On page 106 in the earlier edition of Elements of Journalism, I found the following paragraphs extremely important:
"'Far from hiring in the newsroom being an indicator of where diversity comes from, it's knowing your audience, and to be truly interested in your audience from the top to the bottom, from the left to the right, and from all economic levels.'
The criticisms touch a serious point: To what extent does background influence a journalist's work? If an editor determines who covers what simply by ethnic heritage or skin color, isn't that just another kind fo racial and ethnic stereotyping? It implies that there is such a thing as a single black perspective or a single Asian perspective."
I agree completely with this sentiment, it's stereotyping to expect a black person to give the "black perspective" in a newsroom, or a woman or homosexual or disabled person, it's all absurd.
I watched a bit of Working Girl with Melanie Griffith over the weekend and found it a disappointing perspective of a working woman. Similarly, I got in an argument with a friend over the play Death and the King's Horsemen because he was uncomfortable that white people played the part of Africans confronting imperialistic Europeans. I think there's nothing wrong with a white person taking on the task of communicating an idea of an African, whereas he thought it was an updated version of blackface. To me, these are the same ideas, picking a black Midwestern person to play an African part over a white Midwestern person is more blackface to me than choosing an actor based on their ability to act. Same story in the newsroom, picking an Asian writer to specifically give the guise of diversity and Asian perspective is a form of blackface. It's just a stereotypical facade based on exploitation.
It should all be about ability and, most of all, audience. If they would have picked black people who couldn't act or communicate the same idea as well, it would be counterintuitive. So it goes in the newsroom, if the person can't write as well, they shouldn't be assigned front page stories. The solution, then, is having respect for the audience, making sure the paper includes all of the news and features in all groups and social strata, that's being idealistic, but keeping it in mind does more than expecting a token minority to take care of it. It's all news and everyone's responsibility.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Child mental healthcare sub-par
This article can be reached Mondays-Fridays 8AM-5PM at the following address: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/11/21/mental.health.kids/index.html
This article uses a recent issue: the drop-off law in Nebraska and the disturbing results, to introduce a larger issue: the lack of adequate mental healthcare for children. Although it only references the first point vaguely, I believe it's the the law that allows parents to drop off children at a local hospital if they can't handle raising them. So, this went over well with parents who proceeded to drop off 35 children, 29 of them being older than 10 years old, something the hospital didn't see coming.
The Carter Center attributes this not to negligence of parents, but of the rates of untreated mental illnesses in children which complicate their moods and make it difficult to raise them. I think that's being very generous to the parents.
Lede: Not so urgent, a softer lede that introduces a longer article, almost featurey.
As mental health advocates, policy makers, practitioners, educators and researchers gathered at the Carter Center to discuss the progress in addressing American children's mental health needs, a drama of sorts was reaching its conclusion halfway across the country.
The nut graf is the fifth paragraph down, a longer one since it has to link the law in Nebraska to the problem of lack of affordable child mental healthcare.
The rest of the article addresses this issue by citing recent shootings and the lack of knowledge about mental health in children.
In the second-to-the-last paragraph, a short quote leads the reader back to the opener about Nebraska, a really nice move. Then it ends with a quote, a really strong quote:
"We need to see this as an opportunity to say 'this is why we need a stronger mental health system,' not that we should only let people drop off the babies. This is a clarion call to say why it is so important that we build a mental health system that supports children and families. Because these are families that are crying out for help, and we are saying there is nobody there."
This article uses a recent issue: the drop-off law in Nebraska and the disturbing results, to introduce a larger issue: the lack of adequate mental healthcare for children. Although it only references the first point vaguely, I believe it's the the law that allows parents to drop off children at a local hospital if they can't handle raising them. So, this went over well with parents who proceeded to drop off 35 children, 29 of them being older than 10 years old, something the hospital didn't see coming.
The Carter Center attributes this not to negligence of parents, but of the rates of untreated mental illnesses in children which complicate their moods and make it difficult to raise them. I think that's being very generous to the parents.
Lede: Not so urgent, a softer lede that introduces a longer article, almost featurey.
As mental health advocates, policy makers, practitioners, educators and researchers gathered at the Carter Center to discuss the progress in addressing American children's mental health needs, a drama of sorts was reaching its conclusion halfway across the country.
The nut graf is the fifth paragraph down, a longer one since it has to link the law in Nebraska to the problem of lack of affordable child mental healthcare.
The rest of the article addresses this issue by citing recent shootings and the lack of knowledge about mental health in children.
In the second-to-the-last paragraph, a short quote leads the reader back to the opener about Nebraska, a really nice move. Then it ends with a quote, a really strong quote:
"We need to see this as an opportunity to say 'this is why we need a stronger mental health system,' not that we should only let people drop off the babies. This is a clarion call to say why it is so important that we build a mental health system that supports children and families. Because these are families that are crying out for help, and we are saying there is nobody there."
8-year-old murder case gets even weirder
This follow up article can be found at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/21/boy.murder.case/index.html
A boy shoots his father and another man, and authorities are vague and accusatory and no one seems to be fighting for the child's innocence: weird.
The boy's prosecutor asks for some of the charges to be dropped with a one-paragraph vague motion saying, "the interest of justice would be served by such dismissal": weirder.
The boy admits to shooting his father, but after he found him wounded on the floor, he just wanted to shoot him twice more to stop his "suffering": WTF!?
Lede: Normal summary lede with all the pertinent info and w's
An Arizona prosecutor Friday asked to dismiss one of two murder charges against an 8-year-old boy suspected in the shooting deaths of his father and another man.
This sets up the reader to wondering what the heck is going on with this case, why only one charge dropped? Well, unfortunately, this article, like the first, serves mostly to bring up more questions instead of providing answers. Although, in the author's defense, the circumstances make it so. For instance, the description of the 8-year-old who was sitting cross-legged and who seems to change his story and forget whether he shot his father once or twice. One of the weirdest quotes from this kid is when he's talking about seeing his father dead and he said he "cried for about 30 minutes."
There are so many weird things about that quote I don't even know if I want to get into it. But, I have time, so I will.
1. 30 minutes?! That's it? You just found your dad wounded on the floor and it only takes 3o minutes to compose yourself? And, let me repeat, composing himself didn't mean calling the police, it meant finding a gun and putting his dad out of his misery. This makes me think it was rehearsed, maybe he had some help.
2. He's 8. I almost want to leave that as it's own. I think I will.
3. He can't remember if he shot his dad once or twice, but he has a pretty clear idea of how long he cried.
4. 8-year-old cries for 30 minutes after finding his father wounded and then gets a gun and shoots him. I need a new word since "weird" is losing it's meaning. Confusing?
If the boy's story is true, I find this to be a sad case on many levels, the boy needs some mental and emotional support, and, for pete's sake, where is the mother?!
Long story short, this article confounds me as much as the first. The ending is pretty much a giant question mark, "If the motion to dismiss is granted, it would leave open the possibility that the charge could be refiled." Nothing seems to be concrete in dealing with this case.
It's not even a fizzle, it's like a word version of a shrug.
A boy shoots his father and another man, and authorities are vague and accusatory and no one seems to be fighting for the child's innocence: weird.
The boy's prosecutor asks for some of the charges to be dropped with a one-paragraph vague motion saying, "the interest of justice would be served by such dismissal": weirder.
The boy admits to shooting his father, but after he found him wounded on the floor, he just wanted to shoot him twice more to stop his "suffering": WTF!?
Lede: Normal summary lede with all the pertinent info and w's
An Arizona prosecutor Friday asked to dismiss one of two murder charges against an 8-year-old boy suspected in the shooting deaths of his father and another man.
This sets up the reader to wondering what the heck is going on with this case, why only one charge dropped? Well, unfortunately, this article, like the first, serves mostly to bring up more questions instead of providing answers. Although, in the author's defense, the circumstances make it so. For instance, the description of the 8-year-old who was sitting cross-legged and who seems to change his story and forget whether he shot his father once or twice. One of the weirdest quotes from this kid is when he's talking about seeing his father dead and he said he "cried for about 30 minutes."
There are so many weird things about that quote I don't even know if I want to get into it. But, I have time, so I will.
1. 30 minutes?! That's it? You just found your dad wounded on the floor and it only takes 3o minutes to compose yourself? And, let me repeat, composing himself didn't mean calling the police, it meant finding a gun and putting his dad out of his misery. This makes me think it was rehearsed, maybe he had some help.
2. He's 8. I almost want to leave that as it's own. I think I will.
3. He can't remember if he shot his dad once or twice, but he has a pretty clear idea of how long he cried.
4. 8-year-old cries for 30 minutes after finding his father wounded and then gets a gun and shoots him. I need a new word since "weird" is losing it's meaning. Confusing?
If the boy's story is true, I find this to be a sad case on many levels, the boy needs some mental and emotional support, and, for pete's sake, where is the mother?!
Long story short, this article confounds me as much as the first. The ending is pretty much a giant question mark, "If the motion to dismiss is granted, it would leave open the possibility that the charge could be refiled." Nothing seems to be concrete in dealing with this case.
It's not even a fizzle, it's like a word version of a shrug.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
8-year-old commits two acts of pre-meditated murder
Article link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/08/child.charged.ap/index.html
I was interested in this article first for the shock value of it, also the story takes place in Flagstaff, Arizona, and I have a 9-year-old neice who lives there. Then, as I read it, the lede is soft, and I agree, since this is such a tragic story no matter what perspective you take, it should be a bit softer. In fact, I think they could follow this up with a narrative. So, really, they probably could have made this one totally hard news and followed it up with a narrative. Either way, here is the lede:
It's a crime that police officers in a small eastern Arizona community can hardly fathom yet have to deal with: an 8-year-old charged in the fatal shootings of his father and another man.
It's definitely a soft lede, but the rest of the story kind of follows a hard news story, so it's a bit muddy.
It's followed by a quote where the St. Johns police chief is asking "Who would think an 8-year-old could kill adults?"
Then, the nut graf:
The crime that unfolded Wednesday evening sent shock waves through St. Johns, a community of about 4,000 people northeast of Phoenix. The boy had no disciplinary record at school, and there was no indication he had any problems at home, prosecutors said.
The rest of it seems very shocked, and doesn't really give background to why the boy would shoot the two men. All it does is raise more questions. He had no disciplinary background, they aren't saying what sort of relationship he had with his father, they really aren't saying much of anything except for, "I can't believe this happened, and it's really too bad he's going to jail." They have a confession, but his defense attorney says it wasn't conducted properly. The story and the investigation seems all over the place for how precise something like this needs to be.
It all gets even more irritating when the story ends with these two lines:
Brewer, the defense attorney, said the child "seems to be in good spirits."
"He's scared," he said. "He's trying to be tough, but he's scared."
The child seems to be in good spirits? What the heck is up with this story? I feel like there's so much going on that I'm not getting with this account. The whole situations seems absolutely random and it's made even more confusing by imagining the 8-year-old in good spirits. It makes me think he's on the spectrum for autism or was abused by this guy or something, anything to explain why he wouldn't be torn up from losing his father and even more emotional since he's the one who shot him.
I was interested in this article first for the shock value of it, also the story takes place in Flagstaff, Arizona, and I have a 9-year-old neice who lives there. Then, as I read it, the lede is soft, and I agree, since this is such a tragic story no matter what perspective you take, it should be a bit softer. In fact, I think they could follow this up with a narrative. So, really, they probably could have made this one totally hard news and followed it up with a narrative. Either way, here is the lede:
It's a crime that police officers in a small eastern Arizona community can hardly fathom yet have to deal with: an 8-year-old charged in the fatal shootings of his father and another man.
It's definitely a soft lede, but the rest of the story kind of follows a hard news story, so it's a bit muddy.
It's followed by a quote where the St. Johns police chief is asking "Who would think an 8-year-old could kill adults?"
Then, the nut graf:
The crime that unfolded Wednesday evening sent shock waves through St. Johns, a community of about 4,000 people northeast of Phoenix. The boy had no disciplinary record at school, and there was no indication he had any problems at home, prosecutors said.
The rest of it seems very shocked, and doesn't really give background to why the boy would shoot the two men. All it does is raise more questions. He had no disciplinary background, they aren't saying what sort of relationship he had with his father, they really aren't saying much of anything except for, "I can't believe this happened, and it's really too bad he's going to jail." They have a confession, but his defense attorney says it wasn't conducted properly. The story and the investigation seems all over the place for how precise something like this needs to be.
It all gets even more irritating when the story ends with these two lines:
Brewer, the defense attorney, said the child "seems to be in good spirits."
"He's scared," he said. "He's trying to be tough, but he's scared."
The child seems to be in good spirits? What the heck is up with this story? I feel like there's so much going on that I'm not getting with this account. The whole situations seems absolutely random and it's made even more confusing by imagining the 8-year-old in good spirits. It makes me think he's on the spectrum for autism or was abused by this guy or something, anything to explain why he wouldn't be torn up from losing his father and even more emotional since he's the one who shot him.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Palin a diva?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/palin.tension/index.html
I found this article sometimes last week and forgot to post an article analysis for it.
First there's an interesting dateline on the lede, but other than that it's a regular summary lede.
(CNN) -- Some aides to Sen. John McCain say they weren't happy that running mate Sarah Palin went off script Sunday and turned attention back to the controversy over her wardrobe.
The next paragraph is the nut graf: The Alaska governor on Sunday brought up the recent reports regarding the Republican National Committee's $150,000 spending spree on clothing and accessories for the Palin family.
It's followed by a partial quote by Palin to explain the nut graf. Then, there's another quote by "A senior McCain advisor."
The next weird and kind of annoying part of this article is that all the sources are unnamed. It makes the story seem made up, or like I'm reading a page of gossip, which is distracting, especially since anyone who doesn't disclose their identity will have a lot cattier things to say than someone who's held accountable for their comments (see Kzoo confessional).
It ends with examples of other political parties who had problems with their candidates: Jack Kemp's aides distrusted the Bob Dole camp and vice versa, and Dan Quayle loyalists had a list of gripes remarkably similar to those now being aired by Palin aides.
I found this article sometimes last week and forgot to post an article analysis for it.
First there's an interesting dateline on the lede, but other than that it's a regular summary lede.
(CNN) -- Some aides to Sen. John McCain say they weren't happy that running mate Sarah Palin went off script Sunday and turned attention back to the controversy over her wardrobe.
The next paragraph is the nut graf: The Alaska governor on Sunday brought up the recent reports regarding the Republican National Committee's $150,000 spending spree on clothing and accessories for the Palin family.
It's followed by a partial quote by Palin to explain the nut graf. Then, there's another quote by "A senior McCain advisor."
The next weird and kind of annoying part of this article is that all the sources are unnamed. It makes the story seem made up, or like I'm reading a page of gossip, which is distracting, especially since anyone who doesn't disclose their identity will have a lot cattier things to say than someone who's held accountable for their comments (see Kzoo confessional).
It ends with examples of other political parties who had problems with their candidates: Jack Kemp's aides distrusted the Bob Dole camp and vice versa, and Dan Quayle loyalists had a list of gripes remarkably similar to those now being aired by Palin aides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
