Covering Debates

This was an article done by Mallary Jean Tenore of Poynteronline. In the article Tenore writes about the conversations and what she observed of journalists at the CNN-YouTube debate in St. Petersburg to get an inside look at how the reporters are getting the campaign news to you.

Tenore finds the crowd at the debate is mostly in complete chaos; trying to get their interviews, photos, and video clips out to their internet readers first. Mark Halperin, editor at large and senior political analyst for TIME magazine, is the first journalist that Tenore watches. Halperin carries his camera with him whenever he's reporting, because there is almost always an opportunity to use multimedia reporting he says.

"If you're not providing all content on all media, you're not really fulfilling your maximum potential," said Halperin.

Samantha Hayes, a national correspondent for CNN Newsource, was walking around holding up her laptop, which she was using to record video of herself reporting at the debate.

"Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who has been doing video interviews with presidential candidates, noted that although reporters are finding new ways of using multimedia to cover the campaigns, there are a lot of other areas that need work," Tenore tells us.

"We spend too much time looking at the roots of their (presidential candidates) character and not enough time looking at how that character has played itself out in their public lives," Fineman said.

Frequently reporters would tell Tenore that a journalist’s main objective when questioning the candidates is to ask the questions they think their readers would ask, as well as some edgy questions.

"What you want is some real conflict among the candidates or you want really tough follow-up questions,” Fineman said. "Otherwise you're not going to get anything."

Later in the article Tenore talks to Kathy Kiely, Washington correspondent of USA Today, who explains her debate story writing process. Kiely says how she can write a whole piece and only 15 inches of what she had written will appear the next day.

"Because our first-edition deadline sometimes falls before lips even start moving, we have to have a setup piece ready to go before the debate starts," Kiely said. "For 9 p.m.debates, we might only have time to drop in a couple of live quotes before wehave to let the story go. Then we do a write-thru in about the middle of the debateand another at the end."

The world of reporting sounds hectic enough, but campaign reporting, whew. Tenore allows a look into how those breaking news stories hit your webpage so quickly and reminds you to appreciate the work that was put in to get it to you.

View From 2018

Howard I. Finberg wrote a piece for the Newspaper Association of America's: Imagining the Future of the Newspapers where Finsberg looks back from 2018 and reflects on how the newspaper got where it is today(2018 in the piece).

Finberg talks of the "turmoil that gripped the newspaper and broadcast industries between 2000 and 2012". Claiming that at sometimes it felt more like panic than turmoil. He says that even though professional journalism survived many big-city newspapers did not, and Finsberg speaks of some of the main reasons some survived and others didn't.

The first is the 'Press Advantage'. Finsberg says that in 2018 the day of the thick never ending newspaper is over. The newspapers that did survive went to the tabloid look to attract readers. Finsberg says that the Old Growth Forest Protection Act of 2014 really took a hit on the industry. Recycling the newspapers was now a must.

The 'Distribution Advantage' is Finsberg's second point. He says that the the surviving companies no longer just threw their papers in driveways but went to the "high-speed printer using the WiMax networks in most cities to deliver digital content that can be printed on demand". The distribution, Finsberg says, will be outsourced to FedEx or UPS.

The advantage that shifted the fastest according to Finsberg was the 'Advertising Advantage'. The survivors realized that "advertisers need solutions, not space and the customer is in control."

Finsberg also says the newspapers who have survived realized they have to settle equally for news and information in their articles. They provided solutions as well as a sense of community.

A view from 2018 is a little scary. It is easy to see where societies decisions today will have an effect on tomorrow.

Second-biggest Story of 2007

As "tuned out" as our generation may be there was a major national event last week that nobody could ignore, the California wildfires. The "California Burning" captivated audiences last week and topped out as the second-biggest news story of 2007.

Mark Jurkowitz of PEJ wrote an article posted on Journalism.org which tells of all the news coverage the California wildfires received last week and the different ways in which the story was told. Journalists capitalized on the heroic part of the story with the exhausted firefighters working days on end. Journalists also tapped into the human interest stories of loss and survival, which was topped off with the scene of San Diego TV reporter Larry Himmel reporting from the scene of his own home of 25 years which now is reduced to a burning pile of rubble.

"This was what is left of my home," Himmel said. "This was our garage; the living room was over there, there was a porch right there, and the bedrooms. This was a living hell. This is what I came home to today."

The "California burning" accounted for 38% of the newshole last week coming in second to the April 16 Virgina Tech massacre that took the lives of 33 students and faculty, which accounted for 51% coverage in a single week.

The wildfires were the top of every media outlet with newspapers (19%), online (33%), and radio(35%). The coverage was extremely heavy with more than 50% airtime, with network TV(53%) and cable TV (51%).

Jurkowitz suggest that what separated the story and gave it public interest "was the question of government preparedness and the specter of another public sector failure comparable to what happened after Katrina rolled through New Orleans. Much of the coverage emphasized the administration's determination to avoid just such a comparison."

Burn? Maybe, but Won't Crash

Mallary Tenore wrote a article this past Monday that is very much related to the article I wrote my blog on last week. Last week I wrote about how it was a journalist's duty to read the newspaper and this week Tenore agrees says she doesn't feel as a journalist it is her duty but it is a "sign of appreciation for the hard work that goes into creating a newspaper."

Tenore admits that she spends at least eight hours a day online keeping up with her various blogs, web pages, and news updates. On the contrary Tenore also admits she wrote the first draft to this article by hand. "As much as I'm logged into the online world, I look forward to the end of the day when I can log off," Tenore says. To Tenore these are moments of peace that she treasures that her countless hours online don't offer.

"Paper," Tenore says. "The product that's been around for 2,000 years and still hasn't lost it's grove."

Tenore feels there is no substitute for paper. When reading articles online there is always some advertisement flashing with a dancing alien that's trying to grab your attention. The 'tailorability' of paper is quite possibly Tenore's favorite part about it. It allows you to follow along with your pen and underline and write notes as you read, something online reading doesn't offer.

The article refers to an essay written by William Powers entitled Hamlet's Blackberry: Why Paper is Eternal, from which Tenore gets her idea of tailorability. Powers states three other ways paper helps us read. The first of the three is tangibility. This is simply how we navigate through books and paper. It's much easier navigation. Secondly, Powers points out spatial flexibility. This simply means the reader is able to spread multiple texts out and have them within an arms reach. The final idea is manipulability, meaning one can easily shuffle through multiple papers.

Tenore finishes her argument explaining that she is a fan of both online and paper. Why can't we just take what each offers over the other and embrace it? Tenore wishes to see a business model that embraces both.

Although it is a source for much controversy it seems that all journalist have one common view: embrace paper.

Your Duty to Read the Paper

Just yesterday Roy Peter Clark of Poynteronline wrote an article in which he expresses his fear of the lost interest in picking up a newspaper and reading it. Clark says "If we believe in a future of journalism, we've got to pitch in." Clark admits that for a while he too lost interest in the newspaper and strayed away for awhile. He says he noticed a problem when he realized that "The first thing I touched in the morning and that last thing I touched at night was the TV remote." This is all coming from a journalist who has a passion about news. What does this mean for the future of journalism?

Clark stresses that "The future of journalism, not just newspapers, depends on such loyalty." He also emphasizes the "paper, not pixels." Clark is well aware you can receive your daily update and news from a news broadcast or online sources, but here lies the dilemma; how will we pay for journalism in the future? Where will salaries for quality journalists or editors come from? Clark hopes we find some new business model that will be able to support the journalism profession, but until then, "we've got to support what we have," Clark says.

If one wants to be an informed citizen in the place where they are living, there is absolutely no substitute for a local daily newspaper, Clark explains. Clark ends his argument by saying, "I have no proof, but a strong feeling, that even journalists, especially young ones working at newspapers, don't read the paper. That feels wrong to me -- and self-defeating."

Moral of the story: Journalist or not, pick up the newspaper. It's now your duty.

Did the Media Taint Bond's achievement?

August 7, 2007 is a date that will forever go down in history. It was on this day that Barry Bonds of the San Fransisco Giants hit career home run #756, breaking the previous record of 755 set by Henry Aaron. Bonds now stands alone as the home-run king. Or does he?

Typically this would be cause for celebration and recognition of one of the baseball greats of our time, but instead it has been more cause for controversy and disgust. It is well known that Bonds has encountered allegations of steroid use, but any proof of this is still nowhere to be found. It is currently still under investigation, but just because he hasn't been proven guilty doesn't mean he hasn't suffered from the allegations. Instead of receiving cheers and a pat on the back for his accomplishments, Bonds was greeted with boos wherever he stepped foot. Could it be possible the media egged this reaction on?

Dante Chinni of PEJ wrote an article, entitled How Did The Media React to Bonds' Blast, in which PEJ did an examination of the coverage in the 43 daily newspapers that were based in cities that are home to major league baseball teams. In this examination Chinni used a special software to look for the most frequently used words in a total field of 106 stories which covered the event. Chinni's findings were certainly interesting.

It was found that the words "steroids" and "performance-enhancing drugs" were the two most common words to appear in the coverage, both appearing 215 times. Positive words were also present in the coverage but appeared much less. This list was lead by "achievement" appearing 140 times and "great" a mere 117 times.

Particular journalists made their opinion of Bonds well known. For example Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote that the fans in San Francisco seem to think he "became the all-time home run king of baseball without the help of enough performance-enhancing drugs to keep a battleship afloat." Another article reads, "A little piece of humankind died Tuesday night," said Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti.

Did all of this opinion making front page influence readers around American on their opinion of Bonds and his achievement? Of course it did. Whoever might argue otherwise would be a fool. Although the allegations are there, and very well may be true for all I know, can't we just let Bonds be for now? In America aren't we "innocent until proven guilty"?

Carlson Feels The Heat

If Jenni Carlson was in search of a little national attention, she sure got it. Although it may not be the kind of attention she had hoped for.

The latest buzz on the six o'clock news, ESPN, newspapers, and even just around campus have been about Carlson and her latest article featured in The Oklahoman. The article displays a fair amount of Carlson's opinion on Oklahoma State quarterback Bobby Reid. Carlson questions the 'guts' of Reid saying, "Does he have the fire in his belly? Or does he want to be coddled, babied, perhaps even fed chicken?" Here Carlson is referring to last Friday night when Reid was seen standing near the team charters where his mother was reportedly feeding him chicken. To Carlson this was a sign of weakness that she apparently felt she needed to exploit.

Not only is Carlson's opinion a major flaw in this article, but also her lack of sources. Multiple times in the article Carlson attributes claims of Reid 'attidute problem' or fear of competition to insiders or to the fact she simply heard it. Apparently she didn't get the memo that 'hearsay' or 'word on the street' isn't a source.

Carlson also lets it be know that she feels on many occasions Reid sat out of games for minor injuries "instead of gutting it out". How does Carlson know these were minor injuries? Did Carlson get this information from trainers, coaches, players, anyone? Seems like yet again Carlson's opinion is the source for this story.

What is Carlson trying to achieve with this article? Public humiliation for Bobby Reid? Regardless of her intentions, turns out she's the one the article humiliates.