the end it cost him his job with NPR. Do I feel the firing is fair? No, sometimes these accidents happen, but do I feel Williams could of controlled himself better and been a little less biased, or worded his opinions differently to make it seem less biased.? Of course.
Ethics
The rules of journalism today have changed just as society has. Technology has allowed for it to have taken this course. More people can and do apply their input into circumstances that take place on a daily basis. The conflict mentioned is that Juan Williams made a statement which did not suit well with the company he worked for; the comment made went against their rules is their argument. As the commentator I would have stood my ground and would attempt to getting a clear understanding of what exactly led to my removal. Due to the fact that he has not received a proper explanation and he did work for the company for 10 years. As NPR I would've probably have had him issue an apology even though I don't think his statement was as radical as the actions taken by NPR. Many journalists today continue to apply their perspective somehow and if it causes a dilemmas as this story has, they are asked to apologize. And the medium through which the journalists is providing their story make sure to separate themselves from the personal view of the journalists.
NPR and Juan Williams being fired.
I think that what he said definitely hurt his chances to work over at NPR, especially nowadays when everyone is scared to voice their own opinions due to backlash and people are afraid of what will happen if they do voice it and get in trouble. While NPR had every right to fire Juan Williams, how they proceeded to fire him could be seen as cowardly. He spoke to Bill O Riley and then a few days later via email, he gets fired. They wouldn't even let him in the building to let him speak to whoever fired him. I think they could have handled his firing in a better way by having a meeting with him and discussing on what he did wrong, maybe not fire him but give him a warning of sorts. Now I know people complained, but eventually it will die down and someone else will say something similar if not something worse and the public will turn their outrage to that person. NPR definitely overreacted and if they had someone in the shadows who back them via with money or sponsorship, then they had their pockets in mind rather then their own employees. The conflict here is that Mr. Williams expressed his own opinion about being on an airplane and seeing Muslims in garb and being nervous in the possibility that they would blow up the plane. In a pre-9/11 world as well as with the recently foiled attempts of the car bomber, people started to complain about what he said as well as congratulate him as well. Very blurred lines are being crossed here, it would be very interesting to see how this all unfolds. I would have probably not said anything at all, or if i absolutely had to, express it in a way that shows that it's not my own opinion its that of everyone else.
NPR Reaction
I fell like the rules of journalism have definitely changed in today's world. Society today is far more open to people of mixed and different cultures. Although many members of these cultures take offense when they feel as though they are being discriminated against. While these cultures should not be discriminated against, because we live in a more accepting society it is a much larger issue when the line is crossed. Although, the tension of political correctness will never ease or get better if everyone is afraid to make statements on it. In the case of Juan Williams I believe he should have thought out what he said much better. He made a great point about political correctness, but his point was lost because he then voiced an unpopular opinion about Muslims. Had I been in Mr. Williams' shoes I would make a public statement clarifying what I had meant to say, and also offer an apology to those who were offended. Unless there is a statement in his contract with NPR about voicing his opinion on other station I do not believe they had grounds to fire him. He was not representing NPR when he made his comment, therefore who are they to censor him.
Reaction to NPR's firing of Juan Williams
The rules of journalism have greatly changed in today's society in the fact that news room's are becoming less objective and are posing opinion as fact. Many people consider what political commentators say as fact rather than recognizing their opinions as opinion as opposed to fact.
This idea was perfectly demonstrated in the recent Juan Williams case. Williams, a news analyst for NPR as well as commentator on Fox News was fired after saying derogatory remarks about muslims. NPR decided to let williams go, since Williams failed to be objective. The real conflict here is that Williams as a journalist failed to acknowledge his duties as a journalist which are outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Williams not only failed to avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation,disability, physical appearance or social status, but most importantly he failed to distinguish the point of being able to distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
If I was a commentator, I would have not said what Williams said. I believe that everyone has a right to an opinion, but a journalist is always on the job even when they are not in the newsroom or professional setting. You have the obligation to your readers to report the facts, not opinion. In that case, I believe that NPR had total justification to fire Williams under the notion that he failed to be objective as a journalist when he was speaking with Fox news. However, I would have not sent him an e-mail letting him know about this position, this was very tactless. Instead, I would have talked to him in person about the issue.
This idea was perfectly demonstrated in the recent Juan Williams case. Williams, a news analyst for NPR as well as commentator on Fox News was fired after saying derogatory remarks about muslims. NPR decided to let williams go, since Williams failed to be objective. The real conflict here is that Williams as a journalist failed to acknowledge his duties as a journalist which are outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Williams not only failed to avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation,disability, physical appearance or social status, but most importantly he failed to distinguish the point of being able to distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
If I was a commentator, I would have not said what Williams said. I believe that everyone has a right to an opinion, but a journalist is always on the job even when they are not in the newsroom or professional setting. You have the obligation to your readers to report the facts, not opinion. In that case, I believe that NPR had total justification to fire Williams under the notion that he failed to be objective as a journalist when he was speaking with Fox news. However, I would have not sent him an e-mail letting him know about this position, this was very tactless. Instead, I would have talked to him in person about the issue.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Newspaper Crisis
The presentation brought to light a lot of crucial issues that newspapers and journalism as a whole face. The internet is really infringing on the newspapers as much of the information presented in the newspapers can be posted directly online. Since the internet can be accessed more frequently, newspapers face the crisis of becoming obsolete. Another benefit of the internet is that stories do not have to wait to be published every morning they can be posted online immediately after they are complete. If the newspaper industry does not find a way to adapt they are surly going to be out of business within the coming years. One sign of the adaptation, is that many newspapers are now having an online website where they can publish stories as well as print them in the papers. This is a very good step since they can take advantage of having their name already known in
The other problem that faces the journalism world is the simple question: Who are Journalists? Blogging websites allow everyone to relay the news in some shape or form. So what constitutes one working for a paper a journalists and someone blogging not? The answer is that much like with everything else there are professionals and there are amateurs. There still is a need in this world for professional journalists as much of the news is still produced first by newsrooms and professional journalists. They are then read by the bloggers and reported second hand. Time is the great changer of everything. In order to lengthen life of newspapers and journalists they must adapt as does everything else. If they do not they will be ruled obsolete.
The other problem that faces the journalism world is the simple question: Who are Journalists? Blogging websites allow everyone to relay the news in some shape or form. So what constitutes one working for a paper a journalists and someone blogging not? The answer is that much like with everything else there are professionals and there are amateurs. There still is a need in this world for professional journalists as much of the news is still produced first by newsrooms and professional journalists. They are then read by the bloggers and reported second hand. Time is the great changer of everything. In order to lengthen life of newspapers and journalists they must adapt as does everything else. If they do not they will be ruled obsolete.
Future of Journalism.
Today's video presentation discussed the future of Journalism and where it's heading. I have a feeling that no matter how modernized we get, people will still want to get their news from newspapers. However, with everything going online, newspaper companies are struggling and may even be adapting towards the internet and gaining readers from there. Many people don't have a computer or even access to one, so having something in their hands to read may be beneficial to them. We are constantly changing and like the speaker said, many newspapers are slowly dying or have died out due to the lack of money or interest. With the internet and blogs going strong, news style and what is allowed to be considered news will always change. Technology is still new to some people, so they may not quite yet understand what is allowed and what is not. Down the road there may be rules on what is allowable, but now, depending on the subject, people are able to gather their information and write their very own opinions.
Education as the Impetus for Future News Media
Specifically in Leonard Downie Jr.’s speech, I am interested in the idea that education will be a motivating factor for what direction news media moves in. As he discusses in his speech, universities have a responsibility to educate and support student movements in news writing and reporting. The students learning there are the future of the industry, and the future of how we, as a nation, receive our news. More important than the funding for the news is the quality of the news, he describes, and I find it fascinating that the direction that news must take in this age of the information revolution will be determined by the consumers of that news. By educating young Americans and college students about how to thoroughly absorb news writing, they force the hand of the industry to report the news professionally. As far as the developments of new technology for news reporting goes, I feel that it is out of the reporting offices’ hands. The technology will come to them, and they must be receptive of it. No longer will competition be the focus of print media vs. online in the development of news reporting- there is no contest which way the public leans. But, the fact that the consumers indirectly decide is inspiring. Beginning with educational support and ending with compelling news reporting, the medium of this reporting will determine itself.
Future of Journalism
The future of journalism will be interesting to see develop. As a current journalism student, it is both an exciting and scary time. The old, established model is giving way to a new, developing one. The emergence of online news sites, social media, bloggers, and citizen journalists all have and will continue to play a role in this ever-changing pattern.
After watching the video, I was impressed with his pedigree and insight to the world of journalism. This man has seen it all and experienced every thing there is to experience as a journalist, including trying to navigate this uncertain time. I thought it was interesting to see how he was disappointed in his alma matter, Ohio State, for pushing more of the PR and advertising side of writing and not doing more for journalism. Along those lines, I thought it was interesting to see him commend schools such as Columbia, ASU, and Stanford for their innovative approach to the field.
Personally, I am a little nervous about what lies ahead as a journalism major. As I move closer to graduation in May, I am not sure what will happen to me after that as many news sites are cutting back staff and using "citizen journalists" for their free, or relatively cheap, clippings cost-wise. Quite honestly, I am scared and have thought about if I should try and take some courses in other fields to help broaden my prospects. It is certainly an interesting, yet unpredictable time for journalists.
After watching the video, I was impressed with his pedigree and insight to the world of journalism. This man has seen it all and experienced every thing there is to experience as a journalist, including trying to navigate this uncertain time. I thought it was interesting to see how he was disappointed in his alma matter, Ohio State, for pushing more of the PR and advertising side of writing and not doing more for journalism. Along those lines, I thought it was interesting to see him commend schools such as Columbia, ASU, and Stanford for their innovative approach to the field.
Personally, I am a little nervous about what lies ahead as a journalism major. As I move closer to graduation in May, I am not sure what will happen to me after that as many news sites are cutting back staff and using "citizen journalists" for their free, or relatively cheap, clippings cost-wise. Quite honestly, I am scared and have thought about if I should try and take some courses in other fields to help broaden my prospects. It is certainly an interesting, yet unpredictable time for journalists.
Future of Newspapers
Journalists in the future are going to have to learn and adapt if they want to survive in the new online media. Now with everyone capable of blogging and reporting in some form it is even more essential to sharpen your skills as a reporter. Finding stories that are not only interesting but insightful will have to be the regular standard of work for all of us if we want to keep readers coming back to read more.
I feel as if someone in the near future is going to have to discover how we can profit off of online stories. There has been a slow progression with YouTube videos and online TV shows showing advertisements between clips to make money. The only problem is if people have to pay for articles online, they may just go elsewhere where they can get the same information for free.
Until there is some sort of precedent set I believe you will see the continuing decline of newspapers, not the extinction, but a much lesser form than we grow up with
I feel as if someone in the near future is going to have to discover how we can profit off of online stories. There has been a slow progression with YouTube videos and online TV shows showing advertisements between clips to make money. The only problem is if people have to pay for articles online, they may just go elsewhere where they can get the same information for free.
Until there is some sort of precedent set I believe you will see the continuing decline of newspapers, not the extinction, but a much lesser form than we grow up with
After listening to Downie's speech, I think that he has made an excellent point. As more and more of our news becomes instantly accessable through social media, people are slowly losing interest in print media. And not only that, the the fact that more money and less news in coming into play with print, we need to find a way to put an end to that.
The way our world is turning--that is to say, away from tangible media and towards online media shows the decline and even eventual (albeit VERY eventual) death of print news. More and more aspiring journalists who want to get into the business are now required to know not merely how to write a proper article, but how to write for online news sources. The Digital Age is here to stay, and the only way to survive as a journalist in these times is to go with the flow
The way our world is turning--that is to say, away from tangible media and towards online media shows the decline and even eventual (albeit VERY eventual) death of print news. More and more aspiring journalists who want to get into the business are now required to know not merely how to write a proper article, but how to write for online news sources. The Digital Age is here to stay, and the only way to survive as a journalist in these times is to go with the flow
The Future of Journalism
Leonard Downie, Jr. brought up many interesting facts about the possibilities of future journalism. I share his opinion on many of these issues, namely the ongoing progression of blogging, and interactive journalism being a threat to professional journalism. With the boom of the internet and digital media, it is questionable how many of these news companies will make a profit, being that mostly all of this information is free to the mass public. Downie did provide some interesting details of possibilities on how non- digital news can be payed for, although I am not certain what the outcome will be.
It is difficult being a college student, studying journalism, and not knowing what the future will hold after graduation. If this profession truly is dying, it's sad to think of all the people out there jobless, basically waiting for a break. With the gaining popularity of blogging both indivually and with certain news sites, it is a great start up tool to get experience. As for making it a career, well I guess that is what Leonard Downie and many others are trying to tackle. It's hard to say where the future of journalism is going.
It is difficult being a college student, studying journalism, and not knowing what the future will hold after graduation. If this profession truly is dying, it's sad to think of all the people out there jobless, basically waiting for a break. With the gaining popularity of blogging both indivually and with certain news sites, it is a great start up tool to get experience. As for making it a career, well I guess that is what Leonard Downie and many others are trying to tackle. It's hard to say where the future of journalism is going.
Reflections on Stanford University Video
I think that Mr. Downie had very good insight into the future of journalism as its future is a very complicated thing. It is no surprise, that like other things in the world, social networking, shopping, every thing is going digital. So is journalism. Yes, more and more people are getting their news from online sources such as the New York times website for big news or Perez hilton for celebrity gossip, but I have to agree with Downie's thought that online news sites will not completely erase print sources.
Many readers, older ones in particular still want a tangible piece of paper that they can read and hold in their hands, as reading the news off of computer screens often weakens eyes. Readers like these still make a big number. I was very surprised when Downie said that more people read the newspaper then watch the nightly news. I found this interesting because you would think in the technology heavy age of information that we are living in today, more people older and younger readers alike would be adapting to the new ways of getting information online. But perhaps, there still is hope for print journalism.
Mr. Downie also entertains the idea of what would happen if the news world completely went digital. He believes that online newspapers should have some kind of fee for readership to still make revenue for the paper. I believe that if newspapers were to go completely digital this might be a good idea. Newspapers are still going to have to find a way to make money and if this is a solution, I think its a pretty good one.
I am not to sure to be honest where the future of journalism is going. I agree with Downie's point that print newspapers won't go anywhere soon, but as more and more things are being converted to the online world, the future of journalism still is very unclear.
Many readers, older ones in particular still want a tangible piece of paper that they can read and hold in their hands, as reading the news off of computer screens often weakens eyes. Readers like these still make a big number. I was very surprised when Downie said that more people read the newspaper then watch the nightly news. I found this interesting because you would think in the technology heavy age of information that we are living in today, more people older and younger readers alike would be adapting to the new ways of getting information online. But perhaps, there still is hope for print journalism.
Mr. Downie also entertains the idea of what would happen if the news world completely went digital. He believes that online newspapers should have some kind of fee for readership to still make revenue for the paper. I believe that if newspapers were to go completely digital this might be a good idea. Newspapers are still going to have to find a way to make money and if this is a solution, I think its a pretty good one.
I am not to sure to be honest where the future of journalism is going. I agree with Downie's point that print newspapers won't go anywhere soon, but as more and more things are being converted to the online world, the future of journalism still is very unclear.
future of print media
As a journalism major, the future of print media is very interesting to me because it will have a direct impact on the future of my life. As someone who hopes to join the news world it is my hope that print media is able to make a come back of sorts. The main obstacle in this fight is the internet. The internet has made news readily available and free from a variety of sources. If a news organization starts to charge its online readers, the readers will likely look elsewhere for their news. Print media needs to find a way to bring in a profit so they can expand their news services and make their news a more sought after product. This profit may come from either selling more physical copies of their papers, or maybe by charging more money for their online advertisements. It may also be reasonable for small news companies to join together into one to form a larger operation and gain more funding and expand their reader base.
Another way for news papers to build credibility and a larger following with readers is to educate the readers. Readers of online blogs and websites need to be more aware of where the news is coming from. The story someone posts in a blog may have come from a factual story, but what they have posted may be skewed by their personal opinions and beliefs. Readers need to be able to pick up a paper and trust that the stories seen have been fact checked for accuracy. In the end the print media companies need to find a way to make the readers need them. They need to prove to readers that the information they cover is the best information available, and they need to offer a variety of topics to pull in different demographics.
Another way for news papers to build credibility and a larger following with readers is to educate the readers. Readers of online blogs and websites need to be more aware of where the news is coming from. The story someone posts in a blog may have come from a factual story, but what they have posted may be skewed by their personal opinions and beliefs. Readers need to be able to pick up a paper and trust that the stories seen have been fact checked for accuracy. In the end the print media companies need to find a way to make the readers need them. They need to prove to readers that the information they cover is the best information available, and they need to offer a variety of topics to pull in different demographics.
Future of Journalism
Vice President of Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr. gave an inspirational conference at Stanford University. He examined how newspapers are losing money because it has become difficult to find buyers. He also noted that more than 100 newspapers do not deliver everyday to customers. There has been a decrease. Now, it has become easier than ever to access news of any kind through computers or phones, whether the news is coming internationally or locally. People feel that they do not need to read a newspaper, because they are getting information by other sources. Downie Jr. exclaimed that he does not believe that the newpaper industry will disappear in the future. However, there has much controversey surrounding this idea. There is a danger in journalism. Dozens of people are getting fired from their jobs now more than ever especially in the journalism field. Who knows what the future has in store. In the future of journalism, students should be more connected with their local newspapers and should write for them. There has been search of new models such as the internet in an effort to expand forms of journalism. Now a days, it seems everyone can be a journalist. People have blogs and social networking sites that allows them to put their opinions and even personal information. As for the future, we just have to wait and see what will happen. Hopefully the economy will get better and more jobs will be available. The issue that still stands however is whether or not newspapers will too. Only time will tell since the "audience for news is bigger and better than ever."
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Pros and Cons of Convergence
The convergence of media on the internet has led to an amazing informational age. News publishers are producing news 24/7 using online resources, which means more fast-paced responsibilities for copy editiors. In addition to an increase in output, copy editors will need more areas of specialization. The development of news online allows readers to search for the news that is pertinent to their interests, creating niches of focus and a need for detail-oriented editors. On a television news program, viewers are forced to watch the reports leading up to the story that they are interested in, whearas, online, viewers can search an archive of videos that relate to the news they want. More and more readers are utilizing the internet for their news needs. Future copy editors will need to focus on the instantaneous gratification that web surfers will want from their news companies, or else be washed away in the tide.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Research and Convergence
The advancement in technology can be both an advantage and disadvantage to the copy editor. Because of the Internet, copy editors have access to every available source in the world. They can research ideas, find people, and locations, and even search a public library online. The downside to this is some sources are not always accurate. Another beneficial tool for copy editors is Microsoft Office, which checks for spelling and grammatical errors. As helpful as Microsoft can be, it is not one hundred percent error proof.
Technology proves to be a powerful tool for the world to advance. Understanding that we now have the world in the palm of our hand is one thing, but we must understand that we are taking away fundamental creativity. What’s frightening is that the more technology evolves; jobs are in jeopardy of eventually being run by computers.
Technology proves to be a powerful tool for the world to advance. Understanding that we now have the world in the palm of our hand is one thing, but we must understand that we are taking away fundamental creativity. What’s frightening is that the more technology evolves; jobs are in jeopardy of eventually being run by computers.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Research and Convergence - The Tech Affect
Bob Dylan once wrote,"For the times they are a-changin'."
Sure he is a musician, and I am a journalist (well studying to be one at-least!), but that phrase is the perfect description for what is going on in the world of journalism.
Journalism is at an interesting point in its existence. In my opinion, this time (and what happens in the next few years) will be studied as an important era in the evolution of media as we know. It will be just as important as the emergence of radio, tv, printing press, internet, etc. With the state of the global economy and the constant improvement/growth of the tech world, it is no secret that the old fashioned newspaper is dying out. In fact, it is not a matter of if, but rather when print will die out and move online completely. This online swing will have a direct effect on the world of journalism as we know it
The people who will be affected the most, will be the copy editors. The journalists themselves will face less of an impact. Stories will always need to be written, people will always need to be interviewed, and topics will always need to be investigated. The writers will need to adjust with the varying forms of media such as twitter, foursquare, etc. However, copy editors look to be the ones that can get basically "screwed".
The emergence of technology could eliminate the need for copy editors in the future. At the very least, it will minimize the need for a human copy editor. Computers, or technology, can and are programmed to recognize these mistakes and correct them. Plus, when you have humans doing work, there is always that natural possibility of human error. Humans make mistakes, there is no arguing that fact. Although one can argue that copy editors can use the technology to their advantage and help them in their work, the reality is how much are they really needed then?
Sure he is a musician, and I am a journalist (well studying to be one at-least!), but that phrase is the perfect description for what is going on in the world of journalism.
Journalism is at an interesting point in its existence. In my opinion, this time (and what happens in the next few years) will be studied as an important era in the evolution of media as we know. It will be just as important as the emergence of radio, tv, printing press, internet, etc. With the state of the global economy and the constant improvement/growth of the tech world, it is no secret that the old fashioned newspaper is dying out. In fact, it is not a matter of if, but rather when print will die out and move online completely. This online swing will have a direct effect on the world of journalism as we know it
The people who will be affected the most, will be the copy editors. The journalists themselves will face less of an impact. Stories will always need to be written, people will always need to be interviewed, and topics will always need to be investigated. The writers will need to adjust with the varying forms of media such as twitter, foursquare, etc. However, copy editors look to be the ones that can get basically "screwed".
The emergence of technology could eliminate the need for copy editors in the future. At the very least, it will minimize the need for a human copy editor. Computers, or technology, can and are programmed to recognize these mistakes and correct them. Plus, when you have humans doing work, there is always that natural possibility of human error. Humans make mistakes, there is no arguing that fact. Although one can argue that copy editors can use the technology to their advantage and help them in their work, the reality is how much are they really needed then?
Convergence
Convergence is the beginning of the future in media. It is a reality no one in the journalism profession can deny or avoid. The career is no longer a one trick pony, it demands for multi-talented savvy people. Having the ability to take pictures, write stories, post blogs, perform radio shows, or any forms of the new media can give you the upper-hand on competition. The internet is now like a party where everyone is invited. In the past television, newspapers, and radio were all seperate but now, faster than ever, they are all melting into one exciting future.
This has also allowed professionals in the media more flexibility. No more length restrictions like in printed newspapers, the web allows unlimited room for articles and also an endless amount of outlets with hyperlinks to take you to similar topics. This gives viewers the opportunity to pick and choose what they will read and places to find more of it.
Convergence is the inevitability that will force us to break the old habits of the past and create new ways of sharing the news with the world.
This has also allowed professionals in the media more flexibility. No more length restrictions like in printed newspapers, the web allows unlimited room for articles and also an endless amount of outlets with hyperlinks to take you to similar topics. This gives viewers the opportunity to pick and choose what they will read and places to find more of it.
Convergence is the inevitability that will force us to break the old habits of the past and create new ways of sharing the news with the world.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Research and Convergence
I feel that with technology growing every day, copy editors have more advantages than ever before. They have so many sources at the tip of their hands that they are able to do pretty much anything. they have the ability to fact check with so many sources, the reporter would have to make sure they don't make anything up or plagiarize. Lastly, if they didn't understand a word or need to check a spelling error, there are plenty of online dictionaries online that could help.
Convergence- where is it taking the news?
Since the Internet began to pick up steam in the late 1990s, news gathering, production and dissemination began to change in ways unimaginable by older generations. The Net has been and will be, it seems indefinitely, a platform where all media - film, TV, radio, music, and print- converge.
Current discussion deliberates on how this value-added medium will affect media consumption and jobs. Creative Editing quotes Linda Grist Cunningham,"chair of an ASNE committee that conducted a survey of copy editors: As the literacy skills of even our better writers decline and as the demands of technology complicate our production schedules, editors will be forced to pay attention to the needs of copy editors if we are to improve our newspapers”(Bowles & Borden, 2011, p.5).
What does this suggest? Hasn't technology facilitated tools to research, bookmark, organize content, share, fact check, cite, revise, correct, post, illustrate, design, present, expand, clarify, and the like. Or have the "apps" stunted our abilities?
I am optimistic in our ability to maximize the reality and promise of convergence. After all, published content is still produced by hand, not generated by an avatar. What about you?
aSalas
Current discussion deliberates on how this value-added medium will affect media consumption and jobs. Creative Editing quotes Linda Grist Cunningham,"chair of an ASNE committee that conducted a survey of copy editors: As the literacy skills of even our better writers decline and as the demands of technology complicate our production schedules, editors will be forced to pay attention to the needs of copy editors if we are to improve our newspapers”(Bowles & Borden, 2011, p.5).
What does this suggest? Hasn't technology facilitated tools to research, bookmark, organize content, share, fact check, cite, revise, correct, post, illustrate, design, present, expand, clarify, and the like. Or have the "apps" stunted our abilities?
I am optimistic in our ability to maximize the reality and promise of convergence. After all, published content is still produced by hand, not generated by an avatar. What about you?
aSalas
–
Technology and its affect on Convergence
In our modern society technology is everywhere as it has become apart of our everyday lives. And although it helps simplify our lives it also has replaced certain aspects of our lives as well. Now, we make weekend plans with our friends via facebook instead of talking it out and reading today's news online instead reading a hard copy newspaper.
With faster technology also comes consequences, and often in the realm of news and journalism these effects affect copy editors. New Technology affects copy writers in many ways as it most importantly makes their role more crucial in the newsroom than ever before. Although all computers in this day and age have spell check and some grammatical tools, computers can not replace a good pair of human eyes which can edit mistakes that most computers often skip over.
Technology also makes a copy editor's job harder as well. As social technologies such as facebook and twitter make our writing voices more informal, copy editors have to work extra hard to make sure these same in formalities don't translate over into the newsroom.
Although new technologies are comming at us left and right and replacing lots of things we once did, I don't think copy editors and the role they play won't be replaced.
With faster technology also comes consequences, and often in the realm of news and journalism these effects affect copy editors. New Technology affects copy writers in many ways as it most importantly makes their role more crucial in the newsroom than ever before. Although all computers in this day and age have spell check and some grammatical tools, computers can not replace a good pair of human eyes which can edit mistakes that most computers often skip over.
Technology also makes a copy editor's job harder as well. As social technologies such as facebook and twitter make our writing voices more informal, copy editors have to work extra hard to make sure these same in formalities don't translate over into the newsroom.
Although new technologies are comming at us left and right and replacing lots of things we once did, I don't think copy editors and the role they play won't be replaced.
Convergence
Technology can have a profound impact on how a copy editor performs on the job. Many people (even those who are not in the journalism field) rely too heavily on Spell Check. It is necessary to avoid automatic correction and use our own eyes and judgment to fix potential stories for grammar and content. Relying too heavily on computers can make us lazy and ultimately inefficient at our job.
However, on the other hand, technology can be extremely beneficial to how a copy editor performs on the job. Technology allows news to be transmitted almost instantaneously through the Internet where millions of people can gain access to various news sources. Being a copy editor in the Technology Age gives us the benefit to take advantage of this fact.
However, on the other hand, technology can be extremely beneficial to how a copy editor performs on the job. Technology allows news to be transmitted almost instantaneously through the Internet where millions of people can gain access to various news sources. Being a copy editor in the Technology Age gives us the benefit to take advantage of this fact.
Research and Convergence: Technology and How it Affects Copy Editors
It's easy to see how technology is becoming a big part of copy editors' lives, both for the good and, more likely, for the unfortunate reasons.
Computers and technology are very helpful for most people today. It's very easy for someone to make a mistake when typing an article on Microsoft Word, but with the visual notification system built into the program, it's just as easy to notice the mistake and choose from the helpful list of reasons why you made that mistake to fix it. While this is extremely convenient for most people, this advancement in technology might be too helpful for a copy editor. This kind of built-in system almost takes the place of the copy editor to the point where they might not even be needed to finish the article. At that point, you could have the news editor just copy edit his own material with a couple of simple clicks.
Convergence
The convergence of media can have both positive and negative effects on the role of a copy editor. In the past a copy editor may only have to edit article for one form of media. Now with the rise of convergence the copy editor may be required to do more work and edit on multiple platforms of media. This would in turn create a possible need for more copy editors and boost their prestige within the media community. Although convergence could also hurt the copy editor. If a company that once reported using on form of media now has many forms under their control they may try to cut back and consolidate their staff. Possibly giving the role of a copy editor to another employee.
Technology and Copy Editors
Tecnhology affects how a copy editor performs on the job because it is what people rely on. A copy editor is required to look beyond the spell checking of a word document. A copy editor needs to judge news value and adhere to the AP format. Technology however influences the way reporters and writers write. At times, writers often rely on the computer to tell them whether they mispelled different words and they do not copy edit their own work. This is where the problem comes in for copy editors. It is then their responsibility to look over the whole document and reconstruct what should have been quality writing on the staff writer's part.
Convergence in every day life
Today convergence plays a big part in our every day lives. When it comes to reporting though, its easier to get information right on the scene rather than waiting to go back to the news room and gathering the information.
Technology makes this easier to do, so when you get that phone call about heading to a breaking news story, you can go easily on your phone, or your laptop and quickly get any and all background information that you need so you are right on top of the issue at hand and can quickly be knowledgeable about the topic. When you then ask the questions you won't look lost or uninterested because you are already knowing what you want to say.
Overall, having convergence in media just makes it easier for everyone to do their job, and to get there job done faster and in some cases more efficiently.
First Impressions
When I first think of copy editing I can't help but to think of proofreading. Reading the content of the article or paper for grammar, spelling, flow, and understandability is how I would define copy editing. It is through copy editing or proofreading that a paper is able to transform from "terrible" to "outstanding" or "average" to "polished". The content of a paper or article can be filled with useful information but if it is not written properly or in a way that is easily understood than it becomes useless. I hope to learn how to become a better copy editor and strengthen my writing skills and ability. As a journalism major, I aspire to be a working journalist after graduating college. The ability to write well is a staple in the industry and having the knowledge and ability to copy edit will only help me in my career as a journalist.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Copy Editing as I See it
Copy Editing could very well be the catalyst that takes you from being an OK writer to a terrific one. I imagine this class as being like a metaphor with a car. You can have an average car, it runs alright, it gets you from here to there, and you'll never have any problems with it. But, if you put a little work into it, maybe add a new stereo, give it a flashy paint job, tint the windows, and put some attention grabbing rims on it it could make all the difference. Suddenly your once average car has transformed into a bad ass chick magnet.
I view this class as having the same potential for my writing abilities. In a career where it is essential to stick out from the competitors you are going to need the writing equivalent of a flashy paint job and nice rims to bring attention to yourself. Employers are looking for someone who not only brings something new to the table but also knows the foundation of fundamentals that make someone a great writer. What I hope to get out of this class is to know when and where to take out or add the right words and phrases. Know when something important is missing and when what I am saying is just unneeded extra fat. I want to make sure I am not adding the dashboard hula dancer or mud flaps when it is not really neccessary.
I think the trick to being a good writer/journalist is to hook your reader and then once they have finished leave them desiring more, disappointed the article has ended. These are the skills I am hoping to gain from this class. I will admit I am still a little raw in my abilities but I think this class (along with others) can push me over the top from having that average article to the front page can't miss one. The kind of writer that I desire to be.
I view this class as having the same potential for my writing abilities. In a career where it is essential to stick out from the competitors you are going to need the writing equivalent of a flashy paint job and nice rims to bring attention to yourself. Employers are looking for someone who not only brings something new to the table but also knows the foundation of fundamentals that make someone a great writer. What I hope to get out of this class is to know when and where to take out or add the right words and phrases. Know when something important is missing and when what I am saying is just unneeded extra fat. I want to make sure I am not adding the dashboard hula dancer or mud flaps when it is not really neccessary.
I think the trick to being a good writer/journalist is to hook your reader and then once they have finished leave them desiring more, disappointed the article has ended. These are the skills I am hoping to gain from this class. I will admit I am still a little raw in my abilities but I think this class (along with others) can push me over the top from having that average article to the front page can't miss one. The kind of writer that I desire to be.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
First Impressions
As a literature student in a class of communication majors, I was initially intimidated by the prospect of a class that was not focused on my course of study. When I think back on the reasons why I chose to enroll in the course, I am reminded of my desire to improve my own writing, and the aquisition of an important skill- editing. Though the course material may seem foreign, I feel that I am prepared to adjust to the pace that the class sets. I've been writing my whole life. I hope to take this opportunity, in this class, to refine my writing style, learn to help edit others' works, and to develop a more concise eye for the written word. I was afraid when I registered for the course that "Copy Editing" would have a sole focus on journalism, and, being a communications class, I wasn't suprised that this was true. Though, I found it interesting that the prerequisites included creative writing and research- both of which I have done. Copy Editing will improve my writing. I will use it as a means of self improvement in the best way I can. Though, at the pace our first class has set, I'm not so sure I can keep up with all the technology we're using. I've never blogged, I've never used Moodle, and I'm fairly certain that Google has a vendetta against my e-mail address. Still, I look forward to finding my literary niche in a class which is completely new to me.
First Impressions
I define copy editing as just that, copying and editing. Although it sounds simple in those terms I do feel I understand the importance of copy editing. It's the ability to properly copy a document to another form of media, and it's the ability to edit that document in order to make it grammatically correct. If copy editing were not practiced the news paper as well as magazines and other media would have errors all over it. Personally if I read a paper that couldn't spell correctly I doubt I'd believe the stories accurate. As a journalism major I think this class will help me greatly. If I have any hope of writing for a news station as I hope I'd better have good editing skills. I hope this class will help me gain that ability and help me on my career path.
First Impressions
Copy editing? Tidiness of writing, the cleansing, the final draft, the masterpiece of a writer. I want to learn everything there is to learn about it! From early age, the one passion that hasn't decreased in me, is that for writing. I have always enjoyed playing with words, believe that words can be and are very powerful. They say, "That the pen is mightier than the sword." Well if one does not write anything with that pen, than it's not! As I drove myself to class, I wondered what I wanted out of this class? And it's the same thing I want out of life. As I grow older, I want to become wiser and as a writer, I want the same for my writing. For it to become stronger, better, and wittier. Writing is everything to me, so copy editing will affect all of me.
Thoughts on Copy Editing -- Jared Silva
To me, copy editing is really the kind of class that can make any journalist or wannabe journalist a better writer overall. Even if you think you know what you're doing, copy editing is there to show ways to improve you're writing even more. Anyone can know how to write nicely or spell properly, but copy editing as a whole is the way to make you know for sure you're doing it all right.
Personally, I want to take this idea into fruition and make myself a better writer for a future job in writing. I know I tend to make a bunch of simple mistakes when I write for school or in my own free time, so this is the kind of class I hope will make me better and make me realize the mistakes I'm making to improve on them. Hopefully, if this class turns out to be successful for me, my writing will turn out to be much more professional and maybe lead to a better job or career simply because I know how to type better.
Personally, I want to take this idea into fruition and make myself a better writer for a future job in writing. I know I tend to make a bunch of simple mistakes when I write for school or in my own free time, so this is the kind of class I hope will make me better and make me realize the mistakes I'm making to improve on them. Hopefully, if this class turns out to be successful for me, my writing will turn out to be much more professional and maybe lead to a better job or career simply because I know how to type better.
Sean- Copy Editing
My name is Sean and I am a senior studying journalism. I am looking forward to this copy editing class because one of my weaknesses is proof reading. I hope to better my skills throughout this course. I think that it is a great that this course is required because the skills that will be learned throughout this course will really be crucial in the journalism world.
How I Feel About Copy Editing
In my opinion, copy editing is extremely important to any writer. In fact, it is essential. While it may not be the most glamorous of jobs, the ability to cleanly edit your pieces (or those of others) is vital if one wants to succeed in the writing/journalism world.
I'm hoping this course gives me the necessary tools and skills to become a better writer. I feel that I have a good foundation after taking several journalism courses already, but I certainly believe I can improve. I want to sharpen my abilities as a writer and really take that next step in my work. Hopefully this course will allow me to do so.
I'm hoping this course gives me the necessary tools and skills to become a better writer. I feel that I have a good foundation after taking several journalism courses already, but I certainly believe I can improve. I want to sharpen my abilities as a writer and really take that next step in my work. Hopefully this course will allow me to do so.
...First Impressions....
Copy editing is something that is crucial to the pulication world and especially to journalists. It is something that is esential in our everyday lives whether we may realize it or not. Editing is a form of revising that helps us learn from our mistakes. I would like to learn about the simple tips and tricks that I can use to improve my writing skills. Copyediting will definetly affect my future professional career. This is true primarily because I would like to work for a magazine in the future. With copyediting skills perfected I can be ahead of the game at my future job. I will have learned all of the AP rules and guidelines that I can use to help complement my work, articles, interviews and other assignments. I am interested to see how my writing will improve and change with the different techniques learned from the class.
A Little Bit About Me...
My name is Joy, and I'm a Communications major, focusing on writing. I've been writing for about fifteen years. I started with short stories, and now I am writing articles for a local food magazine. I've always focused on the writing aspect of any project I've done, but never the editing (being that I've always sent my work in to be edited).
With that being said; I think that this course will be really helpful for me to see a side of journalism that I am completely unfamiliar with. I've always been interested in learning how to edit, so I'm excited to be taking this class, and hopeful that it will teach me new tools that will assist me in my career.
With that being said; I think that this course will be really helpful for me to see a side of journalism that I am completely unfamiliar with. I've always been interested in learning how to edit, so I'm excited to be taking this class, and hopeful that it will teach me new tools that will assist me in my career.
Copy Editing: Changing your Life One Day at a Time
So, what is copy editing to me? Copy editing is taking a piece of work that someone has written and changing everything to make it readable for the reader that is going to pay good money to read the article, or view the article for free online.
How does it affect my life? It makes me analyze my work more, and try and figure out what I need to do to make it a better piece. To make the reader who is going to take their time out and read this a perfect story, a perfect thing to read.
It takes time to go in there and fix what you wrote, and you want to take pride and dedication in what you have done, which honestly shows up in your personal life because it shows just how important things are for you. It shows how dedicated you are, and how much you value your work.
What do I want to learn in this class? To copy edit and make my work better.
How does it affect my life? It makes me analyze my work more, and try and figure out what I need to do to make it a better piece. To make the reader who is going to take their time out and read this a perfect story, a perfect thing to read.
It takes time to go in there and fix what you wrote, and you want to take pride and dedication in what you have done, which honestly shows up in your personal life because it shows just how important things are for you. It shows how dedicated you are, and how much you value your work.
What do I want to learn in this class? To copy edit and make my work better.
My First Impressions
To me, copy editing is proofreading, despite it not being so. Hopefully, this class will correct my skewed definition of copy editing. I guess if I actually had to put my finger on it, I'd like to learn how to properly edit text before it hits the newsstands...I actually was a copy editor for the Ramapo News my freshman year--you would not believe the amount of spelling and grammar mistakes people made in their articles. I know I'll have to take it up again for the experiential component for this class; but I suppose it's like riding a bike.
As a journalism major, I know copy editing is a very important subject to take. However, my dream is to go into publishing when I graduate. I want to work for Random House as an editor, so I guess having a basic grasp of copy editing will help me in my line of work. But as far as my personal life goes, I doubt copy editing will have a profound affect on me.
As a journalism major, I know copy editing is a very important subject to take. However, my dream is to go into publishing when I graduate. I want to work for Random House as an editor, so I guess having a basic grasp of copy editing will help me in my line of work. But as far as my personal life goes, I doubt copy editing will have a profound affect on me.
Copyediting
Copyediting to me is the detailed editing of pieces including dates, times, and places ect.It allows you to become a better writer, and that is what I am hoping to learn while taking this course. I aspire to be a travel/entertainment journalist and hope to work for a magazine like Rollingstone or an online magazine like Pitchfork. Taking copy-editing will help me reduce those mistakes and make me an overall better writer!
Back to work, Back to school
On this first day back to school for most, students and faculty alike may be experiencing an onslaught of feelings, both good and bad. Anxiety of the unknown factor can be one of those emotions kicking in [or maybe you just wanted to extend your vacation?]
Questions to make your head spin can include: Do you have all the supplies needed? Where is my class? How come no one is there? Can't find the right building- did the room number change? What books are required? Oh, the books aren't in yet, where else can I purchase my textbooks? Can't find parking. What now? Where did I put the syllabus? What is Moodle?
I'm sure you can add to this list of questions. So what is the upside? Well of course, there's the enthusiasm and optimism associated with a fresh start. New goals, new teachers, new (and some familiar) faces and a brand new opportunity to learn, exchange, challenge and contribute. With every semester, you are one step closer to your goals.
The task of copyediting gives writers an chance to correct, proofread, update, clarify and tidy written communication. On a computer or with an 'old school' writing instrument, remember that copyediting is not an activity done in isolation. Resources are important - a dictionary, a thesaurus, the AP stylebook, and many factchecking tools.
Expand your resources, networks...and enjoy this new countdown.
Prof. Salas
Questions to make your head spin can include: Do you have all the supplies needed? Where is my class? How come no one is there? Can't find the right building- did the room number change? What books are required? Oh, the books aren't in yet, where else can I purchase my textbooks? Can't find parking. What now? Where did I put the syllabus? What is Moodle?
I'm sure you can add to this list of questions. So what is the upside? Well of course, there's the enthusiasm and optimism associated with a fresh start. New goals, new teachers, new (and some familiar) faces and a brand new opportunity to learn, exchange, challenge and contribute. With every semester, you are one step closer to your goals.
The task of copyediting gives writers an chance to correct, proofread, update, clarify and tidy written communication. On a computer or with an 'old school' writing instrument, remember that copyediting is not an activity done in isolation. Resources are important - a dictionary, a thesaurus, the AP stylebook, and many factchecking tools.
Expand your resources, networks...and enjoy this new countdown.
Prof. Salas
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Spring 2010 Copy Editing Handbook
The following handbook was prepared by Ramapo College's Copyediting class.
Helpful tips for communication students.
Helpful tips for communication students.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Tensions Rise for Twitter Outside App Developers
by Jillian Parker
Over the past year Twitter has grown immensely. People are now writing 50 million posts a day instead of the 2.5 million they had just a year ago. The developers did not charge anything for Twitter accounts because they had advertisers and applications being bought. However, they are now starting to feel it is getting more complicated to make money. Twitter has waited a long time to decide that they are ready to create apps that will get them more money. Although, they are afraid that people have no more room for Twitter apps on their phone. When twitter was created, it was still incomplete. Overtime they have been building it up and are now finally ready to make apps outside of Twitter that people can buy. The questions is, is it too late.
A recent New York Times article, Evan Williams, Twitter’s co-founder and chief executive, stated: “When we launched, Twitter was incomplete, so developers rushed to fill those holes, but eventually we’re going to have to build a lot of features in because they should be there. We want to set those expectations." Fred Wilson, the Union Square Ventures partner who invested in Twitter and serves as a director, echoed that sentiment in a blog post last week that immediately put many developers on edge. “I think the time for filling the holes in the Twitter service has come and gone,” he wrote. “Twitter really should have had all of that when it launched or it should have built those services right into the Twitter experience.”
Twitter developers always seemed to have the upper hand, and now twitter is ready to gain that title back and start making their own money. They have made it clear that they are trying to do what Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook have all done. Twitter has let developers reach into their data. Because of this the developers have been able to use twitters tools to make money off of their own apps without having to get any contracts signed from Twitter. In addition, Twitter is paying for the apps their developers are creating, by using Twitters data. “The problems we’re solving are so big that we need a lot of people working on them and we need to give them the same level of access,” said Ryan Sarver, the director of platform at Twitter.
“If developers build something Twitter wants, the company has three options — let it exist separately, create its own version, or buy the start-up, as Twitter did in 2008 with Summize, which created a Twitter search engine, and last week with Atebits”. One of the things created by their developers is Co Tweet. This allows businesses to track customers and employees conversations. A few companies such as Ford and Coca-Cola have starting paying for this service.
Twitter obviously messed up, and needs to start coming up with some of their own ideas to make money, instead of the same ideas that Facebook and Google had. They were not well prepared enough when they started sharing Twitter with the world, and now they are paying the consequences. Ways for them to make money is to come up with applications for phones that is a must have, such as blackberry messaging. It is $30 a month, but everyone wants it badly enough to pay for it, which is the idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12twitter.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology
Over the past year Twitter has grown immensely. People are now writing 50 million posts a day instead of the 2.5 million they had just a year ago. The developers did not charge anything for Twitter accounts because they had advertisers and applications being bought. However, they are now starting to feel it is getting more complicated to make money. Twitter has waited a long time to decide that they are ready to create apps that will get them more money. Although, they are afraid that people have no more room for Twitter apps on their phone. When twitter was created, it was still incomplete. Overtime they have been building it up and are now finally ready to make apps outside of Twitter that people can buy. The questions is, is it too late.
A recent New York Times article, Evan Williams, Twitter’s co-founder and chief executive, stated: “When we launched, Twitter was incomplete, so developers rushed to fill those holes, but eventually we’re going to have to build a lot of features in because they should be there. We want to set those expectations." Fred Wilson, the Union Square Ventures partner who invested in Twitter and serves as a director, echoed that sentiment in a blog post last week that immediately put many developers on edge. “I think the time for filling the holes in the Twitter service has come and gone,” he wrote. “Twitter really should have had all of that when it launched or it should have built those services right into the Twitter experience.”
Twitter developers always seemed to have the upper hand, and now twitter is ready to gain that title back and start making their own money. They have made it clear that they are trying to do what Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook have all done. Twitter has let developers reach into their data. Because of this the developers have been able to use twitters tools to make money off of their own apps without having to get any contracts signed from Twitter. In addition, Twitter is paying for the apps their developers are creating, by using Twitters data. “The problems we’re solving are so big that we need a lot of people working on them and we need to give them the same level of access,” said Ryan Sarver, the director of platform at Twitter.
“If developers build something Twitter wants, the company has three options — let it exist separately, create its own version, or buy the start-up, as Twitter did in 2008 with Summize, which created a Twitter search engine, and last week with Atebits”. One of the things created by their developers is Co Tweet. This allows businesses to track customers and employees conversations. A few companies such as Ford and Coca-Cola have starting paying for this service.
Twitter obviously messed up, and needs to start coming up with some of their own ideas to make money, instead of the same ideas that Facebook and Google had. They were not well prepared enough when they started sharing Twitter with the world, and now they are paying the consequences. Ways for them to make money is to come up with applications for phones that is a must have, such as blackberry messaging. It is $30 a month, but everyone wants it badly enough to pay for it, which is the idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12twitter.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology
Vatican Sex Scandals
by Erica Buchman
According to The New York Times, the Vatican posted online yesterday, for the first time, a guide to the procedures it requires bishops to follow in abuse cases. They said, “civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.”
This irritates me to no end. The Catholic Church has a long history of priests sexually abusing children left in their charge, so why is all of this only coming out now? In 1985, the future Pope Benedict XI had resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ''the good of the universal church". Spare me. These men took a vow of chastity and when Jesus said, "Suffer the little children, come unto me" that's NOT what he was talking about!!!
Ignoring these pleas to spare the man shame is no better than spitting in the face of the abused children. Forget the Church and remember the law. There ought to be hundreds of priests in prison right now serving time for the blatant crimes they have committed. I'd like to see a priest with a history of molesting children share a jail cell with a convicted rapist and see how he likes bending over.
I absolutely hate it when the Church learns of a clergyman who deliberately and repeatedly abuses children, and yet they do nothing. They might send the pervert to therapy and claim that he was "cured", but then he'll go back to do exactly what he was doing before. They all claim that they have asked God's forgiveness and he has bestowed it upon them, but I don't think I want to believe in a God who can so easily forgive these evil men.
The Church will do anything to protect their reputation, but how quickly they forget how unethical they're being when they choose not to involve the police. Not only is it unethical, it's downright illegal. The clergymen who protect the guilty should all be arrested with obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter that the Church is shelling out $2 billion dollars in damages. What about the psychological damage done to these poor children?
It doesn't matter how much publicity is shone on these cases of sex abuse and it doesn't matter how much money the Church doles out to the victims and their families. There will always be men of the cloth who can't keep their hands to themselves and their pants zipped up; it's only a matter of time before this whole thing blows over and then we wait another twenty years before another scandal comes to light.
According to The New York Times, the Vatican posted online yesterday, for the first time, a guide to the procedures it requires bishops to follow in abuse cases. They said, “civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.”
This irritates me to no end. The Catholic Church has a long history of priests sexually abusing children left in their charge, so why is all of this only coming out now? In 1985, the future Pope Benedict XI had resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ''the good of the universal church". Spare me. These men took a vow of chastity and when Jesus said, "Suffer the little children, come unto me" that's NOT what he was talking about!!!
Ignoring these pleas to spare the man shame is no better than spitting in the face of the abused children. Forget the Church and remember the law. There ought to be hundreds of priests in prison right now serving time for the blatant crimes they have committed. I'd like to see a priest with a history of molesting children share a jail cell with a convicted rapist and see how he likes bending over.
I absolutely hate it when the Church learns of a clergyman who deliberately and repeatedly abuses children, and yet they do nothing. They might send the pervert to therapy and claim that he was "cured", but then he'll go back to do exactly what he was doing before. They all claim that they have asked God's forgiveness and he has bestowed it upon them, but I don't think I want to believe in a God who can so easily forgive these evil men.
The Church will do anything to protect their reputation, but how quickly they forget how unethical they're being when they choose not to involve the police. Not only is it unethical, it's downright illegal. The clergymen who protect the guilty should all be arrested with obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter that the Church is shelling out $2 billion dollars in damages. What about the psychological damage done to these poor children?
It doesn't matter how much publicity is shone on these cases of sex abuse and it doesn't matter how much money the Church doles out to the victims and their families. There will always be men of the cloth who can't keep their hands to themselves and their pants zipped up; it's only a matter of time before this whole thing blows over and then we wait another twenty years before another scandal comes to light.
Media Discuss: Is Female Track Star a Man?
An ethical issue in today’s news I picked to discuss has to do with a female track star and her struggles with her gender. The issues this topic touches relates to gender, race, and ethical issues when reporting a story. The media displayed this athletes life and her struggles to the world. 18-year-old, Olympic athlete Caster Semenya has had a lot of speculation following her. After she was claimed the women’s 800-meters gold medal at the World Athletics Championships in Berlin, the speculation arose. Officials proved that her testosterone levels are three times as high as those normally expected in a female.
A little background information about Caster Semenya. She was born January 7, 1991 in Pietersburg, South Africa. She comes from a poor rural background in Limpopo province in northern South Africa. She has four sisters and one brother and lived in a low developed village called Fairlie 40 miles from the nearest town. Living in a village meant for a girl chores such as fetching water, washing dishes, and cleaning the house. However she always preferred playing soccer with the boys. In high school her principle said it took her until the 11th grade to realize she was a woman and always wore pants never anything lady like. Family members said when she was teased about her appearance she passed it off and went for a run, and rarely showed emotion.
A little background information about Caster Semenya. She was born January 7, 1991 in Pietersburg, South Africa. She comes from a poor rural background in Limpopo province in northern South Africa. She has four sisters and one brother and lived in a low developed village called Fairlie 40 miles from the nearest town. Living in a village meant for a girl chores such as fetching water, washing dishes, and cleaning the house. However she always preferred playing soccer with the boys. In high school her principle said it took her until the 11th grade to realize she was a woman and always wore pants never anything lady like. Family members said when she was teased about her appearance she passed it off and went for a run, and rarely showed emotion.
Twitter: Helpful or Hurting Network News?
by Jared Silva -
It's understandable for TV news networks to be up-to-date with all the latest technological advanced to help promote their shows and make them even more in-depth for the viewer. One of the latest and most popular technology trends is Twitter. With little text blurbs, it can reach millions of people in seconds to get information out to others. It's great for personal use, but is it good for the newsroom? Is Twitter helping or hurting the integrity on news networks?
Twitter is a website where you have 140 characters to say anything you want, just like text messages on cellphones. The difference though between cellphone text messaging and Twitter is that while texts go from one person to another or a small group of friends if you select them, Twitter updates with every message gets sent to everybody who is "following" you. If you supposedly had 1,000 people following your "tweets," every message you update with gets sent to them instantly, and with their search feature, every single tweet is archived and can be searched by anybody. The accessibility and rising popularity of the website quickly got news stations attached to the idea of using this service as a way to get user feedback on specific news topics.
This is honestly a great, revolutionary way for news shows to get quick, almost instant feedback on anything they want to talk about, but is this just being lazy or is this just the wave of future news? Whereas before, to get user feedback from the people before Twitter, you had to interview them on the streets and there you were most likely going to get a more honest opinion from them. Now all they have to do is sit behind a computer with full anonymity other than their user alias and say whatever they want.
Twitter on news programs hasn't gotten to be too overused, but one network in particular, CNN, as gotten very close to that point. There are many, many, many examples of CNN using Twitter to get user feedback on topics of discussion and they seem to use it almost everyday as a source for people's opinions. It's gotten to the point that, from the looks of it, CNN would rather use Twitter followers as reliable opinionated sources than an actual source of information. This could be because CNN has the most followers on Twitter for news related tweets, so they would be very attached to the service.
The problem I have with this is that news used to be more personal. When you had a man on the street interview about something, you got to see the person's face and heard them talk. On Twitter, you just get anonymous replies from "whoknowswho". I can see the positives with using the service, but what makes the Twitter user's opinions credible? To use it instead of getting personal feedback is making news more boring and it's hard to associate yourself with an opinion of you have no idea where it is coming from. My overall point is that Twitter can be used for good, but it is getting overused at this point. Maybe once the next big technological breakthrough rolls around, Twitter will become obsolete. Hopefully, this new breakthrough adds more personality to the news again.
It's understandable for TV news networks to be up-to-date with all the latest technological advanced to help promote their shows and make them even more in-depth for the viewer. One of the latest and most popular technology trends is Twitter. With little text blurbs, it can reach millions of people in seconds to get information out to others. It's great for personal use, but is it good for the newsroom? Is Twitter helping or hurting the integrity on news networks?
Twitter is a website where you have 140 characters to say anything you want, just like text messages on cellphones. The difference though between cellphone text messaging and Twitter is that while texts go from one person to another or a small group of friends if you select them, Twitter updates with every message gets sent to everybody who is "following" you. If you supposedly had 1,000 people following your "tweets," every message you update with gets sent to them instantly, and with their search feature, every single tweet is archived and can be searched by anybody. The accessibility and rising popularity of the website quickly got news stations attached to the idea of using this service as a way to get user feedback on specific news topics.
This is honestly a great, revolutionary way for news shows to get quick, almost instant feedback on anything they want to talk about, but is this just being lazy or is this just the wave of future news? Whereas before, to get user feedback from the people before Twitter, you had to interview them on the streets and there you were most likely going to get a more honest opinion from them. Now all they have to do is sit behind a computer with full anonymity other than their user alias and say whatever they want.
Twitter on news programs hasn't gotten to be too overused, but one network in particular, CNN, as gotten very close to that point. There are many, many, many examples of CNN using Twitter to get user feedback on topics of discussion and they seem to use it almost everyday as a source for people's opinions. It's gotten to the point that, from the looks of it, CNN would rather use Twitter followers as reliable opinionated sources than an actual source of information. This could be because CNN has the most followers on Twitter for news related tweets, so they would be very attached to the service.
The problem I have with this is that news used to be more personal. When you had a man on the street interview about something, you got to see the person's face and heard them talk. On Twitter, you just get anonymous replies from "whoknowswho". I can see the positives with using the service, but what makes the Twitter user's opinions credible? To use it instead of getting personal feedback is making news more boring and it's hard to associate yourself with an opinion of you have no idea where it is coming from. My overall point is that Twitter can be used for good, but it is getting overused at this point. Maybe once the next big technological breakthrough rolls around, Twitter will become obsolete. Hopefully, this new breakthrough adds more personality to the news again.
Capitalization
By: Morgan Balog
I know that identifying what you should and should not capitalize for cases involving AP style can be frustrating. Certain things aren’t capitalized but others are and by the end of your story, you have no idea what to do. Well after doing a little research, you can easily differentiate what has to be capitalized or not capitalized. You can look for articles to learn from the professionals.
Here is an example: (link). There are many different subject titles in this story, some capitalized and some that are not.
Titles and well known organizations and nouns are always capitalized. In the article they capitalize the words, “Kim Jong Il”, “North Koreans, The Associated Press, Sejong Institute, The National Defense Commission”, and several others. It may seem odd to capitalize “The National Defense Commission”, but because it is a national organization that has public recognition, it is capitalized.
Normal nouns that are used in every day sentences do not have to be capitalized at all though. For instance, you would not capitalize the names of animals or types of food. But stuff that is publicly recognized as separate from a group, like the names of diseases or government officials, should be capitalized.
Academic degrees, geographical regions, and stuff involving government, politics, religion, titles and trade names should almost always be capitalized. But if you’re not sure, just check your AP Stylebook.
I know that identifying what you should and should not capitalize for cases involving AP style can be frustrating. Certain things aren’t capitalized but others are and by the end of your story, you have no idea what to do. Well after doing a little research, you can easily differentiate what has to be capitalized or not capitalized. You can look for articles to learn from the professionals.
Here is an example: (link). There are many different subject titles in this story, some capitalized and some that are not.
Titles and well known organizations and nouns are always capitalized. In the article they capitalize the words, “Kim Jong Il”, “North Koreans, The Associated Press, Sejong Institute, The National Defense Commission”, and several others. It may seem odd to capitalize “The National Defense Commission”, but because it is a national organization that has public recognition, it is capitalized.
Normal nouns that are used in every day sentences do not have to be capitalized at all though. For instance, you would not capitalize the names of animals or types of food. But stuff that is publicly recognized as separate from a group, like the names of diseases or government officials, should be capitalized.
Academic degrees, geographical regions, and stuff involving government, politics, religion, titles and trade names should almost always be capitalized. But if you’re not sure, just check your AP Stylebook.
The Uncertainty of Addressing Titles
By AMY FEZZA
While stating a person’s position or title within an article, AP style chooses to describe titles in a specific way. When addressing a title, two question come into play: when does one capitalize or lowercase a specific title and when does one abbreviate a title?
The New York Times, a specific articles premise revolves around a particular senator. Senator Evan Byah’s title was not only capitalized, but was spelt out. This is because his title was put before addressing his name, rather than after. Also it was spelt out because the New York Times seem to have their own style to follow rather than following the traditional AP Stylebook 2009 edition format.
This is frustrating because while copy editing any articles, one hopes that it will stay consistent and will be followed properly. This leads the person who is editing to doubt themselves and to constantly be checking back to the AP guide on what is considered to be the “correct” way of editing.
Also in another article provided by the BBC, regards U.S. forces. Many military positions are addressed in a certain manner. When addressing Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, “Lieutenant,” as well as, “General” are both abbreviated because they are both before the name.
Every lieutenant or general listed in the article has been abbreviated because they are stated before the name. This happens to be an easy way of addressing a title because something like this is usually the same with every news organization.
While stating a person’s position or title within an article, AP style chooses to describe titles in a specific way. When addressing a title, two question come into play: when does one capitalize or lowercase a specific title and when does one abbreviate a title?
The New York Times, a specific articles premise revolves around a particular senator. Senator Evan Byah’s title was not only capitalized, but was spelt out. This is because his title was put before addressing his name, rather than after. Also it was spelt out because the New York Times seem to have their own style to follow rather than following the traditional AP Stylebook 2009 edition format.
This is frustrating because while copy editing any articles, one hopes that it will stay consistent and will be followed properly. This leads the person who is editing to doubt themselves and to constantly be checking back to the AP guide on what is considered to be the “correct” way of editing.
Also in another article provided by the BBC, regards U.S. forces. Many military positions are addressed in a certain manner. When addressing Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, “Lieutenant,” as well as, “General” are both abbreviated because they are both before the name.
Every lieutenant or general listed in the article has been abbreviated because they are stated before the name. This happens to be an easy way of addressing a title because something like this is usually the same with every news organization.
AP Numerals
By Lindsey de Stefan
The rules pertaining to numerals in the world of copy editing are both extensive and, in some cases, difficult to remember. We must take into consideration that numerals encompass ages, addresses, percents, dates, lengths, weights, decades, and centuries. However, numerals are also figures, letters, or words that represent a number.
A general rule of numerals is this: the numbers one through nine must always be spelled out. For example, two girls or seven days (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page 176). However, the numbers 10 and higher are written numerically. For example. 12 years (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page 176).
Ages do not apply to this general guideline. For example, a 5-year-old girl uses the numeral instead of spelling out the number (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page 176).
When a number is the first word of a sentence, it is always spelled out. However, if the numeral is a calendar year, it DOES NOT need to be spelled out. An example of this would be 1976 was a very good year (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page176).
All of these rules are enough to give a person unfamiliar with AP Style a very bad headache. And these are only the guidelines deemed most noteworthy. For a complete list of guidelines, see the numerals entry in your AP Stylebook.
The rules pertaining to numerals in the world of copy editing are both extensive and, in some cases, difficult to remember. We must take into consideration that numerals encompass ages, addresses, percents, dates, lengths, weights, decades, and centuries. However, numerals are also figures, letters, or words that represent a number.
A general rule of numerals is this: the numbers one through nine must always be spelled out. For example, two girls or seven days (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page 176). However, the numbers 10 and higher are written numerically. For example. 12 years (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page 176).
Ages do not apply to this general guideline. For example, a 5-year-old girl uses the numeral instead of spelling out the number (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page 176).
When a number is the first word of a sentence, it is always spelled out. However, if the numeral is a calendar year, it DOES NOT need to be spelled out. An example of this would be 1976 was a very good year (AP Stylebook 2004 edition, page176).
All of these rules are enough to give a person unfamiliar with AP Style a very bad headache. And these are only the guidelines deemed most noteworthy. For a complete list of guidelines, see the numerals entry in your AP Stylebook.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Future of News
Future of News
by George Denliker - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:40 PM
It seems that newspaper will undoubtedly have to make certain changes in the future to keep their consumer numbers up. Online options are what seem to be the most practical at the moment. People are constantly online, browsing through different websites constantly reading different articles. One of the individuals on the panel mentioned that children as young as three and four years old are computer literate now-a-days. The computer, more specifically the internet, has become such a crucial life line in society today. The gentlemen who was the head of the Philadelphia Inquirer had the best attitude in my opinion. He mentioned early on in the video that to stay relevant and popular, new sources would have to be willing to change. This attitude is the one that I most agree with. The willingness to change and learn is something that should not be taken for granted. It is the papers that continue to stay close minded and not open to change that are going to be the first ones to go under. I myself do not regularly read a specific newspaper, but if newspaper were to ever cease to exist I would be incredibly disappointed. Newspapers are still obviously very relevant, it is only minor details that put a damper on their revenue, and with open minds and willingness to change it is my opinion that newspaper will forever have a spot on the newsstands.
Re: Future of News
by Lorraine Metz - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:47 PM
I completely agree that the sources need to be willing to change. Since media is ever-evolving so must everything else evolve. In order to provide information the newspapers must remain relevant. I agree about the head of the Philadelphia Inquirer having a great attitude and perspective and believe that much of his success stems from them.
I was there in 2008!
by George Denliker - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:40 PM
It seems that newspaper will undoubtedly have to make certain changes in the future to keep their consumer numbers up. Online options are what seem to be the most practical at the moment. People are constantly online, browsing through different websites constantly reading different articles. One of the individuals on the panel mentioned that children as young as three and four years old are computer literate now-a-days. The computer, more specifically the internet, has become such a crucial life line in society today. The gentlemen who was the head of the Philadelphia Inquirer had the best attitude in my opinion. He mentioned early on in the video that to stay relevant and popular, new sources would have to be willing to change. This attitude is the one that I most agree with. The willingness to change and learn is something that should not be taken for granted. It is the papers that continue to stay close minded and not open to change that are going to be the first ones to go under. I myself do not regularly read a specific newspaper, but if newspaper were to ever cease to exist I would be incredibly disappointed. Newspapers are still obviously very relevant, it is only minor details that put a damper on their revenue, and with open minds and willingness to change it is my opinion that newspaper will forever have a spot on the newsstands.
Re: Future of News
by Lorraine Metz - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:47 PM
I completely agree that the sources need to be willing to change. Since media is ever-evolving so must everything else evolve. In order to provide information the newspapers must remain relevant. I agree about the head of the Philadelphia Inquirer having a great attitude and perspective and believe that much of his success stems from them.
I was there in 2008!
Integration and New Angles
Integration and New Angles
by James Marino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:40 PM
I think that many newspapers will have to find a way to better integrate their online media and their print media; whether that means that there should be follow-up stories in either one (main story in print, follow up / more info online) or something to that effect, I personally have never picked up a newspaper in my life. I get all of my information online.
However, usually when I follow news, it is because I particularly enjoy reading the work of a particular columnist, or I like the way a specific publication goes about covering the news. If newspapers (or media companies) are able to find a more uniquely personal way of covering the news, then I believe that they will be more successful at reaching out to the younger, more impatient, tech-savvy generation that we represent. They need to find ways to interest us with their articles and columnists in a similar way that the Colbert Report of the Daily Show have; to use the analogy presented by the panel, spinach doesn't have to taste bad if it is presented in an appealing way.
I expect that news organizations will continue to progress toward online media, but that they will have to find new ways of presenting the news should they want to survive and develop a new base of loyal clientele.
Re: Integration and New Angles
by Vincent Parisi - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:44 PM
I agree that one of the best ways to develop a following for columnists is to develop a unique personality for readers to follow. One of the greatest things about bloggers is that they post what they feel is relevant and put their own spin on the news, similair to that of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
Re: Integration and New Angles
by Bradley Zuckerwise - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:52 PM
I completely agree with the personality having everything to do with whether or not you're interested in reading an article. If something is written as if it was taken directly out of a textbook, I will have absolutely no interest in reading about it. However, if something is written in a sense where the writer provides witty commentary, or presents a news story from different angles that will make it more enticing to the reader, I will be more inclined to read it. By throwing humor into the mix, political satirist make it easier for young news enthusiasts to get valuable news, while being entertained.
Re: Integration and New Angles
by Lauren Mennen - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:00 PM
I agree that they should integrate their online and print media in a more interesting fashion rather than what they have now. Follow-up stories is a good idea because it will allow the audience to see they can't have all access to their news online.
I also agree that a more personal way of covering the news will appeal to younger generations. Adding more entertainment to news will definitely be more successful with younger audiences.
by James Marino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:40 PM
I think that many newspapers will have to find a way to better integrate their online media and their print media; whether that means that there should be follow-up stories in either one (main story in print, follow up / more info online) or something to that effect, I personally have never picked up a newspaper in my life. I get all of my information online.
However, usually when I follow news, it is because I particularly enjoy reading the work of a particular columnist, or I like the way a specific publication goes about covering the news. If newspapers (or media companies) are able to find a more uniquely personal way of covering the news, then I believe that they will be more successful at reaching out to the younger, more impatient, tech-savvy generation that we represent. They need to find ways to interest us with their articles and columnists in a similar way that the Colbert Report of the Daily Show have; to use the analogy presented by the panel, spinach doesn't have to taste bad if it is presented in an appealing way.
I expect that news organizations will continue to progress toward online media, but that they will have to find new ways of presenting the news should they want to survive and develop a new base of loyal clientele.
Re: Integration and New Angles
by Vincent Parisi - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:44 PM
I agree that one of the best ways to develop a following for columnists is to develop a unique personality for readers to follow. One of the greatest things about bloggers is that they post what they feel is relevant and put their own spin on the news, similair to that of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
Re: Integration and New Angles
by Bradley Zuckerwise - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:52 PM
I completely agree with the personality having everything to do with whether or not you're interested in reading an article. If something is written as if it was taken directly out of a textbook, I will have absolutely no interest in reading about it. However, if something is written in a sense where the writer provides witty commentary, or presents a news story from different angles that will make it more enticing to the reader, I will be more inclined to read it. By throwing humor into the mix, political satirist make it easier for young news enthusiasts to get valuable news, while being entertained.
Re: Integration and New Angles
by Lauren Mennen - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:00 PM
I agree that they should integrate their online and print media in a more interesting fashion rather than what they have now. Follow-up stories is a good idea because it will allow the audience to see they can't have all access to their news online.
I also agree that a more personal way of covering the news will appeal to younger generations. Adding more entertainment to news will definitely be more successful with younger audiences.
Future of Print Media #2
by Emanuela Defalco - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:47 PM
After watching the industry leaders on the panel, i feel as though newspapers will still be needed and used for several years to come. The panel made very good arguments, especially when it came to surfing the web for simple information. Most information that is found online, comes directly from a newspaper source.
As for a younger generation and what they expect, i can only speak for myself when I say that I expect the newspaper to still be around for years to come. I do read the news, printed, on occasion. I find it nice to be able to sit outside with a newspaper on your lap rather then staring at a screen and searching for information that can easily be directly in front of you. One thing that may change people's mind, however, is that it is nice to have this information handed to you for free. Growing up with all of the resources that we have grown so accustom too, it is very rare to want to spend money on something that you can easily have access to. This comes anywhere from the news, to music. I rarely buy CD's because i can have such easy and free access to them online.
A good point that one of the men on the panel made was that Google, the worlds largest search engine, uses a lot of their information for newspapers, and if they cease to exist, it would be a lot harder to search for the abundance of things that people search for in their everyday lives.
I believe one thing to change the younger generation is to maybe have a fee instead of free access to online news. This might bring attention back to print newspapers, which might be cheaper and you wont have to subscribe to it.
by Chris Ciely - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:00 PM
I agree with the arguments because since information has been free for so long it is hard to believe in paying for it. I also agree that with the newspaper industry much of the internet would not exist since it is all information based. There should be a fee for the online media and this would help stabilize the print industry.
After watching the industry leaders on the panel, i feel as though newspapers will still be needed and used for several years to come. The panel made very good arguments, especially when it came to surfing the web for simple information. Most information that is found online, comes directly from a newspaper source.
As for a younger generation and what they expect, i can only speak for myself when I say that I expect the newspaper to still be around for years to come. I do read the news, printed, on occasion. I find it nice to be able to sit outside with a newspaper on your lap rather then staring at a screen and searching for information that can easily be directly in front of you. One thing that may change people's mind, however, is that it is nice to have this information handed to you for free. Growing up with all of the resources that we have grown so accustom too, it is very rare to want to spend money on something that you can easily have access to. This comes anywhere from the news, to music. I rarely buy CD's because i can have such easy and free access to them online.
A good point that one of the men on the panel made was that Google, the worlds largest search engine, uses a lot of their information for newspapers, and if they cease to exist, it would be a lot harder to search for the abundance of things that people search for in their everyday lives.
I believe one thing to change the younger generation is to maybe have a fee instead of free access to online news. This might bring attention back to print newspapers, which might be cheaper and you wont have to subscribe to it.
by Chris Ciely - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:00 PM
I agree with the arguments because since information has been free for so long it is hard to believe in paying for it. I also agree that with the newspaper industry much of the internet would not exist since it is all information based. There should be a fee for the online media and this would help stabilize the print industry.
New Changes for the Print Industries
New Changes for the Print Industries
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:50 PM
New changes must integrate with the new and young generations. it obvious that young generations are not reading newspaper...at all! if so its only about sports and the front page. but since everything is now on the web its even easier to access information and history in order to know about the topic. however if the news print media industries goes down then other major media corporations goes down as well. "Without print, Google will be out of business!" Bud Greenspan. could this mean that they don't need to change because they are a reliable source of information to major corporations such as Google, Yahoo, to many search engines? are they at risk instead? should newspaper that have already jump on the band wagon find a new way to interact with its readers and take the lead? answer is yes, but how?
if the newspaper industry find a new way to interact with its readers then they will have an increase revenue by finding a new technology that “hooks” our young readers. Like the iphone apps, but instead of buying an iphone let the newspaper industry come out with a similar technology but under there corporation. Once the advertisers see that more readers use such a great technology then they would want to advertise within the product.
Since news is happening each and every second of groundbreaking stories, newspaper can’t match up with the online industries, but if they could print not once but twice in a day, then their readers will have a more better access to the story and read more often. Has any print publish twice a day for its readers?
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:55 PM
i would also like to add that Keith Rupert Murdoch is going to add a fee for readers who want to read online. he suggested that he wants to give the first 100 words and if anyone would like to keep reading must pay a fee of 10 to 25 cents in order to continue the article...i love the idea and people would be force back to read print newspaper because it is much cheaper to buy the whole article. c'mon i rather buy a newpaper worth a dollar instead of payiong 10 cents for all the sport article i read a day, if so i would be spending $20!
Re: New Changes for the Print Industries
by Jared Silva - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:01 PM
Yeah, see, that just isn't going to fly with anyone unless this plan happened for every single outlet of online information. No one is going to pay a twenty-five cent fee just to read a twenty-five second article. This kind of pay-as-you-go news plan is just going to piss off the people who are used to reading everything they need to read for free.
Also, Rupert Murdoch is a crazy old man.
Re: New Changes for the Print Industries
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:55 PM
I would also like to add that Keith Rupert Murdoch is going to add a fee for readers who want to read online. he suggested that he wants to give the first 100 words and if anyone would like to keep reading must pay a fee of 10 to 25 cents in order to continue the article...i love the idea and people would be force back to read print newspaper because it is much cheaper to buy the whole article. c'mon i rather buy a newpaper worth a dollar instead of payiong 10 cents for all the sport article i read a day, if so i would be spending $20!
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:50 PM
New changes must integrate with the new and young generations. it obvious that young generations are not reading newspaper...at all! if so its only about sports and the front page. but since everything is now on the web its even easier to access information and history in order to know about the topic. however if the news print media industries goes down then other major media corporations goes down as well. "Without print, Google will be out of business!" Bud Greenspan. could this mean that they don't need to change because they are a reliable source of information to major corporations such as Google, Yahoo, to many search engines? are they at risk instead? should newspaper that have already jump on the band wagon find a new way to interact with its readers and take the lead? answer is yes, but how?
if the newspaper industry find a new way to interact with its readers then they will have an increase revenue by finding a new technology that “hooks” our young readers. Like the iphone apps, but instead of buying an iphone let the newspaper industry come out with a similar technology but under there corporation. Once the advertisers see that more readers use such a great technology then they would want to advertise within the product.
Since news is happening each and every second of groundbreaking stories, newspaper can’t match up with the online industries, but if they could print not once but twice in a day, then their readers will have a more better access to the story and read more often. Has any print publish twice a day for its readers?
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:55 PM
i would also like to add that Keith Rupert Murdoch is going to add a fee for readers who want to read online. he suggested that he wants to give the first 100 words and if anyone would like to keep reading must pay a fee of 10 to 25 cents in order to continue the article...i love the idea and people would be force back to read print newspaper because it is much cheaper to buy the whole article. c'mon i rather buy a newpaper worth a dollar instead of payiong 10 cents for all the sport article i read a day, if so i would be spending $20!
Re: New Changes for the Print Industries
by Jared Silva - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:01 PM
Yeah, see, that just isn't going to fly with anyone unless this plan happened for every single outlet of online information. No one is going to pay a twenty-five cent fee just to read a twenty-five second article. This kind of pay-as-you-go news plan is just going to piss off the people who are used to reading everything they need to read for free.
Also, Rupert Murdoch is a crazy old man.
Re: New Changes for the Print Industries
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:55 PM
I would also like to add that Keith Rupert Murdoch is going to add a fee for readers who want to read online. he suggested that he wants to give the first 100 words and if anyone would like to keep reading must pay a fee of 10 to 25 cents in order to continue the article...i love the idea and people would be force back to read print newspaper because it is much cheaper to buy the whole article. c'mon i rather buy a newpaper worth a dollar instead of payiong 10 cents for all the sport article i read a day, if so i would be spending $20!
Future of Print Media Exchange
Changes for Newspapers
by Erica Buchman - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:42 PM
I think that younger generations will expect print news to be as up-to-date as their online sources. The panel had talked about how afternoon editions of newspapers weren't as often read as morning newspapers because of the daily tasks that had to get done, but newspapers may have to give printing more than one edition a day a shot. Online newspapers are practically updated every hour; while that isn't possible for print news, they may have to try print multiple daily editions.
Newspapers will also have to try and find a way to market their papers to younger audiences. Most kids in their early twenties and late teens (and even younger than that) do not read the newspaper at all; papers might need to try to find a way to "hook' younger consumers into reading their paper.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Lauren Mennen - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:50 PM
I agree that younger generations will want their news more up-to-date as their online sources because as technology is increasing, everything is becoming more instantaneous. Why wait to read the paper when you can go online and see the same story a day earlier?
I also thought the same thing about how newspapers need to find a new way to appeal to younger audiences. Part of the reason why young adults in their early 20s and late teens don't read the paper is because its layout isn't as catchy as some online news media.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Lorraine Metz - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:52 PM
I also agree that print newspapers have stiff competition from Online newspapers since they're easily updated and contain breaking news. It's hard to say if printing numerous editions in a day would be profitable depending on how much information and stories can be written and published quick enough.
Marketing towards a younger audience should definitely be done by newspapers. I don't know many young adults who pick up a paper but know a few who will check out articles online. The only part of a paper I religiously read growing up was the comics. A new marketing strategy should be used to gain the attention of a younger crowd.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Jillian Parker - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:56 PM
I agree that getting our information online is easier and more up-to-date.But with that access how far are the newspaper companies going to have to go to get our attention ? It is not what we grew up doing so it will be hard to get us away from the computers, to go out and buy a copy when the younger audience can have it for free.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:02 PM
There's the only problem, the younger generations are going to rebel against, and are going to find other ways to search for their information. if its about sports ESPN, if its about business its Google Business, i mean c'mon
by Erica Buchman - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:42 PM
I think that younger generations will expect print news to be as up-to-date as their online sources. The panel had talked about how afternoon editions of newspapers weren't as often read as morning newspapers because of the daily tasks that had to get done, but newspapers may have to give printing more than one edition a day a shot. Online newspapers are practically updated every hour; while that isn't possible for print news, they may have to try print multiple daily editions.
Newspapers will also have to try and find a way to market their papers to younger audiences. Most kids in their early twenties and late teens (and even younger than that) do not read the newspaper at all; papers might need to try to find a way to "hook' younger consumers into reading their paper.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Lauren Mennen - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:50 PM
I agree that younger generations will want their news more up-to-date as their online sources because as technology is increasing, everything is becoming more instantaneous. Why wait to read the paper when you can go online and see the same story a day earlier?
I also thought the same thing about how newspapers need to find a new way to appeal to younger audiences. Part of the reason why young adults in their early 20s and late teens don't read the paper is because its layout isn't as catchy as some online news media.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Lorraine Metz - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:52 PM
I also agree that print newspapers have stiff competition from Online newspapers since they're easily updated and contain breaking news. It's hard to say if printing numerous editions in a day would be profitable depending on how much information and stories can be written and published quick enough.
Marketing towards a younger audience should definitely be done by newspapers. I don't know many young adults who pick up a paper but know a few who will check out articles online. The only part of a paper I religiously read growing up was the comics. A new marketing strategy should be used to gain the attention of a younger crowd.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Jillian Parker - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 03:56 PM
I agree that getting our information online is easier and more up-to-date.But with that access how far are the newspaper companies going to have to go to get our attention ? It is not what we grew up doing so it will be hard to get us away from the computers, to go out and buy a copy when the younger audience can have it for free.
Re: Changes for Newspapers
by Julio Vizcaino - Tuesday, 9 February 2010, 04:02 PM
There's the only problem, the younger generations are going to rebel against, and are going to find other ways to search for their information. if its about sports ESPN, if its about business its Google Business, i mean c'mon
Newswriting Copyediting
You can't have one (newswriting) without the other (copyediting).
Practical experience in communication studies contributes to strengthening your skills as a journalist.
In this age of social media networking, blogging and tweeting, consider the impact of these communication phenomena on writing. The immediacy offered by technology can simplify editing and revisions, and information sharing, but does it affect the quality of the work that is published? How will these advancements impact mass media business models, the job market - employment opportunities and compensation?
In this 2010 blog, newswriting and copy-editing students will publish original articles, analyze media roles, style issues, and comment on the influence of new media on traditional media.
aSalas
Practical experience in communication studies contributes to strengthening your skills as a journalist.
In this age of social media networking, blogging and tweeting, consider the impact of these communication phenomena on writing. The immediacy offered by technology can simplify editing and revisions, and information sharing, but does it affect the quality of the work that is published? How will these advancements impact mass media business models, the job market - employment opportunities and compensation?
In this 2010 blog, newswriting and copy-editing students will publish original articles, analyze media roles, style issues, and comment on the influence of new media on traditional media.
aSalas
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)