So this may not be a very comprehensive analysis of journalistic coverage of politics because I essentially always used Yahoo! to jump start my search of articles. however, I do think that there is a lot to say of Yahoo!News and its role in political media. So I began my analysis this year with the discussion of party bias. To me, it seems that after the discussion run here :
http://mb.debates.news.yahoo.com/Democratic_Candidate_Mashup/threadview?m=tm&bn=nws-iraq&tid=5&mid=879&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=51
Albeit, I saw the debate as trite and immature, it did prove to have a point. In the following weeks, the YAhoo!News - election 08 main page, which had many links to democratic candidates and few links to GOP candidates, has moved towards what I see as a more comprehensively accessible politics page. See here: http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008 The page before had a list of all the Dem candidates on the right of their featured story, but now it has a political "dashboard," that allows you to scroll through candidates by party, mainly GOp and DEM. A step up for sure.
As for Political coverage overall, I feel like the information is out there. For example, it was through the Yahoo! election 08 page that I found the links to ontheissues.com, which I think does a good job of at least giving you access to what candidates are about. I honestly feel a lot of the criticism is unjustified. It seems like dems criticize Reps for manipulating media and the GOP says media has a liberal bias, but to me it just now looks like two opposites complaining about the other sides' existence. That said, I still hate what FOX news did and the article about Obama's pin.
Its just so easy to learn what you want to know. How much candidates are raising, where they are from and whatever else is important to you. By the way, I also think there is a very good reason such things as religion are so important. Politics is so confusing and no one really has any real control of it(meaning that votes for a bill don't explain much about what a politician really wanted) so the only real judgement you can make is where they pray, where they are from etc. Why? because we all know that in our own personal lives, despite being religious or non-religious, we still do our best to do what we feel is right, so if you know that XX politician at least goes to church or comes from your area, you at least know there is a good chance that he is giving his best shot..... AGH I don't know. maybe this is all B.S. and Americans are ignorant and just vote on meaningless issues.
My perception of news media coverage is that it is really trying to cover everything from the spanish democratic debate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_spanish_debate;_ylt=AmmPDdb9KcaJOG7CdK0DVszkbeRF and Arab americans in politics http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/richardson;_ylt=AkS8BUOjhmsOYsAULirimPPkbeRF
But maybe I don't feel the bias is that bad because my views are in line with the way politics is being covered. Then again, there is the FOX NEWS thing and the obama pin and the video we watched. So there are definitely flaws. Its so odd though that organizations are so desperate for news, but they won't turn that time they waste by making news of crap like al Qeida burning California and Obama's pin wearing into something deeper and more truthful. They'd rather tell a good lie than find an important, but boring truth. I guess that makes sense. I like the way Yahoo! NEWs does it and I think things are working towards more cumulative and interactive news( I think this is important because it forces you to think about what you are looking for) and I also think that the changing business model is a really really good thing. Why? Because this current business model for news is the reason why they have to make such sensational bullshit. This is an good era of finding a new news business model that will serve people and make a profit. It being more democratized that ever, I think we have a good thing coming. And taking the message boards as an example, what people want, people get.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Carelessness is not plagiarism
My god this reading was like a class session straight from
Meade loop's ethics class. subscribe to Kant, the categorical imperative. Very amusing, I just thought I should say. This is pretty interesting topic, because I certainly know and also any professor that has had me knows that I get careless. It is my hamartia. The achilles tendon of my perhaps limitless potential, but meh sometimes I get caught up in my desire to waste time and just have fun. So shoot me. Probably will happen someday. Anywho, it is something that I do honestly think about. A great professor Michael Scully once told me about a writer he taught that plagiarized while was in school and then later became a writer for the NYT and was then caught in an embarrassing scandal about plagiarism. Scully said, "bad habits follow you. He did it then and I know he would do it now." Gah, that is a bitter thing to contemplate. I like the idea that the word, "plagiarism," is incapable of meaning. I don't know she specifically meant, but I reason that most of the time you want to say something, there is a very good chance it has been said before. (there is more to this thought, but for some reason my brain refuses to articulate it) On another note, the comments are interesting. Some are, "disturbed," by the action taken by the school, some are proud and some just make no damn sense going on a spiel about the, "mainstream media," blah blah blah.(not that I am not aware of the problems, its just that a lot people think they are aware and spew out tons of garbage about things they have no real evidence for.) but its funny because it totally makes sense that the paper would take that sort of action to maintain a public image of zero tolerance for plagiarism, despite it not actually being plagiarism. I am sure the editors and maybe the bosses knew, but most people who read the paper probably have no clue about the actual circumstances and the context of a, "careless plagiarism."
Meade loop's ethics class. subscribe to Kant, the categorical imperative. Very amusing, I just thought I should say. This is pretty interesting topic, because I certainly know and also any professor that has had me knows that I get careless. It is my hamartia. The achilles tendon of my perhaps limitless potential, but meh sometimes I get caught up in my desire to waste time and just have fun. So shoot me. Probably will happen someday. Anywho, it is something that I do honestly think about. A great professor Michael Scully once told me about a writer he taught that plagiarized while was in school and then later became a writer for the NYT and was then caught in an embarrassing scandal about plagiarism. Scully said, "bad habits follow you. He did it then and I know he would do it now." Gah, that is a bitter thing to contemplate. I like the idea that the word, "plagiarism," is incapable of meaning. I don't know she specifically meant, but I reason that most of the time you want to say something, there is a very good chance it has been said before. (there is more to this thought, but for some reason my brain refuses to articulate it) On another note, the comments are interesting. Some are, "disturbed," by the action taken by the school, some are proud and some just make no damn sense going on a spiel about the, "mainstream media," blah blah blah.(not that I am not aware of the problems, its just that a lot people think they are aware and spew out tons of garbage about things they have no real evidence for.) but its funny because it totally makes sense that the paper would take that sort of action to maintain a public image of zero tolerance for plagiarism, despite it not actually being plagiarism. I am sure the editors and maybe the bosses knew, but most people who read the paper probably have no clue about the actual circumstances and the context of a, "careless plagiarism."
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Guiliani
Again with the on the issue websites.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
Okay, well to start off, I just thought I'd mention that I found this amusing. This is all that was in the category for guiliani on the Environment.
Prepare better for next Hurricane Katrina. (Aug 2007) >>>??????
Okay, anywho. So it seems like a big part of his plat form is about his victory over crime in NYC
Rudy Giuliani on Crime
Click here for 17 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.
FactCheck: NYC crime did drop, but others deserve credit too. (Oct 2007)
As mayor, reduced crime but didn't raise police pay. (Jan 2007)
Considered police brutality in Louima case an aberration. (Jan 2007)
Applies strict moral standards to lawbreakers. (Jan 2007)
Prosecuted Miss America for fraud (and lost). (Jan 2007)
Prefers death penalty for 9/11 conspirators. (May 2006)
Insisted on enforcing minor offenses, & cleaned up crime. (Oct 2005)
Banished "squeegee men": civility from treating small crimes. (Oct 2002)
Community policing is comforting but doesn't stop crime. (Oct 2002)
Giuliani backs police in Bronx killing. (Mar 2000)
Home ownership decreases crime. (Jan 2000)
Need DNA Lab to Combat Crime. (Jan 2000)
Crime cut in half in NYC. (Dec 1999)
“CompStat” system stresses police accountability. (Dec 1999)
Giuliani’s sampling: large drops in all violent crime. (Dec 1999)
Quality of Life initiatives as well as crime reduction. (Dec 1999)
Risk cannot be eliminated, but take security seriously. (Jul 1999)
So on other things like immigration and the economy, he is really vague. Or I should more accurately say the website is vague. I don't really know if that is because that is what the website says or that is what he says. But it is still funny. So as far as I know comparing a democratic candidate, Obama, versus a Republican candidate, Guiliani doesn't have much on a lot of issues that are important to me. That can mean a few things. Either Guiliani is not the candidate for me or the website isn't very good at getting enough info on guiliani. Whether that is a bias towards Dems or against Reps, I don't know. We will see.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
Okay, well to start off, I just thought I'd mention that I found this amusing. This is all that was in the category for guiliani on the Environment.
Prepare better for next Hurricane Katrina. (Aug 2007) >>>??????
Okay, anywho. So it seems like a big part of his plat form is about his victory over crime in NYC
Rudy Giuliani on Crime
Click here for 17 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.
FactCheck: NYC crime did drop, but others deserve credit too. (Oct 2007)
As mayor, reduced crime but didn't raise police pay. (Jan 2007)
Considered police brutality in Louima case an aberration. (Jan 2007)
Applies strict moral standards to lawbreakers. (Jan 2007)
Prosecuted Miss America for fraud (and lost). (Jan 2007)
Prefers death penalty for 9/11 conspirators. (May 2006)
Insisted on enforcing minor offenses, & cleaned up crime. (Oct 2005)
Banished "squeegee men": civility from treating small crimes. (Oct 2002)
Community policing is comforting but doesn't stop crime. (Oct 2002)
Giuliani backs police in Bronx killing. (Mar 2000)
Home ownership decreases crime. (Jan 2000)
Need DNA Lab to Combat Crime. (Jan 2000)
Crime cut in half in NYC. (Dec 1999)
“CompStat” system stresses police accountability. (Dec 1999)
Giuliani’s sampling: large drops in all violent crime. (Dec 1999)
Quality of Life initiatives as well as crime reduction. (Dec 1999)
Risk cannot be eliminated, but take security seriously. (Jul 1999)
So on other things like immigration and the economy, he is really vague. Or I should more accurately say the website is vague. I don't really know if that is because that is what the website says or that is what he says. But it is still funny. So as far as I know comparing a democratic candidate, Obama, versus a Republican candidate, Guiliani doesn't have much on a lot of issues that are important to me. That can mean a few things. Either Guiliani is not the candidate for me or the website isn't very good at getting enough info on guiliani. Whether that is a bias towards Dems or against Reps, I don't know. We will see.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Obama, Clinton and Jena 6
So I've decided that I am just going to go from candidate to candidate and summarize their stances on issues and what it means to me as a first time voter. It is interesting because I was interviewed over the break by friend about how much I know about current politics and the presidential election. I turns out that I don't know squat. Well, I knew a bit, but not enough to justify my lean for Obama. So, I've decided I need to know why Obama, not Clinton and why Clinton and Obama and not Guiliani or Bill Richardson or something. If I can't tell you why not, that is troubling. So I went to http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm which has all the major candidates and their stances on the essential issues. For the sake of this study, essential issues. The website has their stance on a lot of issues, but I guess for the sake of sanity, I will focus on what is important to me. Well, no I don't even know that. I know that education is important. Civil Rights, including immigration is important to me. International diplomacy is an important issue as well. The environment, to jump in the bandwagon. Umm also healthcare reform. Damn it, I will thow in corporate oversight too. So... here we go.
Obama is the man. I just go through the list and I find very little I disagree with.
Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Most of that I like. I am not sure about how I feel about affirmative action anymore and I really want to beleive in the way he thinks its about unity -UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, not Black or white America. Kind of tired of being left out of America. Anywho, he is very comprehensive and I like the way he doesn't like to generalize and simplfiy things. I suppose to his demise, but heck "Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007" isn't something I've hear from anyone else. More from the others in the future.
Obama is the man. I just go through the list and I find very little I disagree with.
Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Most of that I like. I am not sure about how I feel about affirmative action anymore and I really want to beleive in the way he thinks its about unity -UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, not Black or white America. Kind of tired of being left out of America. Anywho, he is very comprehensive and I like the way he doesn't like to generalize and simplfiy things. I suppose to his demise, but heck "Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007" isn't something I've hear from anyone else. More from the others in the future.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Women in Politics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_feminists_dc;_ylt=Agu.rozNWXxEpWJG1u9GSWnkbeRF
This was a really interesting article. It raises some really good questions about clinton and her presidential bid. Not only her, but also obama, who also will inevitably, (my guess) come to represent an underrepresented group. The aricle discusses how many of the womens' rights organizations are cautious about endorsing Clinton simply because she is a woman. Organizations like NOW point out that they want the best champion for womens' rights and if that happens to be women, that is nirvana. The bigger issue I am interested in is, when it comes down to the average voter, who, in my experience, seems to vote on passion and emotion issues like religion and personality, as opposed to good policy, will that hold true. I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that based on the most elementary of associations, that clinton will have the female vote. Haha, but this is the thing, that would mean that Obama has the black vote right? WRong. He doesn't, at least according to the poles. So does that mean people vote based on policy and not just on skin, gender or other shallow and unsubstantial characteristics? I don't know. This is really confusing. If people criticize voters for voting on their passions and not the issues, why don't Clinton and Obama make sense? Why are their, "safe bets," not safe bets? You can assume christians want a christian in the white house because that person sees life the same way or because you can assume that they share certain values. Why isn't that true of race and gender? Regardless of who you are as a person, if you were black during the reconstruction period, you'd face jim crow in the south and if you were a woman before 1920, you couldn't vote. There has to be some level or community there. Maybe I am over simplifying gender and race. I dunno, its a peculiar situation. Clinton and Obama will represent their respective groups politically even if their respective groups don't want them to or they themselves don't want to. So much of choices in democracy.
I don't mean to be apathetic, i really do hope things turn out for the best.
This was a really interesting article. It raises some really good questions about clinton and her presidential bid. Not only her, but also obama, who also will inevitably, (my guess) come to represent an underrepresented group. The aricle discusses how many of the womens' rights organizations are cautious about endorsing Clinton simply because she is a woman. Organizations like NOW point out that they want the best champion for womens' rights and if that happens to be women, that is nirvana. The bigger issue I am interested in is, when it comes down to the average voter, who, in my experience, seems to vote on passion and emotion issues like religion and personality, as opposed to good policy, will that hold true. I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that based on the most elementary of associations, that clinton will have the female vote. Haha, but this is the thing, that would mean that Obama has the black vote right? WRong. He doesn't, at least according to the poles. So does that mean people vote based on policy and not just on skin, gender or other shallow and unsubstantial characteristics? I don't know. This is really confusing. If people criticize voters for voting on their passions and not the issues, why don't Clinton and Obama make sense? Why are their, "safe bets," not safe bets? You can assume christians want a christian in the white house because that person sees life the same way or because you can assume that they share certain values. Why isn't that true of race and gender? Regardless of who you are as a person, if you were black during the reconstruction period, you'd face jim crow in the south and if you were a woman before 1920, you couldn't vote. There has to be some level or community there. Maybe I am over simplifying gender and race. I dunno, its a peculiar situation. Clinton and Obama will represent their respective groups politically even if their respective groups don't want them to or they themselves don't want to. So much of choices in democracy.
I don't mean to be apathetic, i really do hope things turn out for the best.
chapter 18
Let me just start by saying that blogging is exhausting. I don't know why. When it comes down to it, it only takes about 10-15 minutes, but it just drains me. Anyway, Chapter 18 was in all honesty, interesting. I thought it was important to include the way reporters organize themselves, even if it is poorly. Sometimes I like to put myself in a situation like that, a situation where I am a reporter chasing an investigation. I really wonder what I would do, whether I would be really organized or really messy. The biggest questions I have revolve around what really big writers have done. Another point that I thought was intersting was how NRAW, my acronym for the book, points out that you should form a hypothesis because investigative reporting is a lot like science. I see what they were getting at, but they also note that you should go in expecting to be wrong. Again, I completey understand where they are going, but where do you draw the line between making a move based on an assertion you have about the situation and going in without any preconceived notions? Hmm
Monday, October 29, 2007
Covering Crime and justice
This is really interesting stuff. I knew about some of the basics about crime and court proceedings, but this is actually useful information. I didn't know a lot of these details about certain aspects such as a judge looking over police arrest charges and how judges preside over court proceedings. This is definitely useful if I want to ever cover a crime beat or simply useful because so many things have to do with the law.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Arab America and Politics p.s. FOX NEWS IS TERRIBLE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/richardson;_ylt=AkS8BUOjhmsOYsAULirimPPkbeRF
It is a pleasant sight to see that ARab America isn't being flushed out politically and that presidential candidates still seem to want to work with a group that has faced so much unfair heat. I really wonder what that convention was likke because if I were an arab-american I would feel so frustrated about the constant oversimplification of islamic jihad and just the criminalizing of anyone who fights a western agenda from the middle east. Not to mention to stupid conflict growing with Iran.
On another note, I really tried so hard to stay objective and open minded, but I hate a lof of things about the Fox network. TO name one. Bill O'Reilly. I somehow got caught up in watching hours of the O'Reilly factor on youtube and simply put, he is a jerk. What kind of journalism cuts off your source? Sources are subject to scrutiny, but what is he achieving by cutting off a 9 year-veteran of Army? Just look his name up on youtube and you will see.
EVEN WORSE!
So I assume most of you have heard about the California wildfires and how bad it has become. It is bad, no doubt and there have been arrests made because some of the fires are the result of arson. IF that isn't messed up enough, I stuble upon a Fox News broadcast about the CAlifornia wildfires and guess what? They are discussing the possiibily that it may be AL Qieda????????? WTF WTF WTF? As someone from California, this is laughable. These fires happen every year, and this is a particularly dry season and thus, the greater danger of fires. I mean, come on!!! FIRE SOMEONE! This is ridiculous.
So anger aside, why did they bring it up? Well, Apparently it was based on a CIA memo that mentioned an informant mentioning fires as a method of attack. Okay. . . . Turns out, the memo is 4 years old and doesn't actually have the word California in it. Again, someone needs to be fired. I am absolutely incredulous. So the argument many like Bill O'Reilly make is something like, "well better to be really safe than sorry right?" WRONG. It is like wearing armor to go swimming in the ocean. Sure, if a shark tried to eat you or perhaps angry fish may try to stab you. That is, if you weren't dead. You cut off the arm to save the body not the other way around. It just makes me so angry that Fox totally fucked up, people are afraid now or at least misled, and no one is going to clean up the mess. Anyone from NBC who aired a commentary or criticism is useless because FOX viewers aren't going to be watching that because it is, "liberal propoganda." (according to a lot of those youtube comments.) UGH UGH UGH!
It is a pleasant sight to see that ARab America isn't being flushed out politically and that presidential candidates still seem to want to work with a group that has faced so much unfair heat. I really wonder what that convention was likke because if I were an arab-american I would feel so frustrated about the constant oversimplification of islamic jihad and just the criminalizing of anyone who fights a western agenda from the middle east. Not to mention to stupid conflict growing with Iran.
On another note, I really tried so hard to stay objective and open minded, but I hate a lof of things about the Fox network. TO name one. Bill O'Reilly. I somehow got caught up in watching hours of the O'Reilly factor on youtube and simply put, he is a jerk. What kind of journalism cuts off your source? Sources are subject to scrutiny, but what is he achieving by cutting off a 9 year-veteran of Army? Just look his name up on youtube and you will see.
EVEN WORSE!
So I assume most of you have heard about the California wildfires and how bad it has become. It is bad, no doubt and there have been arrests made because some of the fires are the result of arson. IF that isn't messed up enough, I stuble upon a Fox News broadcast about the CAlifornia wildfires and guess what? They are discussing the possiibily that it may be AL Qieda????????? WTF WTF WTF? As someone from California, this is laughable. These fires happen every year, and this is a particularly dry season and thus, the greater danger of fires. I mean, come on!!! FIRE SOMEONE! This is ridiculous.
So anger aside, why did they bring it up? Well, Apparently it was based on a CIA memo that mentioned an informant mentioning fires as a method of attack. Okay. . . . Turns out, the memo is 4 years old and doesn't actually have the word California in it. Again, someone needs to be fired. I am absolutely incredulous. So the argument many like Bill O'Reilly make is something like, "well better to be really safe than sorry right?" WRONG. It is like wearing armor to go swimming in the ocean. Sure, if a shark tried to eat you or perhaps angry fish may try to stab you. That is, if you weren't dead. You cut off the arm to save the body not the other way around. It just makes me so angry that Fox totally fucked up, people are afraid now or at least misled, and no one is going to clean up the mess. Anyone from NBC who aired a commentary or criticism is useless because FOX viewers aren't going to be watching that because it is, "liberal propoganda." (according to a lot of those youtube comments.) UGH UGH UGH!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
blog world
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4027347337751147150&postID=7370399221877013193
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4027347337751147150&postID=7370399221877013193
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2995385118409212375&postID=881216097360836202
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1074779367077476366&postID=1200771056790202735
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5798677032299047518&postID=7799048680670912767
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7590941588867848918&postID=5786519677560960113
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3914167033385081404&postID=6234549131443125035
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1262959131330397320&postID=7832944991270655173
I don't know how to do the links like everyone else! BLAH!
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4027347337751147150&postID=7370399221877013193
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2995385118409212375&postID=881216097360836202
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1074779367077476366&postID=1200771056790202735
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5798677032299047518&postID=7799048680670912767
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7590941588867848918&postID=5786519677560960113
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3914167033385081404&postID=6234549131443125035
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1262959131330397320&postID=7832944991270655173
I don't know how to do the links like everyone else! BLAH!
Monday, October 15, 2007
odd
I think I am going insane.
I actually had a dream about the election. Of all the beautiful and wonderful things I can dream about, like achieving world peace, curing cancer, being awesome at volleyball or having an awesome slice of strawberry cream pie, I had to dream about the election. I think that tells me something. Funny thing though, in my dream I was panicking about no one knowing that the election was tomorrow and that we all had to go vote. Well, the funny thing is that obviously, in my dream I had the date all wrong, which towards the end of my dream, I realized. I dunno. It was wierd. Then I think it changed to running in water or something. Anywho, I was looking around on yahoo and I noticed that now there is a section for republican candidates where there were none. I'd like to think that maybe the discussion board about how democrats have too much representation in yahoo, that I mentioned in an earlier blog, had an impact.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/iraq/index.html
This is an interesting link I found that outlines positions of candidates in both parties about their stance on Iraq. There are also other issues such as immigration, but that is found through yahoo! election '08 section. I think what the dalai lama said was right. This generation has a lot more connection and direct experience, which I would agree with him in saying that it inherently changes the pattern of events and history.
I actually had a dream about the election. Of all the beautiful and wonderful things I can dream about, like achieving world peace, curing cancer, being awesome at volleyball or having an awesome slice of strawberry cream pie, I had to dream about the election. I think that tells me something. Funny thing though, in my dream I was panicking about no one knowing that the election was tomorrow and that we all had to go vote. Well, the funny thing is that obviously, in my dream I had the date all wrong, which towards the end of my dream, I realized. I dunno. It was wierd. Then I think it changed to running in water or something. Anywho, I was looking around on yahoo and I noticed that now there is a section for republican candidates where there were none. I'd like to think that maybe the discussion board about how democrats have too much representation in yahoo, that I mentioned in an earlier blog, had an impact.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/iraq/index.html
This is an interesting link I found that outlines positions of candidates in both parties about their stance on Iraq. There are also other issues such as immigration, but that is found through yahoo! election '08 section. I think what the dalai lama said was right. This generation has a lot more connection and direct experience, which I would agree with him in saying that it inherently changes the pattern of events and history.
Monday, October 8, 2007
media law
media law is interesting I think I intend to go to law school, but I am not sure yet. I don't really knbow what the prerequiesites are.
Academic writing was interesting from the perspective of george orwell. I see his point and what he means. I know that I am definitely guilty of writing and addding words in my sentences that sound good, but really have no meaning or relevance. Longwinded, is something I've been caleed before. I guess in journalism it is unacceptable because we just have no room to waste. At the same time, it isn't like we are really allowed to be creative with our imagery.
Academic writing was interesting from the perspective of george orwell. I see his point and what he means. I know that I am definitely guilty of writing and addding words in my sentences that sound good, but really have no meaning or relevance. Longwinded, is something I've been caleed before. I guess in journalism it is unacceptable because we just have no room to waste. At the same time, it isn't like we are really allowed to be creative with our imagery.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/06/2007-10-06_many_politicians_wont_wear_flag_pins__or-2.html?ref=rss
So obama decides to stop wearing his American flag pin and it makes news? Why? I don't really understand. The news community complains and complains about how it doesn't have enough time to comprehensively cover important issues and events, but it spends it's time and money to dedicate space toa story like this. I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand that in terms of each story, the time that you have from when the story breaks to when you need to have it out there is really short, but in the grand scale, it is a matter of editor choice and opinion. The news value of time versus actual news value is understandably difficult to balance, but seriously, I really think this was a bad choice. What were the writers and editors trying to imply? Why didn't the fact that other cadidates don't wear their pins matter? Egh. I feel like obama is getting too much heat. It doesn't makes sense that news organizations are too afraid to make judgements on news such as covering racial issues like jena 6, but then they are seemingly unabated when they makes news judgements to focus on such pointless story such as obama's pin wearing stance. I don't even think it is a loyalty to objectivity anymore, it think it is more like ruse to not cover things that they don't like and to frame the conversation around something they want to. Like the possible unpatriotism that is represented by obama's unethusiastic pin wearing. I don't know, this all seems too fishy. It just seems like such bs that news organizations are completely loyal to objectivity when they make judgements anyway.
So obama decides to stop wearing his American flag pin and it makes news? Why? I don't really understand. The news community complains and complains about how it doesn't have enough time to comprehensively cover important issues and events, but it spends it's time and money to dedicate space toa story like this. I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand that in terms of each story, the time that you have from when the story breaks to when you need to have it out there is really short, but in the grand scale, it is a matter of editor choice and opinion. The news value of time versus actual news value is understandably difficult to balance, but seriously, I really think this was a bad choice. What were the writers and editors trying to imply? Why didn't the fact that other cadidates don't wear their pins matter? Egh. I feel like obama is getting too much heat. It doesn't makes sense that news organizations are too afraid to make judgements on news such as covering racial issues like jena 6, but then they are seemingly unabated when they makes news judgements to focus on such pointless story such as obama's pin wearing stance. I don't even think it is a loyalty to objectivity anymore, it think it is more like ruse to not cover things that they don't like and to frame the conversation around something they want to. Like the possible unpatriotism that is represented by obama's unethusiastic pin wearing. I don't know, this all seems too fishy. It just seems like such bs that news organizations are completely loyal to objectivity when they make judgements anyway.
Monday, October 1, 2007
News Reporting and Writing
SEND THIS BOOK DOWN TO THE DEEPEST FIERY DEPTHS OF THE BOWELS OF HELL! In essence, this book is rather frustrating. To note, particularly, how it seems to refuse to get the point and it dances around what you really need to know in order to adequately prepare for an assignment. I.e. pg 250-2 where the go on and on about covering speeches and how this and that may happen and that you will never know. It is really just annoying how the book will go not every speech will demand research, but this person didn
t expect and little did he know, there was no speech HAAHHAA! Then there is know the people, for example these big shots in USA today thought they had it right, but little did they know, there were in fact two Larry Kings in the United States of America who might possible donate money to President's CLinton
s campaign. Then to drive the nail home, there is the section about covering speeches and how the newbie reporter goes in and says, there is no news, but again! Little did he know, the lack of a speech was the news! Muaahahahaha. Jeeze. It is just kind of strange and at the same time instigating how this book plays the devil's advocate so much. The essence I get is, Lets generalize about something, like how news leads function for you daily and how the are part of the general business of news, but then lets spend the rest of the chapter telling you about how this pullitzer prize noiminated writer used news leades in a not-so conventional way to write his paper that got him his nomination. Just tell me no to generalize and get to the point.
t expect and little did he know, there was no speech HAAHHAA! Then there is know the people, for example these big shots in USA today thought they had it right, but little did they know, there were in fact two Larry Kings in the United States of America who might possible donate money to President's CLinton
s campaign. Then to drive the nail home, there is the section about covering speeches and how the newbie reporter goes in and says, there is no news, but again! Little did he know, the lack of a speech was the news! Muaahahahaha. Jeeze. It is just kind of strange and at the same time instigating how this book plays the devil's advocate so much. The essence I get is, Lets generalize about something, like how news leads function for you daily and how the are part of the general business of news, but then lets spend the rest of the chapter telling you about how this pullitzer prize noiminated writer used news leades in a not-so conventional way to write his paper that got him his nomination. Just tell me no to generalize and get to the point.
Gay marriage
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_marriage_1;_ylt=Ap252fePQBayzZzwYLxUl91h24cA
(it won't let me do the link thing)
Fred thompson made concession with conservatives about gay marriage. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, well I have any idea about how a lot of people feel about this, but I think the whole question is such a joke. It is really a disappointment that when it comes down to the fundamental ability to file a joint tax-return, some people can and some people can't. If marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony, then it should be a illegal in the first place for the government to really have any part of it, much less giving families tax breaks or benefits not sure what the specifics are, but this is what it seems like to me). On the other hand, if marriage is argued to be a civil union between two people, then to prohibit one group of people based on gender and sexual orientation is blatantly unconstitutional. This is how I see it, you either suck it up and give other people the same access to the benefits you get or you give up those benefits because it is just downright unfair that some people have them and that some people don't. Now, the argument that marriage as an instition will fall to the corrupt hands of paligamy(sp) and bestiality and all sorts of things that people want to get married to if you allow same sex marriages is complete and absolute irrational stupidity. Just make the law define marriage as a union between two consenting adult human beings. Oh well then you've got the palygamist in an upheaval. Well then make it should be between two consenting human adult parties. Don't get me wrong, I can feel and understand the personal attatchment to marriage as a religiously motivated ceremony, but the fact that people have to let it spill into the secular world, makes it no longer a pure ceremony to begin with.
(it won't let me do the link thing)
Fred thompson made concession with conservatives about gay marriage. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, well I have any idea about how a lot of people feel about this, but I think the whole question is such a joke. It is really a disappointment that when it comes down to the fundamental ability to file a joint tax-return, some people can and some people can't. If marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony, then it should be a illegal in the first place for the government to really have any part of it, much less giving families tax breaks or benefits not sure what the specifics are, but this is what it seems like to me). On the other hand, if marriage is argued to be a civil union between two people, then to prohibit one group of people based on gender and sexual orientation is blatantly unconstitutional. This is how I see it, you either suck it up and give other people the same access to the benefits you get or you give up those benefits because it is just downright unfair that some people have them and that some people don't. Now, the argument that marriage as an instition will fall to the corrupt hands of paligamy(sp) and bestiality and all sorts of things that people want to get married to if you allow same sex marriages is complete and absolute irrational stupidity. Just make the law define marriage as a union between two consenting adult human beings. Oh well then you've got the palygamist in an upheaval. Well then make it should be between two consenting human adult parties. Don't get me wrong, I can feel and understand the personal attatchment to marriage as a religiously motivated ceremony, but the fact that people have to let it spill into the secular world, makes it no longer a pure ceremony to begin with.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Obituaries
I don't know if that is exactly the career path for me. I respect it and everything, but jeeze, I have enough problems with me emotions as it is. I don't need more pain and sadness. But jokes aside, I see the interest and challenge of trying to respecfully explain an inevitably sad situation, such as someone's passing. Also about the reluctance of newspapers to post addresses or even funeral times, understandable, but WTF? Excuse the language. I am from L.A. and people are jerks, but man that was surprising that obituaries still pose risks of some sort to the living. I can understand the idea of it being a once in awhile occurance, for example the overzealous stalker or criminal, but to the point where it is a common policy for many newspapers?
A bit disconcerting if you ask me.
A bit disconcerting if you ask me.
Obama, Clinton and Jena 6
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297409,00.html-two seperate stories
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297764,00.html
This is really interesting. And confusing. 6 Black Americans face trumped up charges. Americans all over cry outrage and injustice. Thousands rally to protest and amidst all this, there is irony. Obama is Black, Hilary is White. However, Clinton moves quickly to speak out against this injustice and has no proble, if she didn't, what would have probably happened is that she would have lost some of the black vote. HOwever, when Obama doesn't say anything, he is alienating his people, and I am sure if he went down there and represented the black agenda, he would alienate everyone else. Interesting that Obama is trapped by people who, despite everything Jackson says about acting white or whatever, would have sat in the same section as he did in a bus, or restaurant in the 60s in the south. I think obama has a point that it isn't an injustice that should only anger the south or blacks, it really should anger everyone, but it says so much when it is only obama's statements that matter. Interestingly enough, polls show(according to the article by fox news) that CLinton has a lot of the black vote. Why? It has to be that voters are picking candidates over more than skin color. Or is it that in this current state of affairs, being a black man is not as acceptable as being a white woman? Maybe the Black community has no faith in their own skin color, or they know better? Or maybe it doesn't matter. I think this is insane. I was discussing the matter of skin color and oppression and desppite obama's best efforts to avoid the race question, it seems like he cannot escape being the black candidate. Clinton doesn't receieve nearly as much heat for not speaking out about women's rights and things pertaining to that such as abortion or domestic violence. Makes sense though, gender and race are not in the same stratosphere and are not the same debate. There are more women than there are blacks, so it just seems to coincide with more people are able to deal with. I feel bad for obama because as I far I know,he seems like a really intelligent and benevolent man who loves his country and really wants to reconcile things. He is too political and long winded though. he needs to say something straigh forward, like I am Black, if I were one of those boys, I would be in the same boat, but if I were white, it wouldn't stop me from being angry about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297764,00.html
This is really interesting. And confusing. 6 Black Americans face trumped up charges. Americans all over cry outrage and injustice. Thousands rally to protest and amidst all this, there is irony. Obama is Black, Hilary is White. However, Clinton moves quickly to speak out against this injustice and has no proble, if she didn't, what would have probably happened is that she would have lost some of the black vote. HOwever, when Obama doesn't say anything, he is alienating his people, and I am sure if he went down there and represented the black agenda, he would alienate everyone else. Interesting that Obama is trapped by people who, despite everything Jackson says about acting white or whatever, would have sat in the same section as he did in a bus, or restaurant in the 60s in the south. I think obama has a point that it isn't an injustice that should only anger the south or blacks, it really should anger everyone, but it says so much when it is only obama's statements that matter. Interestingly enough, polls show(according to the article by fox news) that CLinton has a lot of the black vote. Why? It has to be that voters are picking candidates over more than skin color. Or is it that in this current state of affairs, being a black man is not as acceptable as being a white woman? Maybe the Black community has no faith in their own skin color, or they know better? Or maybe it doesn't matter. I think this is insane. I was discussing the matter of skin color and oppression and desppite obama's best efforts to avoid the race question, it seems like he cannot escape being the black candidate. Clinton doesn't receieve nearly as much heat for not speaking out about women's rights and things pertaining to that such as abortion or domestic violence. Makes sense though, gender and race are not in the same stratosphere and are not the same debate. There are more women than there are blacks, so it just seems to coincide with more people are able to deal with. I feel bad for obama because as I far I know,he seems like a really intelligent and benevolent man who loves his country and really wants to reconcile things. He is too political and long winded though. he needs to say something straigh forward, like I am Black, if I were one of those boys, I would be in the same boat, but if I were white, it wouldn't stop me from being angry about it.
Monday, September 17, 2007
multimedia journalism
I agree. Using a timeline dramatically increasing the value of understanding for the reader. The value of comprehension increases so much. id like to have a class that pushes the boundaries of producing online or multimedia content. I know tehre are classes that ask you to produce media, but it would be interesting to have a class that asks you to experiment with creating multimedia pckages. An online video with links to text or something that could be a lot more of a clean package. Or maybe I am asking to be a bit too creative. Just getting kind of tired of the overemphasis on practicality.
On quotes.
Perhaps my favorite part of journalism. Quotes mean talking to people and and interviews. If it were up to me, I would just get to interview people, do some research and find out what is going on. Talking to people is the best part. It was interesting because last year, in doing a report of yours truly, mead loop, I got to interview John Batelle, the author of Google: The Search and he said to me that yahoo and search engines like that could never possible replace journalists because we as an industry, are paid to have conversations with people. And that was one of the cool things that I've come across speaking to people.
On quotes.
Perhaps my favorite part of journalism. Quotes mean talking to people and and interviews. If it were up to me, I would just get to interview people, do some research and find out what is going on. Talking to people is the best part. It was interesting because last year, in doing a report of yours truly, mead loop, I got to interview John Batelle, the author of Google: The Search and he said to me that yahoo and search engines like that could never possible replace journalists because we as an industry, are paid to have conversations with people. And that was one of the cool things that I've come across speaking to people.
The yahoo message boards
http://mb.debates.news.yahoo.com/Democratic_Candidate_Mashup/threadview?m=tm&bn=nws-iraq&tid=5&mid=879&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=51
Its pretty disconcerting. I think this is a bit of tangent, but I felt that it was notable. So I was looking around Yahoo!'s coverage of the 08' election and stumbles upon la message board that discusses the idea that Yahoo! favors Democrats. I decided that maybe this might be something worth reading and looking over, especially to view what a lot of Americans have to say. It was pretty dissappointing. Instead of a forum to openly discuss the reality of Yahoo! news or Liberal Bias of news or politics for that matter, it was just relentless slew of slander and insults. "And God Almighty let's try to keep it that way. We don't need another Mexico." Umm, what?
"Typical Leftist rhetoric. Instead of addressing the actual question, it's used as a platform to launch another attack on the Republican party. Leftists (Socialists) prevaricate. The reason the Dems. find the I-net so attractive is that it allows them to spew their vile lies without having to worry about confronting the public Leftists are not only liars, they're cowards, too."
Liars and cowards? Really. Any rational human being could understand that on more than one occasion, the republican party, or as this moron considers it, the right (meaning the opposite of socialists, thus FASCISTS[not saying that republicans are fascists, just saying his argument is ill-informed]) has been guilty of lying or to put it in a less aggressive semantic, misleading the public. What a bunch of jerks, and the people who sit behind their desktops and spew out uniformed garbage to the masses. Anywho, besides that, it is interesting though because I can completely understand the value of such a message board to anyone that may be interested in what is important to people, despite how poorly it is expressed. I.E. polticians. Mexico, socialized medicine, etc. But more importantly, I think it is valuable to see the way people handling the issues important to them in such an emotional way.
"so typical. someone asks a biased question, someone else gives a substantive answer, and then the replies are all bashes and don't speak to the main point: why is it Yahoo's fault that the Republicans aren't joining or organizing their own online debates? Do the Democrats have to do it for them???? And finally, by the spelling and grammar of the posts, a lot of you better hope English is never made the official language of the US because you, too, will be kicked out for not knowing it."
I see that point completely, but alas, there is value to this message board. Unfortunately, none of these bashers would ever own up to what they are saying and follow up with facts or anything meaningful like that.
Frustrating.
Its pretty disconcerting. I think this is a bit of tangent, but I felt that it was notable. So I was looking around Yahoo!'s coverage of the 08' election and stumbles upon la message board that discusses the idea that Yahoo! favors Democrats. I decided that maybe this might be something worth reading and looking over, especially to view what a lot of Americans have to say. It was pretty dissappointing. Instead of a forum to openly discuss the reality of Yahoo! news or Liberal Bias of news or politics for that matter, it was just relentless slew of slander and insults. "And God Almighty let's try to keep it that way. We don't need another Mexico." Umm, what?
"Typical Leftist rhetoric. Instead of addressing the actual question, it's used as a platform to launch another attack on the Republican party. Leftists (Socialists) prevaricate. The reason the Dems. find the I-net so attractive is that it allows them to spew their vile lies without having to worry about confronting the public Leftists are not only liars, they're cowards, too."
Liars and cowards? Really. Any rational human being could understand that on more than one occasion, the republican party, or as this moron considers it, the right (meaning the opposite of socialists, thus FASCISTS[not saying that republicans are fascists, just saying his argument is ill-informed]) has been guilty of lying or to put it in a less aggressive semantic, misleading the public. What a bunch of jerks, and the people who sit behind their desktops and spew out uniformed garbage to the masses. Anywho, besides that, it is interesting though because I can completely understand the value of such a message board to anyone that may be interested in what is important to people, despite how poorly it is expressed. I.E. polticians. Mexico, socialized medicine, etc. But more importantly, I think it is valuable to see the way people handling the issues important to them in such an emotional way.
"so typical. someone asks a biased question, someone else gives a substantive answer, and then the replies are all bashes and don't speak to the main point: why is it Yahoo's fault that the Republicans aren't joining or organizing their own online debates? Do the Democrats have to do it for them???? And finally, by the spelling and grammar of the posts, a lot of you better hope English is never made the official language of the US because you, too, will be kicked out for not knowing it."
I see that point completely, but alas, there is value to this message board. Unfortunately, none of these bashers would ever own up to what they are saying and follow up with facts or anything meaningful like that.
Frustrating.
Monday, September 10, 2007
media intro
It was interesting that the book mentions the idea or possibility that the skills of a journalist may change. I dont know if mine is just dated or this book is just really conservative, but its like you MAY have to produce video and audio ina package? Its like why not? The whole idea of journalism is bringing the experience to the consumer and what better way to do that then offer some sense of it from as many senses as possible isn't it? I know we want to convey some level of understanding, but the way I see, ideally and in its most fundamental state of being, the only reason journalists exists is because people can't be inmultipleplaces at once. They say journalists are they eyes and ears, but why not also be the nose, skin, and tongue. If there were a device that could fully reproduce an experience,that would be the only perfect way to be objective. Of course, there are other things that just need to be understood, perhaps money laundering or pork barreling public fund towards your house, but still I think if you really want to be a good journalist, you'd want to convey as much tactile, auditory, visual or whatever sense of information as possible. With a place like the internet, where time is less of a constraint, and data space is, for the moment, not a constraint at all, why not produce material that will teach someone more than just ideas. SO then, how the hell is one to do that? The book goes over the impossibility of such a skilled journalist, but I think it is more about organization. The news industry is doing it now, but I still see this odd fear of convergence. I dunno, I guess maybe it will be like technological convergence, convient (i.e. the iphone), but not for everyone.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Spanish democratic debate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_spanish_debate;_ylt=AmmPDdb9KcaJOG7CdK0DVszkbeRF
The idea is that the democrats will hold a debate in that will be translated into spanish, but also the questions will be asked in spanish and translated into english. I have to say that the democrats are definitely themost innovative in terms of debates this year. the republicans were asked the same thing, but only McCain accepted. Anywho, it just seems like despite how bad it seems or how unfair it seems, every large group of immigrants must go through an initiation process. The majority,however you want to define majority, sees a growing power of influence that has a significantly different agenda and starts to freak. The insecurity leads to a lot of things such as the reluctance to hire the unfair and inhumane public policies. For instance, I was reading the WAshington Post and I remember seeing an article about Prince George County in Virginia. PG county decided that the illegal immigrant population was too high and wanted to make it illegal to provide public services to someone who hasn't proven their citizenship. Obviously, the most extreme version of this law was shot down, but they did eventually decide that services should be denied on some level and that anyone caught breaking the law should proove their citizenship. I think what I found interesting was that the quote the post got from the anti-immigrant side was, "I'm tired of having to hear two options of english and spanish on the phone service." I was like wow. you are willing to deny thousands of people fundamental rights and priviledges to live healthy liives because you are inconvenienced? Kind of disgusting. But I think this debate is all the mosre an important testimony to the existence of democracy. I mean, really why bother with this if it meant nothing? If the Latino vote had no power, why even appeal to it? So I think as pessimistic as I'd like to be about Prince George county, things still change for the better. The oppresed find their way to fight for their rights. It should probably be easier, but there is always hope at least.
The idea is that the democrats will hold a debate in that will be translated into spanish, but also the questions will be asked in spanish and translated into english. I have to say that the democrats are definitely themost innovative in terms of debates this year. the republicans were asked the same thing, but only McCain accepted. Anywho, it just seems like despite how bad it seems or how unfair it seems, every large group of immigrants must go through an initiation process. The majority,however you want to define majority, sees a growing power of influence that has a significantly different agenda and starts to freak. The insecurity leads to a lot of things such as the reluctance to hire the unfair and inhumane public policies. For instance, I was reading the WAshington Post and I remember seeing an article about Prince George County in Virginia. PG county decided that the illegal immigrant population was too high and wanted to make it illegal to provide public services to someone who hasn't proven their citizenship. Obviously, the most extreme version of this law was shot down, but they did eventually decide that services should be denied on some level and that anyone caught breaking the law should proove their citizenship. I think what I found interesting was that the quote the post got from the anti-immigrant side was, "I'm tired of having to hear two options of english and spanish on the phone service." I was like wow. you are willing to deny thousands of people fundamental rights and priviledges to live healthy liives because you are inconvenienced? Kind of disgusting. But I think this debate is all the mosre an important testimony to the existence of democracy. I mean, really why bother with this if it meant nothing? If the Latino vote had no power, why even appeal to it? So I think as pessimistic as I'd like to be about Prince George county, things still change for the better. The oppresed find their way to fight for their rights. It should probably be easier, but there is always hope at least.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ethics_6;_ylt=AsfBh4xGD4o4ybidjgtlFBElbuRF
A huge huge task that my pessimistic side, thinks is hopeless. I want to see all of these reforms happening especially the one about staff being prohibited from working for contractors for two years and public access to lobbying statements. Those seem to be so critical in terms of public oversight of government action. Obama may be new, but old and experience has only proven to a be fatal so far. Not saying Obama is perfect, since he himself has taken contributions from lobbyists, but its a great idea. Kudos to Edwards for challenging Clinton to not take lobbyist campaign contributions. I hope clinton comes around or at least sees the value of lobbyist reforms.
A huge huge task that my pessimistic side, thinks is hopeless. I want to see all of these reforms happening especially the one about staff being prohibited from working for contractors for two years and public access to lobbying statements. Those seem to be so critical in terms of public oversight of government action. Obama may be new, but old and experience has only proven to a be fatal so far. Not saying Obama is perfect, since he himself has taken contributions from lobbyists, but its a great idea. Kudos to Edwards for challenging Clinton to not take lobbyist campaign contributions. I hope clinton comes around or at least sees the value of lobbyist reforms.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Chpt8
Detail of good reporting is so so so important. It also just makes everything easier and creates much more of a powerful experience to read. I had such a huge problem with telling and not showing in scully's class, but it was again, referring back to my other blog, being out there and finding a good story and source that helped me the most.
Inverted Pyramid
Again with the inverted pyramid. There really needs to be more to journalism education that the idea that we need to cover broad information first then slowly specialize. I understand the importance of it and I am not saying we should go over it, it is just that I feel that is all I've learned in classes. when I went to D.C, the inverted pyramid was not what helped me, getting out there and learning how things went and who you needed to talk to when was so much more important. It showed me what kind of beat I may like and how I should go about building sources for a story and really never to trust the government to call you back, much less any major organization. Inverted pyramid is the holy grail of journalism, I am just saying that the holy grail isn't going save me from a bad source. XP is what counts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)