After reading this story, I was left unimpressed. The story of a large volcano possibly errupting and affecting people's lives is very newsworthy but I do not feel this piece gave it it's full worth. I feel this way because there was not enough detail in the piece as it is only seven sentences long. There is only one sources used. I would have liked to have heard from those that live near Mount Merapi whose lives would be affected if the volcano errupted. Also, what tests have been done to show that it has a high change of errupting? How is this determinded with volcanos? Overall, I feel there could have been more detail/ description added to enrich the piece for the reader to be interested and completely informed.
David A. Lehrer gave his take on Juan Williams' statements that got him fired from NPR. Lehrer thinks that Williams did nothing wrong and was brave for talking openly about his feelings on a topic of race. While I don't necessarily agree with them, these are interesting views on what Williams said.
O'Reilly Factor commented on the NPR situation saying this was "intolerance" on NPR's part rather than the comments that were made.
This is the clip from the show: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4383653/factor-flashback-oreilly-vs-nprs-terry-gross/?playlist_id=86923
Also when you go to FoxNews.com and click on the link for the O'Reilly Factor show you can scroll down and find discussion boards on this where people debate whether firing was the appropriate next step to be taken by NPR. Pretty interesting to read through, worth a look for sure.
Williams went back to the O'Reilly show to talk about his firing and quite a few accusations are thrown around. I don't think that this is decent conduct for a journalist, regardless of whether he's been fired. He's working for FOX now, which is FASCINATING to me, and he's already written a column about how ridiculous it was that he was fired, accusing NPR of launching an attack against free speech and disliking him for his skin color. This whole situation is growing more disgusting by the day.
I heard this NPR interview yesterday morning while making my kids' school lunches. It’s a mundane existence . . . . At the time I remember thinking - this is "worth a look" worthy because it emphasizes the importance of the watch dog.
The interview was with Peter Maass, a former writer for the New York Times, and it centers on the secret documents from the war in Iraq that WikiLeaks disclosed over the weekend. Maass talks about how he was in Samarra, Iraq in 2005 and allegedly witnessed Iraqis abuse prisoners, while Americans looked on.
After reading this article I felt the writer did an excellent job not showing any bias in such a sensitive issue. The writer presented both sides of the argument and I felt the story was very well written. Many people when they read/writer stories concerning Iraq automatically spin the Iraquis negatively, but this writer stayed neutral for the most part I felt and even got quotes from the man's lawyer.
I wanted to touch upon the most recent New Hampshire news scandal, one involving New Hampshire's only daily and most widespread paper, The Union Leader.
Recently, The Union Leader refused to publish a marriage announcement between two men, which took place in Portsmouth, N.H. Same-sex marriage has been perfectly legal in Hew Hampshire for months now, and The Union Leader acknowledges that, yet they still felt it was past their policy to publish this announcement.
As a journalist, I whole-heartedly support the freedom to regulate what they publish and not publish. Otherwise, that makes me slightly un-Constitutional. But I feel like it's time that they, as well as many others, realize what this world has developed into, and how society has changed in the past several decades. Their actions are now considered ignorant.
I don't support the fact that they didn't publish the announcement, because everyone is considered equal, but we just can't say The Union Leader was journalistically wrong, as much as we'd like to. Their readership is going to take a serious hit after this past weekend's events.
This was a good article and an example of good journalism. This article is about a new study that was done on teens in New York City that showed the difference in teen behavior with opposite and same sex partners. I thought the writer did a good job at describing what the article was going to be about because from the title I could not tell. Also, he/she gave a lot of information and facts by using names and statistics to back it up. It was not unbalanced or bias because it showed both sides of the case study and had sources that represented both sides. The comments at the end of the story are also very interesting. It made me think about what the education system today is doing to help prevent these new issues that children are going through. The article also left me thinking about the statistics and what other states would look like by taking the survey. We need more articles like this to educate people about what is going on with America's future because the children are the future.
I found this video on the NYT opinion page. I think it is a great example of a mixture of things we have been discussing in class of late. I think it shows a general direction change in journalism (it is video blogging) and shows opinion journalism.
Both men share their insight to the upcoming rally to be held by Stewart and Colbert. Noam seems to think this idea is nonsense and that neither man has anything to offer to real politics while Schmidt feels they are doing a better job of analyzing politics better then most journalists out there. Noah calls them "comedians" and "distasteful" and nothing more than that. Schmidt feels that Stewart does hold power because his tactics are against the grain and that regardless of what he may be out there to do, he gets his point across successfully.
What I like most about this form of journalism is I feel that is much more engaging then just reading an article. I was entertained the entire time, and I think that was in part due to a mixture of seeing a face and hearing a voice.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/25/indonesia.volcano.eruption/index.html
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this story, I was left unimpressed. The story of a large volcano possibly errupting and affecting people's lives is very newsworthy but I do not feel this piece gave it it's full worth. I feel this way because there was not enough detail in the piece as it is only seven sentences long. There is only one sources used. I would have liked to have heard from those that live near Mount Merapi whose lives would be affected if the volcano errupted. Also, what tests have been done to show that it has a high change of errupting? How is this determinded with volcanos? Overall, I feel there could have been more detail/ description added to enrich the piece for the reader to be interested and completely informed.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/thewideangle/item/juan_williams_honesty_20101025/
ReplyDeleteDavid A. Lehrer gave his take on Juan Williams' statements that got him fired from NPR. Lehrer thinks that Williams did nothing wrong and was brave for talking openly about his feelings on a topic of race. While I don't necessarily agree with them, these are interesting views on what Williams said.
O'Reilly Factor commented on the NPR situation saying this was "intolerance" on NPR's part rather than the comments that were made.
ReplyDeleteThis is the clip from the show:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4383653/factor-flashback-oreilly-vs-nprs-terry-gross/?playlist_id=86923
Also when you go to FoxNews.com and click on the link for the O'Reilly Factor show you can scroll down and find discussion boards on this where people debate whether firing was the appropriate next step to be taken by NPR. Pretty interesting to read through, worth a look for sure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/bill-oreilly-juan-williams-npr_n_772281.html
ReplyDeleteWilliams went back to the O'Reilly show to talk about his firing and quite a few accusations are thrown around. I don't think that this is decent conduct for a journalist, regardless of whether he's been fired. He's working for FOX now, which is FASCINATING to me, and he's already written a column about how ridiculous it was that he was fired, accusing NPR of launching an attack against free speech and disliking him for his skin color. This whole situation is growing more disgusting by the day.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130801897
ReplyDeleteI heard this NPR interview yesterday morning while making my kids' school lunches. It’s a mundane existence . . . . At the time I remember thinking - this is "worth a look" worthy because it emphasizes the importance of the watch dog.
The interview was with Peter Maass, a former writer for the New York Times, and it centers on the secret documents from the war in Iraq that WikiLeaks disclosed over the weekend. Maass talks about how he was in Samarra, Iraq in 2005 and allegedly witnessed Iraqis abuse prisoners, while Americans looked on.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39844431/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I felt the writer did an excellent job not showing any bias in such a sensitive issue. The writer presented both sides of the argument and I felt the story was very well written. Many people when they read/writer stories concerning Iraq automatically spin the Iraquis negatively, but this writer stayed neutral for the most part I felt and even got quotes from the man's lawyer.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20101024-NEWS-10240347
ReplyDeleteI wanted to touch upon the most recent New Hampshire news scandal, one involving New Hampshire's only daily and most widespread paper, The Union Leader.
Recently, The Union Leader refused to publish a marriage announcement between two men, which took place in Portsmouth, N.H. Same-sex marriage has been perfectly legal in Hew Hampshire for months now, and The Union Leader acknowledges that, yet they still felt it was past their policy to publish this announcement.
As a journalist, I whole-heartedly support the freedom to regulate what they publish and not publish. Otherwise, that makes me slightly un-Constitutional. But I feel like it's time that they, as well as many others, realize what this world has developed into, and how society has changed in the past several decades. Their actions are now considered ignorant.
I don't support the fact that they didn't publish the announcement, because everyone is considered equal, but we just can't say The Union Leader was journalistically wrong, as much as we'd like to. Their readership is going to take a serious hit after this past weekend's events.
Justine
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39821722/ns/health-sexual_health/
This was a good article and an example of good journalism. This article is about a new study that was done on teens in New York City that showed the difference in teen behavior with opposite and same sex partners. I thought the writer did a good job at describing what the article was going to be about because from the title I could not tell. Also, he/she gave a lot of information and facts by using names and statistics to back it up. It was not unbalanced or bias because it showed both sides of the case study and had sources that represented both sides. The comments at the end of the story are also very interesting. It made me think about what the education system today is doing to help prevent these new issues that children are going through. The article also left me thinking about the statistics and what other states would look like by taking the survey. We need more articles like this to educate people about what is going on with America's future because the children are the future.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/10/25/opinion/1248069239577/bloggingheads-jon-stewart-s-power.html?hp
ReplyDeleteI found this video on the NYT opinion page. I think it is a great example of a mixture of things we have been discussing in class of late. I think it shows a general direction change in journalism (it is video blogging) and shows opinion journalism.
Both men share their insight to the upcoming rally to be held by Stewart and Colbert. Noam seems to think this idea is nonsense and that neither man has anything to offer to real politics while Schmidt feels they are doing a better job of analyzing politics better then most journalists out there. Noah calls them "comedians" and "distasteful" and nothing more than that. Schmidt feels that Stewart does hold power because his tactics are against the grain and that regardless of what he may be out there to do, he gets his point across successfully.
What I like most about this form of journalism is I feel that is much more engaging then just reading an article. I was entertained the entire time, and I think that was in part due to a mixture of seeing a face and hearing a voice.