Pulled Quotes

This story from Yahoo News about Barack Obama fighting perceptions of elitism is pretty much what’s wrong with the media today.

The story is all about Obama fighting the perception that he’s an elitist “after weeks of negative headlines,” including the infamous San Francisco “guns n’ God” speech and the flap about his pastor a few months ago that has for some reason resurfaced this week.

The problem, however, is that these stories were blown greatly out of proportion by the media in the first place. Why is Barack Obama responsible for what his pastor says when Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for Geraldine Ferraro (who worked for her campaign) practically calling Obama the n-word? These are classic cases of the media blowing something out of proportion.

What makes it even worse is that they continue to report on it. This story is like the ultimate conflict of interest: the media reheating its own blown out of proportion stories, like some huge, pointless perpetual motion machine. There’s any news in this story; all of this stuff was reported weeks ago.

There are tons of reasons the media would do this (racism, etc.), but I think it comes down to profit, as everything ultimately does. Obama versus Clinton is good for ratings and subscription rates, and if one candidate wins it, there’s a huge source of news that is gone. That’s why they attacked Clinton when she was up and have now moved on to Obama.

Of course, classifying “the media” as one big, unfied, corporate evil is probably a stretch, but that’s a whole other post.

Not really having plans to write anymore of these things, bathroom talk caught my attention.  The lead starts with the words Tormented by bouts of diarrhea…who wouldn’t look!  What caught my attention even more was the fact that this lady actually gave quotes about her explosive diarrhea, I think I would have wanted to remain an anonymous source.

This made me think of the things we learned in the beginning of the course.  Without her consent, this piece could not have used any of her examples.  I still think it’s unecessary to bring a person into all of this, how embarrassing!  Her quotes are particularly important because it’s a circular story bringing her back in the end. 

Another thing I found weird about the story was the quote humbling disease right in the middle of the story.  Just those two words were typed.  I am wondering if it was a title of some sort becasue the next few sentences are about how Crohns disease is humbling to people.

I know this is a serious issue and some people gotta go right now.  But, by ending with a lady who had her friend have a poop accident in public makes me laugh.  (sorry)…..  I think they should have tried to keep it more legislative and about the law rather than adding all the bathroom talk, bathroom humor to me.  However, it did make me look at the story, so they did their purpose. 

In the comments section of the story, someone said something about these people getting a frequent pooper pass…that made me laugh too.  Overall, I guess to spare these people their reputation (I don’t want to be known as the diarrhea woman) they should have taken a different approach.

Another question I just thought of….how in the hell did they find these people?  I thought some of my interviews were awkward but can’t imagine asking someone about the accidents they have.

In a story found in The New York Times about Transsexuals is very well written.  The writer tackles the very complex political and law issues surrounding very well, and uses clever rhetoric to display these complexities. 

In the 11th paragraph the author does the best job of this by using a long list of how a transgendered person will be percieved as she/he travels across different borders and cities to sue for the wrongful death of her/his husband.  It is written without ever repeating phrases, but instead rewords phrases which furthers shows how dizzying this situation can be. 

There is also a good deal of different sources in the story which makes it much more informative instead of argumentative, although the beginning could be seen as arguing that the law is not doing its job.  This may also be why the rep from the IRS declined to comment for the story.

This story uses a kind of a feature format where it begins and ends with a personal-human insterest focus on one family.  And all the stuff in the middle is what the story is actually about–identifying what transgendered people face before and after a surgery. 

In a recent travel article from Friday’ s USA Today edition, I found an article discussing the rebate checks that are meant to boost the economy. 

 Laura Bly, the article’s author, did a great job of showcasing the use of an inverted pyramid style in “Travel industry wants you- and your rebate“. 

Furthermore, Bly uses statistical data in her article which I have not previously seen in article when looking for pieces to critique.    Bly switches between using data provided by USA Today polls as well as outside sources such as interviews and documents. 

In addition, the flow of Bly’s article allowed for the reader to easily comprehend the copious amount of information she provided.   

She also figuratively draws an image in the reader’s mind of the possibilities and choices of what to do with their money.  Interestingly,  she also provides a snapshot of a regular American and what they decided to do with their rebate check. 

This article I read about Obama’s status in Philadelphia was really smooth and enjoyable to read. The language is barely editorialized but it has essence of a feature, which I think is very tastefully done. Added with that the article’s content, the story makes for an interesting read.

The journalist does a good job of painting the situation in a retrospective kind of way. They do a good job of using quotes to get the mood of what’s been going on up in Philly concerning the Presidential race. Even the speeches have been described thoughtfully so that the essence of the mood was captured. I noticed that the journalist didn’t focus on the subject matter of the speeches, but rather the entire atmosphere, which faithfully stuck with the news: Obama’s status in Philadelphia.

I took a look at the atricle from the New York Times called “Pope Begins 3-Day Visit to New York.”  This article had a very informative intro that summarized the pope’s planned activities for his visit, and then went into a discussion of how he has been reaching out to other religions, American Catholic schools, and victims of sexual-abuse at the hands of priests. 

However, since the title and lead support a story that will summarize his visit and activities one would expect the story to do that.  But it does not.  Instead the story focuses on a couple of his current activities, and it seemed that the most emphasis was placed on his meeting with the victims of sexual-abuse.  This is the most heated topic, but the reader is expecting a summary of events, and there was lots of discussion on this topic, only a few lines on his mass at the new Nationals Stadium.  I think if the reporter hd wanted to focus on the sexual-abuse victims, to reflect that in the title and lead, and then could have used the other information on the pope’s visit as background information to go at the end of the piece like he/she did.

The following line was what ended the piece, and it had one part that made me reread it a couple times to make sure I understood what it was saying. “Steve Brown, 55, a doctor from Fairfax, Va., said seeing the pope was particularly important to him because he is suffering from terminal cancer”  Now, it may have made sense to some (I will admit to being a little sleep-deprived from Senior Research), but the author used him and he in the same sentence where he has two subjects, Steve Brown, and the pope.  When I read it the first time, I thought that this doctor was interested in seeing the Pope, because the Pope had cancer and he wanted to see how it was affecting him.  I stopped.  That cannot be right, the pope is in excellent health.  Then it made sense and I realized that it was the doctor who has cancer and was seeking spiritual support from the Pope.  To make this sentence clearer I think it should have read: “Steve Brown, 55, a doctor from Fairfax, Va., said seeing the pope was particularly important to him because Brown is suffering from terminal cancer.”  I know it is usch a nitpicky thing, but it makes this sentence so much clearer, and to end a story with this, it had better make sense and be strong.

Here’s a story from Yahoo News about Condoleezza Rice as a possible vice presidential candidate for John McCain in 2008.

The main interesting thing about this article is that it seems to make a story out of nothing. The lede is: “U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left slightly open the chance on Tuesday that she might be interested in running as vice president on Republican White House contender John McCain’s ticket.”

“Left slightly open” is sort of ambiguous language, which is sort of betrayed later in the story when it says that Rice refused to make a “Shermenesque” denial of her openness to being vice president. She did, however, say “That said, I am going back to Stanford. I am going back to California,” which is a pretty clear denial. How newsworthy is it that Rice didn’t deny the media in its own bizarre terms?

This was reported in several sources, but to me it doesn’t really seem like a story as much as a projection of the media’s wishes on to Rice. After all, it’d probably be a hell of a lot more interesting race to cover later this year if there was a black woman going against a black man (not to mention the ratings).

Maybe I have been under a rock but I have not been following the news of the riots surrounding the carrying of the Olympic torch.  Today, I happened to see the headline “Protesters disrupt Olympic flame relay in Paris“.  I was curious, so I opened it. 

I was shocked to see how much hell the people carrying the torch have gone through. I have just been out of touch with this news, so as I read on I was wondering, “Why the drama?” 

I looked toward the end of the story for more background, but there was barely any.  It just said that protestors were rioting against China’s relationship with Tibet.  Has this been an ongoing issue?  What else is the issue? 

It makes me feel somewhat ignorant not knowing these important events that are taking place, so I look toward the media to tell me more.  Should this article tell me more?  Should it also go into more background or did it do enough?  How much background, if any, should articles include? 

Sometimes a story may have several different versions and a person will not read every one.  Like in this case, the first story I read did not give me all of the background information I needed.  However, I am sure if I look through the other articles I will find out more. 

Another example is in my hometown newspaper about a conman who ravaged people in Sweetwater.  One new article discusses how there has been a third arrest in the case.  The article does not give any background, so if a reader saw this for the first time, and had been under a rock they would be completely lost.  

It gave the important names but failed to discuss what and why and the past of the situation.  However, it does give a tip to read a related article that has more about the situation.  I guess that is how a writer can save space, stay in the word limit, without giving all the history of a story.

I just don’t understand how you know when to put in background and when not to include it.

A FoxNews story today reports that an Air America talk show host has been suspended for calling both Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro a “whore.”

This piece has some issues with tricky language. For one, the headline says “Air America Host Suspended For Obscenity-Laced Rant Against Clinton, Ferraro,” which makes it sound like the host was on-air at the time. According to the rest of the story, however, she was doing her own public appearances and was suspended for calling Clinton and Ferraro “whore” instead of saying “fuck.”

(Unrelated, but the FoxNews site writes the word “fuck” as “f***,” which I find really insulting to my intelligence as a reader. You don’t need to protect me from the word, and if you do, writing it as “f***” instead of “fuck” isn’t going to do it. It’s not like you read “f star star star” in your head instead of “fuck.”)

The article is also a little tricky with words in the lede, which says, “Air America radio has suspended talk show host Randi Rhodes for what has been described as an appalling rant against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro.” It never says, however, who describes the rant as appalling, which makes this editorializing. This would probably be better journalism if it said something like “in what Air America president John Liberal described as ‘an appalling rant.’”

Of course, we have to keep in mind that Air America is a direct competitor with FoxNews, both ideologically and economically, and it makes sense for them to be tricky like this with language if it makes Air America look worse.

  I like Laura Kurtzman’s lede in her Associated Press story found in today’s USA Today, because it uses Bill Clinton’s words to express the legitimate view that Hillary’s ongoing battle for the democratic nomination will not hurt the outcome of the election, while at the same time letting you know that that is what he believes.   Another effective element of the story is her skilled use partial and full-sentence quotations. The author utilizes partial quotes where they fit the bill, such as in the first paragraph:  ”chill out” is language that, since it was used by the former president, is relevant to quote, while the rest of the paragraph logically uses paraphrasing to effectively lead into the story.  Meanwhile, full-sentence quotes from relevant sources dot the story strategically and sparsely.  

Here are some suggestions for the Associated Press author who wrote today’s story in USA Today covering the debate over Hillary Clinton’s continued campaigning for the democratic presidential nomination.   1) The lead, and, accordingly, perhaps even the title, should be changed to emphasize the fact that there is much debate over Hillary Clinton’s refusal to hand over the democratic nomination to Obama, instead of the fact that Obama has encouraged her to continue her fight.  This is because the entire story, save for the second and third paragraph, concentrate on the controversy–not Obama’s view of it.  Besides that Obama’s comments on the subject were brief, more devastating to the newsworthiness of them is that it would obviously be potentially negative for the candidate to publicly state that she should give up.  Further discrediting his apparent approval of Clinton’s effort, Obama is said to have urged a California superdelegate to hurry up and make up his mind for the good of the party in another Associated Press-written story in today’s USA Today.    2)  Obama’s comments on the U.S. job market in paragraph 10 appear too abruptly.  This could be fixed rather simply by preceding this paragraph with paragraph 13, including some transitory language, and, in effect, creating a nut graf for the new topic that dominates the rest of the story–campaign issues/random comments from political figures.    3)  The last four paragraphs should be pasted before said nut graf, as they are more relevant to the story’s initial topic than the information that begins at the current paragraph 10.   

Bush’ s recent speech regarding the gains in Iraq was a mediocre example at best of journalism writing, with some good points thrown in. 

 Jennifer Loven, an associated press writer, wrote an article on Bush’s recent speech in the Pentagon that began with a thirty-six word lead.  Furthermore, her article followed in the same vane droning on and on for two pages on information that could have been summarized in five paragraphs. 

In addition, her nut graf was very informational, but  subsequent paragraphs could have been used in a follow up story.   She had great usage of quotes, yet they seemed like they were copied from press releases. 

Furthermore, she provides the reader with lots of information and no sense of resolution.  However, I understand in present circumstances their is not really an opportunity to provide a resolution. 

I appreciate the amount of information that Loven presents the readers with but have found better examples of  journalistic writing. 

Her story does follow the inverted pyramid style format, yet she provides the reader with entirely too much background in the quickly and provides filler for the rest of the article. 

I felt that  Loven’s article could significantly improve if she simply had face-to-face interviews. 

This story appeared on CNN.com called ” From $70K to food bank, one family’s struggle.”  It was set up in a different way from most stories we have looked at in class and that I have seen so far.  The author tries to frame the story as a human insterest sotry by centering it around this one family with an anecdotal lead and conclusion, but the real story is hidden between those. 

 The 7th paragraph down seems to be working as a nutgraph and brings up the real reason why this story is newsworthy today–increasingly severe economic problems in the Middle-class.  I think adding this human interest aspect to the story helps make it more interesting to the reader.  And if anyone else has been looking at this like I have since I graduate soon and will have to meet this problem head-on myself, you will notice that this story also makes the problem a little easier to understand because it using this one woman’s story as a scary example of how fast and hard economic changes can happen.

 My one biggest criticism to this piece, though, is that it does wait so long to slip the larger picture in.  I feel like it could have been briefly mentioned in the lead by saying something like “Patricia Guerrero is facing a problem far too many other Americans are also facing.  She was laid off in February from a $70K job and within weeks was forced to go to a food bank.”

This is probably not the best written lead in the world, but I just want you to see what I mean.

Plus, I totally did not know the phrase was “making ends meet,” instead of “making ends meat.”  I will have to investigate and see where that came from.

The recent article World Food Program calls for donations as U.S. aid drops has helped intensify my respect for journalism (or at least for USA Today.) The article was far from the best I have ever read but it did, however, live up to my expectations of clean-cut, to the point, relevant news. Lately, as my knowledge of journalistic principles has expanded, I have found myself unsatisfied after reading many news stories. I am often left with obvious questions I felt should have been answered and I question the inclusion of irrelevant information. After reading this article, though, I felt satisfied and, perhaps more importantly, knowledgeable about the topic. The reporter included vital statistics that added to the overall understanding of the recent food donation decreases without overwhelming readers with extraneous numbers. Throughout the article she not only introduced some of the issues facing aid organizations, but explained their effects and possible future solutions. Through this article the author provided readers with an unbiased look at an important issue that will soon gain more widespread global attention. Reading this article really made me wish that all news could be this straightforward.

Today Barack Obama released his tax returns to the media. This isn’t a very interesting event in itself, but I think that the different ways the media covered it is, judging from this CNN article and this Fox News article.

The CNN article has the headline “Obama releases tax returns, follows Clinton to challenge suit,” and ledes with pretty much the exact same thing. The Fox News headline, however, focuses entirely on Obama: “Obamas open tax return, earned nearly $1M in 2006.” It doesn’t mention Clinton until the third paragraph, when it indirectly quotes her.

This brings up the same question as my last post: what part of this is newsworthy, or in this case, more newsworthy? The Fox News writer doesn’t feel that the Obama challenge to Clinton is the most important part of the story, and focuses instead on his earnings (which the CNN article doesn’t address until the tenth paragraph, pretty low on the inverted pyramid scheme of things). I’m honestly not sure which is more important in this situation, since neither of them are particularly interesting; if I had to pick, I’d probably go the CNN route because Obama’s challenge is more recent and timely than his releasing of the forms, as much as I dislike the idea of making a story out of something a candidate feeds to the press.