The pictures of Budd Dwyer are tricky. Reporters and photographers need to establish a line on whether to print or not to print questionable photos. I draw the line at picture 4a. I feel that most people reading the story are old enough to see a man point a gun into his mouth. Some people might say that picture 3a is not appropriate for children. However, do you think that children are reading this story? I doubt it. As far as picture 4a, I don't think this picture would be needed for the story. After reading the story and seeing picture 3a, the readers can infer that Dwyer shot himself.
Picture one is probably one that doesn't have to be used. Unless this dog was some hero, which I doubt, why would this be a major story? Since it's probably not a major story, why include this picture? This event had to have happened locally. This should not be used because children can relate to it. A small child can look at this picture and understand the situation. Even if that child can not read, he can get the idea of the story from the picture. There is a captive audience here, so you need regulation. Even though it was probably in a newspaper or on a Web site, regulation is needed because kids who can't read could still infer the meaning of this tragic situation.
I would not publish picture two. This story was probably a local story. I think the paper could find another picture, without the dead son, that could be used and portray the same emotion. A picture of the family crying or grieving would be just as efficient as this one. Since mothers and fathers never want to see their child in a body bag, or even imagine it, I don't think this picture is ethical.
Picture three is a graphic, yet not a bad picture to use for a publication. I don't think it is unethical to use it. I realize it would be horrible for this man's family to see this picture. However, if I was the editor, I would not run this photograph. They should use a photograph that shows the gun or one that shows the actual killer. If they choose to use pictures of the victims, I would not just show one victim. Even though I don't think using this picture would be unethical, I feel like it would be wrong in regards to representing the story.
Picture four is not real. According to class, this boy is OK. I can't really see someone not dying from this and therefore I think the picture is false. I would publish this picture. Since he is OK, it's not like the picture will affect him or his family much. If it is real, what publisher wouldn't want to run it? People will think it is an outrageous picture. After seeing it, they will definitely want to keep reading the publication. This picture is totally ethical, if it's real.
Picture five is clearly on the other side of the line. This clearly represents a horrible event for this girl. Numerous men groping a girl is a not an image to recreate. This event probably caused years and years of heartache for this girl and her family. These guys should be ashamed of themselves. Alcohol does this to some men. This picture is unethical. I would never use this picture for my publication.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Sentence Types? Really
This week we have the privilege to learn about the different sentence types. Don’t get too excited. As you might recall, these types include; simple, complex, compound, and wait for it, compound complex. Since we have already gone over what each sentence type consists of, I don’t feel the need to reiterate. My question for this week is, why do we have to learn sentence types?
I realize grammar is part of the journalism field. In order to be a great journalist, one must master his or her entire field. However, sentence types are where I draw the line. I understand that it is of vital importance to know what nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc are; but why sentence types? Will an editor ever come up to us and say, “I think you need more compound sentences instead of all those complex ones”? Or will he say, “I think you need to add a dependent clause to this sentence”? Since I haven’t worked in a real newsroom, I can’t be sure, but I highly doubt it.
So once again, I ask, why do we need to know the different sentence types? According to our book, “When Words Collide,” when studying how sentences are created, or in other words, sentence types, “it’s easy to feel so overwhelmed with definitions, exceptions, rules and regulations that we forget we are already experts.” So if these definitions and terms just confuse us, why study them? The book later goes on to say that the goal of studying these terms is good writing. I can’t see how these terms will make my writing better. In fact, from the confusion, I could see them making my writing worse. Anyone agree?
I realize grammar is part of the journalism field. In order to be a great journalist, one must master his or her entire field. However, sentence types are where I draw the line. I understand that it is of vital importance to know what nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc are; but why sentence types? Will an editor ever come up to us and say, “I think you need more compound sentences instead of all those complex ones”? Or will he say, “I think you need to add a dependent clause to this sentence”? Since I haven’t worked in a real newsroom, I can’t be sure, but I highly doubt it.
So once again, I ask, why do we need to know the different sentence types? According to our book, “When Words Collide,” when studying how sentences are created, or in other words, sentence types, “it’s easy to feel so overwhelmed with definitions, exceptions, rules and regulations that we forget we are already experts.” So if these definitions and terms just confuse us, why study them? The book later goes on to say that the goal of studying these terms is good writing. I can’t see how these terms will make my writing better. In fact, from the confusion, I could see them making my writing worse. Anyone agree?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Covering Sports for the DI
This week I would like to talk about how the Daily Illini covers sports.
Two of the earliest rules we learn as journalists is to always be objective and representative. Being objective is not that hard. You just got to put your biases to the side and write the story. As long as you clearly represent both sides of the issue, without a bias, you are being objective.
As far as being representative, this is where it gets tricky. It is the job of a paper/reporter to represent their entire society. In the old days, this came up because papers were not representing the minorities (with a race and political aspect). Well, minorities go for sports as well.
I would like to know why the DI does not cover the low key sports more often. Where are the cross country stories? Where are the wrestling stories? Where are the soccer stories? I realize that none of these sports make as much money as the football or basketball teams, but doesn't the paper owe it to them to be representative? Isn't it the paper's job to cover them at least half as much, if not an equal, to that of football and basketball teams?
This is my call out to the editors, and I know we have some in class, to try to come up with more sport stories other than football and basketball.
Since the DI is free, people won't stop reading it if it doesn't have all football and basketball stories. The DI has an obligation to all athletes of the University, not just the ones who we all know. That is the definition of being representative.
Two of the earliest rules we learn as journalists is to always be objective and representative. Being objective is not that hard. You just got to put your biases to the side and write the story. As long as you clearly represent both sides of the issue, without a bias, you are being objective.
As far as being representative, this is where it gets tricky. It is the job of a paper/reporter to represent their entire society. In the old days, this came up because papers were not representing the minorities (with a race and political aspect). Well, minorities go for sports as well.
I would like to know why the DI does not cover the low key sports more often. Where are the cross country stories? Where are the wrestling stories? Where are the soccer stories? I realize that none of these sports make as much money as the football or basketball teams, but doesn't the paper owe it to them to be representative? Isn't it the paper's job to cover them at least half as much, if not an equal, to that of football and basketball teams?
This is my call out to the editors, and I know we have some in class, to try to come up with more sport stories other than football and basketball.
Since the DI is free, people won't stop reading it if it doesn't have all football and basketball stories. The DI has an obligation to all athletes of the University, not just the ones who we all know. That is the definition of being representative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)