Stories that Count

This Washington Post article put a smile on my face--you only vaguely hear speechwriters mentioned. This story gives some great insight on the people behind Barack Obama's speeches.

Journalist Throws Shoes at President

I would never deny that I get angry. I do. As a journalist, it's part of the job. I just wish some of my fellow colleagues would find better, less embarrassing ways to deal with it. This guy decided to chuck his shoes at President Bush.

The Sixth Sense

Over Thanksgiving break, I really didn't do much. I ate. I slept. I read non-class related material.

I read mostly popular fiction, mass-marketed paperbacks and other fun, brainless stuff. And I found lots of mistakes. While I read, my brain went on autopilot and started honing in on things like subject-verb agreement, dangling modifiers, case and misused words. Surprisingly, there were a lot of those mistakes. When I read a sentence, I felt like my brain was picking it apart simultaneously, looking for the noun and verb.

But the effects of this class really didn't sink in until last night, when I decided to read for my history and Asian American studies class. I went a little crazy when I saw the word "however" used four times in a page from my journalism history text. And to further feed the flames of my ire, "however" appeared in two sentences in a row. I drowned in readings saturated with sentences in passive voice that could have easily been rewritten. My only relief was an essay written by Helen Zia, a journalist. Surprise, surprise!

Am I crazy? Was the lack of heat in my apartment addling my brain? I hope not. I kind of liked having this hypersensitivity and hope to put it to good use in the future.

More Paperless Joy... Not Really

The managing editor of the news publication I'm interning for sent out an e-mail with a link to a site for a company that converts magazines into an electronic form. The resulting product allows people to "flip" pages by clicking on the corner of a page.

I'm not too fond of it. I think it's awkward. It works great for page designs that focus on graphics-heavy layouts but in order to read text, you have to zoom in and out. Not good at all for newspapers or text-heavy magazines. It just feels like a lot of eye and hand work. But the concept is pretty cool to play with.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

Going Paperless and Making Money

I could never really figure out how online newspapers earn revenue from advertising. But an article from the New York Times put out an article last week with what seems like happy news: E.W. Scripps Company, which owns various newspapers, claims it is adopting an online advertising strategy that may bring in enough revenue by 2012 without making job cuts.

I'm still fuzzy on how this new strategy works or if I've even summarized it correctly, but at least it's some kind of positive news.

Sense and Sensitivity

A story caught my eye this morning. It was about a baby born to an Indian surrogate mother that, by Indian law, could not have left India for Japan with her biological father because neither of her mothers (biological or surrogate) was present. It was the first time in 28 years that the Indian government issued travel documents despite that law. The baby's biological parents are from Japan.

The story had three headlines. The one on CNN's 'Most Popular' side bar read "Japanese girl leaves India" while the headline on the 'Latest News' list on the CNN home page had "Baby born to Indian surrogate out of legal limbo" and the headline on the page with the article read "Japanese girl born to Indian surrogate arrives home."

"Japanese girl leaves India" and "Japanese girl born to Indian surrogate arrives home" really bugged me. I found myself asking, 'Does it really matter that the baby is Japanese? What does that even mean?' I got the impression that these headlines were insinuating that only Japanese people live in Japan and only Indian people live in India. And well, things are more complicated than that.

I would re-write them as "Baby girl leaves India for Japan" and "Baby girl born to Indian surrogate arrives home despite legalities." They're not the best headlines because I don't think they encompass the heart of the story, but they make the baby's race less of a focal point and summarize the main action in the story.

I liked the third headline better but it had some issues: "Baby born to Indian surrogate out of legal limbo." So... who was out out of limbo? The surrogate or the baby? It also sounds like the baby was born out of legal limbo (whatever that means), which is clearly not the case. The omitted "is" makes it seems like "born" is the verb and creates a whole mess of misunderstandings. I'd change it to "Baby born to Indian surrogate escapes legal limbo."

I would change the headline on the article to: "Baby leaves India for Japan despite law requiring mother's presence." The headline on that page can easily be expanded to a three-line headline of more than 30 units per line. This may not be the best headline since "surrogate" is not mentioned and that is probably an important key word. So I guess it will have to be something like: "Baby girl born to Indian surrogate arrives home in Japan despite law requiring mother's presence."

The Guinea Pig: Going Paperless

I hate being the bearer of bad news. I promise I haven't been reading the Society of Professional Journalists newsletter. It just popped into my inbox yesterday afternoon:

Christian Science Monitor Ends Daily Print Edition

But really, I don't think it's quite time to give up on paper. I'm not fond of ogling my laptop computer screen. I wouldn't be surprised if my poor eyeballs

More importantly, I'm not quite sure how you would make money off me on the Internet. Honestly, I expect most things I read on the 'net to be free. And online advertising its drawbacks; you have to depend on the number of hits your site receives.

As of yet, print is still seems to be the way to go. The article points out that 92% of all newspaper revenue comes from print subscriptions. (Hmm... I wonder how the Newspaper Association of America came up with that number.)

Kudos to the Christian Science Monitor for taking such a bold step. Now we'll actually be able to see what happens if we get rid of print editions. This could get interesting.

"Buttons"

This poem by Carl Sandburg was assigned in my modern poetry class. I thought I'd share it:

I have been watching the war map slammed up for advertising in front of the newspaper office.

Buttons—red and yellow buttons—blue and black buttons—are
shoved back and forth across the map.

A laughing young man, sunny with freckles,
Climbs a ladder, yells a joke to somebody in the crowd,
And then fixes a yellow button one inch west
And follows the yellow button with a black button one inch west.

(Ten thousand men and boys twist on their bodies in a red soak along a river edge,
Gasping of wounds, calling for water, some rattling death in their throats.)
Who would guess what it cost to move two buttons one inch on the war map here in front of the newspaper office where the freckle-faced young man is laughing to us?

Source: "Buttons" by Carl Sandburg, 1916 bartleby.com

The Depressing State of the News Industry

I was reading my weekly SPJ newsletter and was stunned to find that newspapers are outsourcing ad design and editorial work to foreign companies.

The newsletter also linked to an article about how Express Newspapers plans to fire 80 copyeditors. The company will have reporters directly enter their stories into the page layout and have lawyers and rewriters edit the stories.

As for the icing on the cake... The newsletter linked to a rather depressing opinion piece by Lawrence Downes from the New York Times: "In a Changing World of News, an Elegy for Copyeditors."

It all made me very depressed.

Making Tough Decisions

This was interesting, to say the least. I had a difficult time. I tried to make my choices for this response based on these questions:

How would I feel if I was the person(s) pictured? The family?

How would I feel if I opened up the paper and found this on the front page? Or inside a section?

Am I minimizing harm?

Can the photo be misinterpreted?

Of all the photos in the slideshow, I would definitely not run the last one. The woman in the photo could probably sue for reputational injury. It's also highly inappropriate. Whether it gets printed on the front page or inside a spread, I think it really has no place in a paper.

The same goes for the picture of the boy impaled on a fence. The photo is simply grotesque but not really newsworthy. He wasn't climbing over a fence to avoid gunfire or some kind of attack on his life or on someone else's life; the event is more of a freak accident. It's something we'd see in a tabloid paper.

I wouldn't print the Bud Dwyer photo either. I think a large banner headline on the front page would suffice. But a photo of him just as the bullet enters his head... It's haunting and disturbing. I wouldn't want to open up my morning paper and have that image greet me. And if I were Dwyer or his family, I wouln't want this photo in the paper.

I also wouldn't print the photo of the dead printing plant employee. The dead body is a spectacle in the photo. I'm sure the family and the said dead person would not want this photo to be published. Also, I think it could cause some confusion because the shooter killed himself. Assuming the headline reads something like this "Man shoots coworkers, kills self," readers may assume that the man in the photo is the killer before he or she even reads the caption. Readers might not even get to the story. If the headline reads something like "Printing plant employee kills seven," I may run the photo unless there is another photo that is less graphic.

I might run the picture of the boy and his dog if the paper was local. It's emotionally charged but not grotesque or disturbing. I think the photo captures the boy's emotions in a way that a story may not fully be able to illustrate. Yes, the dog is dead, but the dog isn't the central figure in the photo; the boy's face is the focus. Don't get me wrong--I love dogs. I wouldn't run the photo if it was a photo of just a dead dog lying the street.

The picture of the mourning family and drowned boy was the most difficult for me. I would print it. I guess I'm heartless and coldblooded. It's a depressing photo, but the focal point is not the boy's dead body. The eye gets drawn to the grieving boy and woman, then to the man with his head in his hands, who I assume is the father. I think the photo would enhance the story it would be paired with... I think it might do a better job of capturing the family's grief than any written story.

So... I guess I am a bit heartless and insensitive. I don't think that newspaper content should be reduced to content fit for children. Sometimes, news is ugly. I'm not willing to sugarcoat it. But I'd try to be tasteful and considerate when I get in tough spots.

Contemplating Flammable and Inflammable Things

Last week, I actually had stuff I wanted to ramble about. But I decided to post the scary pic of McCain since I'm sure the election has a bit more import than my fixation on the intricacies of style and usage. I was also more pumped up about it at the time.

Anyhow, last week as I was thumbing through the assigned Strunk and White reading, I came across the entry for "flammable" in the chapter on misused words and expressions. I'm quoting it since I think it's one of the more memorable passages:

An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives. The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable. But some people are thrown off by the in- and think inflammable means "not combustible." For this reason, trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked FLAMMABLE. Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable (47)

I read this three times last week. The first time, I laughed because I was insulted by the last sentence. The second time, I paused and thought, "Ooookay, I need a snack to up my blood sugar. I'm probably reading this wrong." The third time was just as brilliant; I thought, "Huh. Interesting. Note to self: blog about this later."

It's an interesting entry. When I searched Merriam-Webster Online, I got some interesting results. "Flammable" means capable of being set on fire while the entry for "inflammable" is more itneresting. The entry lists two definitions: "flammable" and "easily excited or angered." The etymology of "flammable" and "inflammable" is identical--they come from the Latin inflammare. The entries include that "inflammable" was first used in 1605; "flammable" was first used in 1813. There's 213-year gap between their usage, they mean the same thing in standard usage but Merriam-Webster never explains why.

And so, this is why Strunk and White is pretty awesome. The AP Stylebook doesn't even have entries for "flammable" and "inflammable."

But then, there's a problem: Do we then default to Merriam-Webster, which says that the two are interchangeable? Would you use "inflammable" when you need a synonym for "flammable" or vice versa? That could confuse readers. Or should you use "flammable" since your story will be read by people who don't know the distinction between the two words and have been using "inflammable" as the antonym for "flammable" for most of their lives? Do you submit to the awesomeness of Strunk and White and use "inflammable"?

My brain got tired sorting this all out. It's just one word that I may or may not use during my entire existence as an individual that writes. The world just might not end. For now, I opt for being consistent and taking the matter up with copyeditors and editors in the distant future.

Don't Try This at Home

Jill Greenberg is at it again. In 2004, Greenberg made the news for a photo exhibit titled "Four More Years." She later admitted that she gave the toddlers in her photos candy and took it away to make them cry.

Four years later, she's made the news again. This time, Greenberg was on assignment for Atlantic Monthly. During her photo shoot with McCain, she took the cover shot for the magazine's October edition as well as a few other photos that she later manipulated with Photoshop and posted on her web portfolio. The full slide show has all the graphic details, if you're interested.

What a bright idea. Atlantic Monthly will an apology to John McCain and has decided not to pay Greenberg for the photo shoot. The magazine is also considering legal action, according to the Fox News report.

But what I find most interesting is this: Atlantic Monthly and James Bennet, editor of Atlantic Monthly are issuing apologies. Maybe they were partially responsible since they contracted a photographer with a record of expressing her anti-Republican views in radical ways. But I think they expected Greenberg to put aside her opinions and act professionally.

And what is Greenberg doing? Yes, she does have some pretty extreme politics, but that doesn't excuse her for the ethical breach she committed. Yet, she gloated to the New York Post about how she "tricked" McCain into posing for unflattering shots. She also went on to say, "Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [The Atlantic] to hire me."

It seems just as irresponsible to take advantage of a contract with a magazine and take some unflattering photos of McCain. And then, to take those photos (which she may not even hold the copyright to) and manipulate them to express her obvious distaste for McCain.

Interesting. Do editors need to cross-examine every reporter or photographer's views and interests before hiring them or assigning them a project? Should reporters and photographers set aside their personal views and try to be fair? Trust is a tricky, tricky thing.

Tackling THE Media

On my way to swing dance class (scary, huh?), I got into a little argument about 'the media' and 'objectivity.' I just couldn't help it--not after the last two lectures.

In general, I get irked when my friends go on tirades about 'the media.' In most cases, when people I know talk about 'the media,' they mean the news media. If it's not the news media, it's the movie industry. But 'the media' covers everything from newspapers to the recording industry.

In my opinion, news organizations get the most criticism because they're expected to be accurate, fair, balanced and objective. In fact, my latest victim argued that no news source except BBC is objective. But no one can be completely objective, as we discussed earlier. The public has very idealized notions of what news organizations are supposed to do. And the high standards the public has sets the news media apart from everything else huddled under the umbrella. Filmmakers and hip-hop artists aren't obligated to cite sources or provide balanced coverage of an event.

But when you boil it all down, when people gripe about the media, 'the media' attached to it, they’re griping about culture. Thank you, Professor Follis, for putting it so simply in lecture. Newspapers, the Internet, television, radio and everything else people like to lump together under that word mirror current society and culture. It just so happens that people don't like that reflection, and it's easy to blame the ominous 'media.' What do you think?

Pick of the Week

So...I almost forgot to make a post this week. My mind is like a large, large fishbowl. And lots of random things swim around in there. This week, a front page story from the September 3 issue by Michael Logli, "Senator speaks to student organization," got caught in the whirlpool of my wandering thoughts.

It's been marinating in my cerebral fishbowl for the last couple days. And it all started with the headline. It wasn't a terrible headline. I just thought that "speak to" could have been replaced with "addresses" or even better, "Senator urges campus democrats to unite." I know space and time is limited, but I felt the headline was a bit one-dimensional.

Once I got past the headline and delved into the story itself, I got confused. Obviously, Students for Barack Obama did not plan for Durbin to appear that night--the lead makes that clear. So...who did? I guess it was the College Democrats, who were mentioned in a quote from Mike Frerichs. And that's where I got confused, since mention of College Democrats seemed rather arbitrary.

I also got the impression that Students for Barack Obama attended and ran the entire event. Logli mostly focused on Students for Barack Obama, in terms of the organizations present for Durbin's appearance. Even the headline misled me since it referred to a single student organization. College Democrats were only mentioned once while Students for Barack Obama appeared in the caption and the lead.

A correction in the Daily Illini along with lunch at Basil Thai on Green St. fixed up the confusion. Lunch with a friend who used to be involved with College Democrats enlightened me with further details. As it turns out, College Democrats arranged for the event and was present that night.

My point for picking on Logli's story is that words have a funny habit of sticking in our heads when they're repeated. Logli never wrote that Students for Barack Obama was the only student organization at the event or that they ran the event. But all that repetition made it seem (at least to my poor brain) like the organization did.

Well...hopefully next week I'll have something more interesting. Until then, I have to go clean out my fish bowl...

Discovery of the Week

I was thumbing through the 2008 AP Stylebook while I was on the phone and ended up on the entry for “jail” on page 139. The stylebook was rather cryptic: “Not interchangeable with prison. See prison, jail.”

I was intrigued. I thought the two were simply synonyms for buildings that housed criminals. As it turns out, in daily English usage they are interchangeable. The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary supplies identical definitions for “jail” and “prison.” They are even listed as synonyms for each other.

But according to the AP Stylebook, on page 215, prisons are facilities that only confine felons. On the other hand, if someone is in jail, she may be serving a sentence for a misdemeanor or for civil matters like contempt of court. Jails also confine people awaiting sentencing or trial on either felony or misdemeanor charges. Feel free to check out the full-length entry under “prison, jail.”

So, there you have it—another nit-picky quirk of beloved AP style.