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.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, November 2, 2007
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)