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.
20.10.08
"Buttons"
This poem by Carl Sandburg was assigned in my modern poetry class. I thought I'd share it:
Source: "Buttons" by Carl Sandburg, 1916 bartleby.com
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
9.10.08
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.
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.
2.10.08
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)