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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.