Pulled Quotes

Today I want to discuss the radically different ways that a story can be presented, using the New York Philharmonic playing in North Korea as an example. I’ve found two different articles, one in the Financial Times and one from Yahoo News that treat the story completely differently.

The Financial Times article has the headline “Ovation in Pyongyang is music to US ears.” It leads with the North Korean audience’s standing ovation for the US musicians and talks about the performance as generating “rapturous applause.” It has a lot of really interesting quotes from North Koreans (which I wonder how they got, since North Korea is notoriously restrective of the press), and by the end makes it seem like democracy and prosperity and general fun are about to break out in North Korea because of the New York Philharmonic.

The Yahoo News story, though, paints a different picture, under the headline “New York Phil gets muted reaction.” It mentions the standing ovation in the second paragraph, but focuses significantly more on how the concert wasn’t well received by the North Korean media. It doesn’t have any quotes from actual North Koreans, but has a bit from state-controlled newspapers.

I’m not really sure whether the performance was met with “rapturous applause” or golf claps, or why these stories are so different, but I have a few ideas. For one, FT is a British paper, which from what I understand, doesn’t try very hard to hide its liberal positions; Yahoo is essentially a wire source, which strives for neutrality. It’s probably to FT’s political advantage to report that North Korea is on the verge of breaking out into democracy, though I’m still damn impressed that they got those quotes from real North Koreans.

Another cause for this disparity could be the sources. Yahoo is looking at the state papers, while FT is talking to the people, which in a totalitarian state, probably say very different things.

The Daytona Beach News Journal, www.news-journalonline.com, captured readers in its article about the Oscars and the staring candidate: “No Country for Old Men.” The article features the big celebs and their debutes as the Oscars take over Los Angeles. I enjoyed how the article presented the winners again, in case anyone forgot, but I also liked how they incorporated the memorable quotes of those who won. For example, Tilda Swinton, best supporting actress from “Michael Clayton,” gave a memorable speech about how she would not be here if it was not for her agent. While watching the Oscars last night, it was emotional to know how passionate she is about acting and how thankful she is for her career. To include quotes from those special talents brings a close to home feel and spoke to me as a reader. The article continues to include excerpts from the Coen brothers as well as Spanish actor Javier Bardem.

The article incorporated the facts of the whole night and gave readers an opportunity to relive the event. The various films and actors that represented the best were listed and a list of those that were nominated were included as well. As I was enjoying the Oscars last night, I remember thinking they did not do much of a tribute to Heath Ledger. To me, the papers seem to constantly have articles in regards to the actor’s death; therefore, I found it odd that they did not dedicate more of the event to him with a small clip of his work and life. That was more of a side note; nonetheless, the article made me feel as though I was watching it all over again. It was a fun read.

I recently came across an article on the film based on the life story of French Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby.    The article titled,” The Truth about the Diving Bell and Butterfly,” was found on Salon.com.  I chose this article for this week’s blog discussion based on our previous class discussion of articles with an inverted pyramid style.   This article begins with the discussion of the film, which occurred most recently having been nominated for four Oscars.  Yet for all of the details, the most interesting part of the story comes in the conclusion of the first section.  The article author Beth Arnold reveals that close family members of the deceased (Bauby) do not believe that the film was an honest portrayal of Bauby’s personal life.   Which raises the question of what would be the most important lead for Arnold to focus on?  Arnold should have focused on the human interest aspect of the story, better explaining the real life conflict between Bauby’s ex-wife and Bauby’s girlfriend. 

Which raises an interesting question, can the family sue the screenwriters for not accurately portraying the life of Bauby?  I feel the family does not have a case.  The ex-wife of Bauby was a part of the screenwriting process from the beginning as a representative for her children’s interests.  Also, the  film is said to be  “based upon a true story.”  I think  that screenwriters are given some leeway when creating an artistic effort which has to appeal to audiences across the globe.  By placing the slight friction in Bauby’s love life the screenwriter was more than likely trying to keep audiences emotionally captivated.  I don’t think its necessary for the family to criticize the film, when they had a chance to make changes from the beginning. 

Arnold’ article continues with references to the actual story of Bauby’s life, followed by a discussion of the altered story in the film.  The party which should be truly outraged at having Bauby’s life story altered is the long-time girlfriend of Bauby, Florence.  When Bauby went into the hospital Florence stayed by his side until his last breath.  Yet, Florence’s influence is ignored  throughout the film.  That is the falsehood which should be corrected in the film. 

In the USA Today article Weekend update: ‘SNL’ is back in the race, the lede informs us that Saturday Night Live is back from the writers’ strike. The deck however, speaks of the fact that the show is without an actor cast as Barack Obama. While both of these stories are clearly news worthy, I believe that the lede, deck, and also the entire article, miss one key question.  

It is clear that in the most exciting election to date, SNL is looked upon to serve us with witty imitations and hilarious cracks at the candidates, but I believe that a huge question to ask is, “will they be able to?” I can’t speak for anyone else, but in recent years of watching SNL, it seems that it has lost its flow. The show I remember years ago had skits that made everyone roll, but as of recent, it hasn’t been up to ‘lock box’ SNL par. Hopefully, the show will surprise me and come out swigging with some refreshing skits of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee, but I am not sure if they can. 

  With the help of Tina Fey who is hosting and some fresh new faces it is definitely possible, but I think it is a little premature to jump back on the SNL bandwagon just yet. The four weeks of upcoming episodes may prove me wrong, and I hope they do, because quite frankly, just running ‘best of’ episodes from when they used to be funny, just won’t cut it.

Fifteen year old Miley Cyrus is taking the world by storm with her popular television show and addictive cheesy songs. In the recent article in USA today, “Hannah Montana concert film earns extended theater stay,” I have come to find that not only does Miss Cyrus have a TV show and record deal but apparently her concert actually made it into theaters too! Although the article explains very little of her many accomplishments, i know from personal sources (babysitting jobs) that she is an extremely successful young woman!

If rumors are true, It is said that her most recent concert sold out within a few minutes of tickets being released which may be justification for bringing the concert into theaters. Although, I personally think that a concert just isn’t the same in the movies as it is live in person. The only plus I can see to viewing the film from your comfortable theater chair with your popcorn and thousands of screaming kids is the cool 3-D option that is apparently offered at all theaters showing the film. The movie itself has already made a staggering 29 million and will apparently be staying in cinemas for another couple of weeks depending on how well it continues to sell tickets.

Either way I think it is safe to say that Hannah Montana is taking over, beware!

USA Today covered a story discussing the latest step towards an end of the writer’s strike that has been going on for some time now.  The Writers Guild of America agreed to propose a contract Sunday February 10, to finally end a strike that affected the entire country.  The article says that the proposed contract was met with mostly positive feelings; however, I would’ve liked to hear some of the negative reactions as well.

Reading this article, I hoped that the writer would provide some information regarding the actual contract itself, and I was pleased when some of the terms were mentioned.  Hopefully, once an agreement is met, the entirety of the contract will be released to the public.

I also enjoyed the fact that the journalist provided a time period in which the deal will be made, not surprisingly around the coming week before the Oscars.  One could speculate that this contract was presented at this time in order to secure appearances of the writers at the Oscars.  I would have liked to see more information regarding the impending jeopardization of the fall season of television though.

I think I speak for many when I say, if Led Zeppelin were to go on tour again, I’d probably give up an organ, or a leg, just to see that happen (and be there to see the glory, obviously).  Rolling Stone  just posted the 2008 lineup for Bonnaroo, a music festival in Tennessee scheduled for early June, that has had many people hoping, wishing, and waiting for signs that Zeppelin will be there. The article briefly, in fact, so quickly that I almost missed it, discussed the Zeppelin rumors. All I got from it was that I can look forward to one thing, ‘Lez Zeppelin’ a female Zeppelin tribute band. Wait, what? I’m not pleased. Apparently Zeppelin singer, Robert Plant will be making an appearance, but what about the rest of the clan?   Interestingly, I recently found a website that talks about plans for the Led Zeppelin reunion and how the band plans to be at the festival in June. I even dug a little deeper and emailed the website to find out if they had any dirt, but instead of a yes or no, I was told that everything is still very hush hush. Why couldn’t Rolling Stone tell me that? I take my Zeppelin rumors seriously, as I am sure many fans do. Tickets go on sale for the festival on February 16th. Hopefully before then, a publication that I trust will be able to give the fans more than lists and brief but brutal let downs.  

Now be honest, who really watches the Super Bowl for the game? These days, bathroom breaks and beer refills are reserved for precious seconds during game play rather than during commercial breaks. With millions of dollars and viewers on the line, advertisers have managed to turn the masculine, burly event into a cultural phenomenon centered around advertisers and the lines they are willing to cross. But advertisers aren’t only faced with high price tags and the need to go over the edge. Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing those clever ad gurus is the dreaded advocacy group.

According to the USA Today article, “Advocacy groups keep marketers on their toes,”  groups such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention are the ones with the real power when it comes to Super Bowl advertisements. Advocacy groups of all shapes and sizes are keeping a watchful eye on not only the ads that run during the games, but on the companies who run the ads. During last years Super Bowl, for example, GM, a global powerhouse with an annual advertising budget of $3.3 billion, debuted a humorous ad featuring a washed-up assembly-line robot. After the robot dropped a screw during work, he/she (it?) had suicidal thoughts of jumping off a bridge. Millions of viewers found the ad to be clever and entertaining, just as Super Bowl ads should be. Robert Gebbia, executive director of the AFSP, and his colleagues, however, did not feel the same. The advocacy group saw the message in GM’s ad turning suicide into a comic punch line and demanded that the ad be yanked. A similar situation occurred with the Mars Masterfoods USA ad for Snickers. When two brawny auto mechanics accidentally smooched while sharing a Snickers bar, followed by their attempts to regain their masculinity by ripping out their chest hair, gay-rights groups went up in arms. Human Rights Campaign bigwigs complained in the morning and by the afternoon the controversial ad and all of its remnants had vanished from the web and all network television stations.

Obviously, advocacy groups have quite some power over corporations and the advertisements they spend millions of dollars on. Advocacy groups insist that their involvement in the cultural phenomenon that is the Super Bowl is not to garner support for their causes. Rather, the goal is to keep a critical eye on what messages are being sent to millions of viewers and more so to destroy those they feel are detrimental to society.

Larry Copeland successfully reported the views of both sides of the animal rights movement in his article, “Animal Rights fight gains momentum” in the January 28th edition of USA TODAY.  Within this movement it was easy to classify the extremists, the moderate and occasionally involved supporters, and those who choose to ignore the issue.  Copland took the time to ask the opinions of both the animal activists, such as the Humane Society and the food industry supporters, such as Animal Agricultural Alliance.   
Copeland included photos from Animal Rights rallies that gained publicity from previous events, such as the M&M rally, and the Mepkin Abbey which was targeted because of its use of caged hens. 
The Copeland article is the best example of reporting I have seen so far, and contains many of the tips our class text included to successfully write a well written story. 
Several times throughout the article Copeland uses excerpt points or side stories to illuminate the issue and target readers. 
Mentioned in the article was an interesting fact about college statistics.  According to the article, Copeland found that over three hundred colleges have stopped or reduced the use of eggs from caged hens. 
This spurred an article idea for the Journalism class.  I began to wonder whether or not Stetson had followed in the footsteps of many other colleges and has stopped or reduced the use of caged hen eggs. 
I also began to wonder whether or not Stetson has its own animal rights group and what their involvement in campus activities has been.   
Copeland’s article was a great article because not only was it informative and cover all the angles, it also gave me an idea for a story on campus to pursue. 

In the January 23rd issue of USA Today I read the article about the new reality television series The Moment of Truth. Below I posted ten questions I still had after reading through Gary Levin’s article about this new show The Moment of Truth. If you are looking to read the article it is on page 2D of the Life Section of the Wednesday January 23rd issue (the one we all brought to class). You can also find it on USATODAY.com as well in the archives. 

1.  What was the response from audience members in the other countries where this reality television show has already been aired? 

2.  How is it known whether the lie detector is accurate?

3. Why did NBC pass on The Moment of Truth last year?

4. Are there any penalties for contestants that refuse to go on for the filming of the show? For instance, Gary Levin mentions how one contestant refused to go on the show, was that contestant penalized at all?

5.  Why didn’t Gary Levin interview any contestants or audience members in the other countries where this show has already been aired?

6. Do the producers have any fears about the airing of this show in the United States?

7. What kind of controversy is this television show expecting to have?

8. Are all the questions asked yes and no questions only?

9. Are there any opposing opinions to the show? Why didn’t Gary Levin present any opposing sides to the airing of this show?

10. Is the show live or prerecorded? Is the audience filled with other contestants? Do they get called on randomly or is it all set up?

Extra Question: Why wouldn’t the local producers in Colombia tell the police about the woman who confessed to hiring a hit man to kill her husband? Isn’t that illegal? (Could be another interesting story by itself) 

 I found that Gary Levin’s article about this new reality television series The Moment of Truth was very well done. It provided readers with plenty of information about the show and it’s structure that coming up with questions was harder than imagined. All in all, Gary Levin’s article was interesting and very informative.  

While skimming the CNN website I came upon an article that I had to read more into, “Scary movie making viewers sick.” The article describes many situation in which viewers of the new cult film “Cloverfield” have experienced extreme dizziness to the point of being sick because of the “Blair Witch like” filming that was used. An actual doctor was referenced in the article giving tips on what to do before viewing the movie to take precautions against vertigo. There were some questions that came to me upon my completion of reading the article.

1. Did the viewers who experienced vertigo while watching the film experience vertigo regularly?

2. Were the viewers who experienced vertigo on any mind-altering substance while they were viewing the film?

3. Are the film producers using this article as a publicity stunt, to get more viewers?

4. Or, is the film losing viewers because of this news?

5. Did the doctor actually treat any patients that experienced the vertigo while watching “Cloverfield?”

6. What are the age brackets of those who experienced illness while viewing? Were they older?

7. Did the film writers/directors/producers have any worries about this before releasing film?

8. Why weren’t the film writers, directors or producers questioned about this issue?

9. Could the results of illness while viewing cause any type of lawsuit? You can sue for anything in this country?

10. How did the writer of the article find out about these occurrences? Has it happened a lot or enough for it to be newsworthy?

 Ultimately I think the article would have been more interesting if the film’s writers, producers and directors were quoted as to their thoughts on the occurrences.

If you are eager enough to search for the article it can be found on USATODAY.com.  Unfortunately, they charge to look at their archives.  However, by simply looking into the Life Section of the January 23rd edition, you will easily find “Hollywood stunned by Ledger’s death,” (page 1 & 4D).

Below I listed ten questions raised during the reading of the Ledger article.

1. How come so many actor’s are considered great talents after they die?
2. Why did most of the article focus on Ledger’s career and not the circumstances of his death?
3. Why does the tone of the article lead the reader to believe that Ledger may have committed suicide, even though the police say otherwise?
4. Why is the sidebar not enough information for the wrap-up of the story?
5. Why was Ledger’s family not contacted for information?
6. Why was Ledger’s publicist not contacted for information?
7. Who was Ledger with when he died?
8. Where did Ledger die?
9. Why is the talent of the deceased questioned?
10. Why did the story not provide coverage of Heath’s ex-girlfriend and child and how the recent event has affected them?

I have found that it is difficult to read an article in USATODAY and find faults, yet as I write positive notes I begin to sound like a press release.  It will be nice when I can find the balance and a story which raises even more questions.