The first item on this list was added by yours truly prior to posting the list here. I did not submit it to the site where I found the list.
* corrected the grammar on this list before posting it.
* feel stupid when you can't come up with something more creative than your co-workers.
* like to hang out with your right-brained friends because you're the "wild one."
* aren't concerned with losing your job because it's such a piss-poor field you know they would be doing you a favor.
* understand where the term "starving artist" derived.
* talk in "headline speak" for shits and grins.
* correct your church bulletin with a pen during the service or mark up any newsletter that comes in the mail while you're on the phone.
* insist on explaining to everyone where the grammar mistakes are in any publication or sign.
* actually understand the correct use of commas, semicolons and colons.
* hope you don't get an assignment that requires a lot of driving because your car might break down.
* enjoy reading your dictionary and quizzing your co-workers and friends.
* read an e-mail several times before sending it and making at least three editing changes.
* are pressured into making a list because two other journalist-types already have.
* play Scrabble and go for the word that is the most impressive, rather than the highest scoring.
* kept all the books you read in college but haven't touched them since.
* point out that someone made a grammatical error and your friends/significant others just smile and nod.
* silently deride your reporters' stupidity every time you find a mistake.
* hear about a murder on TV and sigh with relief when you realize it's not in your "coverage area."
* are bothered by the fact that you can't come up with anything clever enough for a list about what writers/journalists actually do.
* mock incorrect grammar while allowing yourself any and all "creative" uses. You are, in fact, a professional.
* are able to attribute your misspellings, such as "independance" or "milenium" to your editors' lack of skill. It's the whole point of having editors, right?
* have ever figured out how much more income you could bring in as manager of Taco Bell.
* have been prescribed at least three different anti-depressants.
* have seriously considered joining the peace corps but couldn't for fear of being stationed nowhere near a Gap.
* like to eat out but don't order wine or appetizers because you can't afford it.
* have ever spent more than three hours in a cafe and used your debit card to pay for your $1.69 grande coffee.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
You know you're a journalist if you ....
Thursday, May 1, 2008
We're sorry about all the trees
In about two weeks, I will join the ranks of real, professional journalists when I start my new job at a mid-sized daily in the Pacific Northwest. Those of you who know me personally of course know where I'll be working, but I want to be careful not to mention the name of the paper here. I will have to leave Eugene, which is sad, but I'm thrilled to have a "real" job at last.
In the meantime, what I post here will be determined by whether my paper has a policy on blogging. This was the topic of As newspapers today's "Everyday Ethics" column. start taking on summer interns and young employees, the author writes, it is important for papers to decide what their policies are on personal blogs. More and more of the college-aged employees/interns are going to have them, and it is better to set a policy than for anyone to be surprised. The writer also suggests that the interns themselves be upfront about whether they blog. I certainly hope I'll be able to continue blogging in one way or another. Here are some of the suggested policies from the column:
# Write one. Maybe start a blog about policies. But do it now. It's way too late to claim that blogging is just too new of a phenomenon to merit a policy.
# Reconsider your policy if it states: No personal blogs. Telling a 20-year-old he can't blog is like telling a 50-year-old she can't write a holiday letter. You won't win that one.
# Consider what you're comfortable having employees discuss in public:
* Nothing about the newsroom at all? That might be unrealistic.
* Nothing about stories in development? That seems fair.
* Nothing that puts the company in a negative light? Sure, you've got a right to require that, but you might define negative carefully.
* Nothing about sources? Good idea. Journalists who say things about their sources that they wouldn't put into their stories are treading in dangerous territory.
* Nothing embarrassing or negative about your colleagues. (I had a young journalist once ask me if she crossed a line by blogging about a fellow reporter's bathroom habits. Yes, I told her, I thought that was rude. Maybe not unethical, but definitely rude.)
# I counsel journalists who keep personal blogs to employ a no-surprises rule. Always let your boss know if you have a blog. Ask for guidelines, if they don't exist. Never say anything in the blog that you wouldn't say out loud, to the primary stakeholders. This could all be included in a policy.
I also found a fun feature on Poynter in which journalists were asked to submit possible six-word mottos for the profession. My favorite is the title of this post. I may be concerned about the environment, but the one thing I'll be "wasteful" about is newspapers. I recycle them, of course, but I need the paper. After I move, I'll be reading three papers regularly: the one I work for, the large daily in the area, and the weekend New York Times
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
In soldiers' words
Yesterday's New York Times ran an interesting article based on excerpts from the blogs/letters of troops killed in Iraq. I enjoyed reading it but had one problem; in the writings of one of the men, certain words have been replaced with the word "expletive." I said this in my post about the FCC, but I am strongly opposed to this type of editing. If we are supposed to be reading something that will paint an accurate picture of what this young man was feeling when he was at war, we should read all of his words, just as they are. The words used (I can't quite tell what the offending word was, but I imagine it's probably "THE" word.) carry a specific emotional power and papers should be willing to run those words. People will argue that children might read the paper, but as I said in my previous post, children who are mature enough to want to read the New York Times are mature enough to read a few bad words without running out in the streets repeating them. The editors may say they don't want to offend other readers who choose not to use those words; others would argue that the war is offensive. People who read this article and would have been offended by the expletives should ask themselves what their real priorities are. Of course there's a point at which language crosses the line — I'm not arguing for graphic descriptions of sexual acts — but the two posts in question use a word for emphasis, that frankly, I think is important in the context (bold italics added by me to point out what I'm talking about):
Sgt. Ryan M. Wood, 22, a gifted artist, prolific writer and a sly romantic from Oklahoma, was also one of the bluntest soldiers inside Charlie Company.
"it is fighting extreme boredom with the lingering thought in the forefront of your mind that any minute on this patrol could be my last endeavour, only highlighted by times of such extreme terror and an adrenaline rush that no drug can touch. what [expletive] circumstances thinking “that should’ve been me” or “it could’ve been me”. wondering it that pile of trash will suddenly explode killing you or worse one of your beloved comrads..only backed by the past thoughts and experiences of really losing friends of yours and not feeling completely hopeless that it was all for nothing because all in all, you know the final outcome of this war. it is walking on that thin line between sanity and insanity. that feeling of total abandonment by a government and a country you used to love because politics are fighting this war......and its a losing battle....and we’re the ones ultimently paying the price."
A second excerpt, written by the same man, discusses America's obsession with celebrity life instead of issues such as the war in a post titled "What the Hell, America?":
“What the hell happened?” any intelligent American might ask themselves throughout their day. While the ignorant, dragging themselves to thier closed off cubicle, contemplate the simple things in life such as “fast food tonight?” or “I wonder what motivated Brittany Spears to shave her unsightly, mishaped domepiece?”
To the simpleton, this news might appear “devastating.” I assume not everyone thinks this way, but from my little corner of the earth, Iraq, a spot in the world a majority of Americans could’nt point out on the map, it certainly appears so. ... To all Americans I have but one phrase that helps me throughout my day of constant dangers and ever present death around the corner, “WHO THE [expletive] CARES!” Wow America, we have truly become a nation of self-absorbed retards. ... This world has serious problems and it’s time for America to start addressing them.
God forbid people should know that a young man living (and eventually dying) in a terrifying, stressful situation express his frustration with an "F-bomb" or two. These posts are honest depictions of the emotions this man was feeling at the time.
If the powers that be at the paper respect/mourn these soldiers enough to want to publish their words, the words should not be edited. I don't advocate random, gratuitous use of obscenities in print, but this is one case where they should have been allowed.
And here is the rest of it.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Creating fake news
My e-mail from the Romenesko column this morning had a link to a story on how the writers at The Onion come up with their stories. Interesting stuff.
.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Supreme Court to hear FCC case
A couple of days late on this one, but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations . In the suit, Fox is challenging the FCC policy that fines radio or television networks for even fleeting, accidental cases of obscene words being uttered on air during the day. The case stems from incidents in which Cher and Nicole Richie (I question the Post's description of Richie as "a celebrity," but that's another topic entirely) said what the Post article refers to as "variations of a vulgar four-letter word."
The case, which will be heard in the fall, will be the Court's first major ruling on broadcast indecency rules since the 1978 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. That case punished a radio station for airing George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" monologue.
I'm very interested in this ruling. While I understand the need for basic broadcast rules and understand that airing shows with "vulgar" language at times when children could be watching isn't necessarily appropriate or necessary, I also believe that sometimes people say "bad" words when they are emotional and stations shouldn't face heavy fines for it. The cases mentioned in the article deal with celebrities saying one word in the context of winning an award. The word in question, referred to in "A Christmas Story" as "The F dash dash dash word," isn't meant to refer to a sexual act when used in that context. It's used for emphasis and sometimes, it just slips out. The question of whether stations should face enormous fines when someone slips up on an awards show or during a sporting event is an interesting one. ...
The Washington Post article I linked mentions an incident in 2004 in which television stations decided not to air "Saving Private Ryan" on Veterans Day because of fears that the movie's language could lead to FCC fines. The FCC refused to say before hand whether the stations would be fined . In 2005, the FCC ruled that the movie was not indecent, a decision I absolutely agree with.
My argument at the time was (and still is) that stations should have been able to air the film without fear of retribution. The language is necessary in the historical context of the film, and editing out the "obscenities" would make it less realistic. A romantic comedy with edited language is still funny; a war film in which soldiers say "darn" or "freaking" does not paint an accurate picture of what would really happen in the war zone.
A few weeks ago, Jane Fonda had to apologize for using the word "cunt" during a live broadcast of "The Today Show." She used the word because it is the title of a piece she was performing in her role in "The Vagina Monologues." I'm using it because I think that banning words only gives them more power and refusing to print a word even in the context of a conversation about that word is illogical. Whenever someone slips a curse word on TV or a politician refers to another leader with less-than-polite language, media struggle to report the "story" without actually saying or printing the word in question. The question we should be asking, and what I think the Supreme Court will address, is whether or not words used accidentally or in the context of the title of the show the person is promoting should mean huge fines and hurried apologies.
While it is true that parents can't control what their children hear on live television, kids are just as likely to hear cuss words out and about in town as they are from a celebrity or politician who lets one slip on TV. Having an open an honest discussion with your child about which words are and are not appropriate to say in public (or in your home) seems a much better approach. The more shame and stigma placed on a behavior, the more interesting it seems to a kid.
Although the rules against airing certain words are meant to protect children, it is ludicrous to think that a child who is mature enough to watch "Saving Private Ryan" is not also mature enough to hear the language without suffering some type of irreparable damage. I've always argued that the same thing goes for the limited use of obscenities in newspapers — kids who are old enough to want to read the newspaper are old enough to know that you don't just run down the street screaming bad words at the top of your lungs.
Because it's funny, related to the last Supreme Court ruling on this issue, and because I believe in free speech, I present to you, George Carlin with a grammar nerd's version of "the seven dirty words you can't say on television." If you aren't familiar with this, you should be aware that it is potentially offensive and NOT SAFE FOR WORK.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Interesting story of the day #3
Time has an interesting story up about whether journalists should be open about their political party affiliations or even vote at all. The writer argues that although journalists generally hide their party affiliations or candidate preferences in the interest of remaining objective, transparency may be a better way to go. He argues that treating party affiliation as though it's something people should be ashamed of only makes people more suspicious of the so-called "liberal" media.
But more suspicious than they are already? The biggest reason to go open kimono is that the present system does what journalism should never do: it perpetuates a lie. Modern political journalism is based on the bogus concept of neutrality (that people can be steeped in campaigns yet not care who wins) and the legitimate ideal of fairness (that people can place intellectual integrity and rigor over their rooting interests). Voting and disclosing would expose the sham of neutrality—which few believe anyway—and compel opinion and news writers alike to prove, story by story, that fairness is possible anyway
I often say to friends, semi-seriously, that I picked a bad time to become an "objective" reporter. I've always been a person with strong political convictions, and up until I came back to school, I was extremely vocal about my beliefs. Entering the field in an election year, particularly one with so many interesting candidates and issues, makes it hard for me to keep my opinions to myself. I took most of the bumper stickers off my car, made my profiles on social networking sites private (and removed most answers to political questions), and stopped using my real name to comment on political Web sites. My political affiliation isn't exactly a secret. All of my friends know who I support and anyone who wanted to dig deep enough into a Google search of my name would find things from previous election years that would give it away. My party affiliation is clear on my voter registration card that anyone can view down at the county elections office. But in the interest of finding a job and gaining the trust of sources and readers, I want to be careful about what I disclose.
I am absolutely capable of writing honest, accurate stories on any topic or person. When I covered politics for the Emerald, people often told me my stories were fair and objective, but I certainly had opinions on those topics. I am careful to keep my opinion out of stories and I have no doubts that I can leave my beliefs at the home when I go to work. If asked what my affiliation is, I won't lie, but I don't need to wear it on my sleeve. I have given this issue extensive thought, though, and I am glad to read an article arguing some of the same feelings I have about politics and journalism ...
I've argued for years that the concept that journalists are 100 percent objective is ludicrous. Human beings, by their very nature, can not be truly objective. Journalists, especially those who cover beats, become so familiar with the topics they cover that it would be nearly impossible to avoid forming an opinion. Our goal is to pursue the truth, and the truth is not always objective.
While some journalists choose not to vote at all, I would argue that journalists, more than anyone else, have an obligation to vote. Even those of us who do not report on politics tend to follow the news more closely than the average citizen. If the goal of the media is to act as a fourth estate in order to make sure citizens can make informed decisions at the voting booth, then it only makes sense to argue that journalists, especially those of us who cover politics, are among the most informed voters out there. We know more about these issues (and we pay more attention to all sides of the issues) than almost anyone, and it seems unrealistic and naive for anyone to expect us to remain completely neutral after sorting through all that information. Should we be expected to give up our rights and responsibilities as citizens when we begin working as journalists?
As someone who lives in a democratic society, I consider voting to be a civic duty. As a journalist and person who follows the news very closely, I would consider myself to be an irresponsible citizen if I did not put my knowledge of politics to use when I vote.
Interesting story of the day #2
Another column I found through a link in my morning e-mail from Poynter discusses what rules, if any, newspapers should have regarding online comments. In the guest column in the Miami Herald, Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, writes about the problems editors face with anonymous commenting. While most editors would never even consider running an anonymous letter to the editor, he writes, many also argue that restraining the speech of anonymous comments online would chase readers away. Wasserman argues that rules are needed, in part because the more aggressive, angry comments tend to drive away those who don't want to be attacked, actually harming the discussion.
In this case, the extreme license given individuals to vent, dissemble, excoriate and indulge their hates verbally, winds up destroying the expressive freedom that other people, less bold and less opinionated, need. Venturing an opinion, even a sound one, just isn't worth the risk. The overall result is a less expansive, less robust sphere of expression -- and sound, worthwhile thoughts aren't shared.
After working at a small college paper and reading the comments on most stories, I couldn't agree more that comments need some kind of regulation. At the Emerald, we used to approve every comment; now most are approved automatically. Most of the time, this isn't a problem. We have a few regulars who leave the same types of predictable comments on every story, and few of our articles lead to much discussion. Occasionally, however, one article will bring us more attention than we would ever have expected, and it leads me to question how much important discussion is actually encouraged by the story comments. ...
This year, a column on wrestling drew nearly 800 comments and drew more hits to our Web site than we've ever had, and more than 100 more were deleted because they were too offensive or vitriolic to run. It's interesting that of all the articles we've published that I think are the most important, the column in question garnered hundreds of comments, many of which were nothing more than insults directed at the writer. Earlier this year, a satirical column about Japanese anime got hundreds of comments, most of which were simply attempts to prove that certain story lines in the shows disproved the writer's point. A story about the dismissal of two popular administrators with no explanation, however, got just 46 comments. I rarely read the comment fields on other newspaper sites. I find that the stories I actually care about have very few comments. I also avoid them for some of the reasons Wasserman brings up — I find that argumentative, hateful posters make it impossible to have a real discussion.
