I'm currently writing a comprehensive analysis of a NY Times story on a Berkeley, Ca. protest, and finding the task interesting because some of the story was left out. My job is to see what was written and what was left out and discern if the story is an ethical representation of truth.
So when I stumbled upon this AP story about Jena Six, I was astonished to find a "consider this" section where facts of the story are deliberated further without the flounces of "color" that are so necessary, according to many journalists, in keeping a reader engaged. I am learning to abhor the narrative where everything has to fit in this little scheme of human experience that has come before and been so controversial. It's like we're saying, "Oh, yeah, it's just like back in the day."
No, no it's not. Sure, there are some similar factors like race, religion and gender in many of the stories we read, but that's the human condition, and there are nuances to each of those themes in each news item, but it's a good journalist's duty to make a break from the canned accounts to true experience at this time, and in a certain place. After all, reruns are just not as interesting and plain lazy. Why should we settle for reruns in our news, of all things?Posted by Amanda Cochran at September 23, 2007 1:21 PM | TrackBack