October 2007 Archives

In chapter ten, tunnel vision is the main discussion. I found it very important because I think a lot of people don't think outside of the box these days. I mean seriously how didn't they catch the difference in the survey about infectious diseases. First they missed the fact that AIDS was not recognized in the first survey, and then they also forgot to recognize the aging population. So in reality the survey was a positive outcome after they realized that the aging population had lived longer because of medical advances. And the thing is, I am sure everyone who read the article just saw the number and was like, "Ohh geez, that can't be good" without even THINKING that people have tunnel vision, because they suffer from it as well! So I think the most important thing is to keep an open mind and not to suffer from this sort of tunnelled vision.

In conclusion of the book, I really think it has helped me realize many things about statistics and news writing. Take everything with a grain of salt, verify or duck, look outside the box, and so much more!

In chapter 7 I found the case study on breast cancer to be very interesting. The quote, "The activists have attempted to drum up support by emphasizing-and, we will see, exaggerating-the very grave danger posed by breast cancer," made me think twice about the truth.

Morals are bound to get in the way. While I was reading this section, I totally understood the point. The number was used inaccurately to scare women, but at the same time when you are in an activist's place you want people to be aware of the problem. Although I agree that this is a HUGE difference as you read on to find out it is a lifetime figure, but I still can see the benefit of keeping women aware in the matter of breast cancer. So maybe activists aren't a good source for the numbers, but at the same time, what they have to say may be newsworthy in itself! Would people be less aware of breast cancer and not catch their own if the activists didn't alter the numbers? Who knows? But it is something to think about.

I would first off like to say, WOW, President JoAnne Boyle has a powerful presence walking into a room. I actually have met and know President Boyle, but was terrified to think she was in our class!! Some underclassmen may never have even seen her before, but when they did they stopped DEAD in there tracks, just as the rest of us did! I think breaking the ice was the hardest part, and well frankly we all need to get over that. Interviewing is difficult, especially when someone superior is at hand, you don't want to offend them or sound stupid-they just hold so much power over you! I am ashamed to say, I was chicken to ask some questions that I wasn't sure would make sense or sound silly. I regret this, and hopefully for my second article I will be able to get an interview with her to get some more imput into my angle.

"In short, even when tendentiousness is not at issue, lack of clarity may be. Again, you need to know what the question is before you can interpret its answer."

In chapter 6 of IANS I had the lightbulb go off in my head. Little things matter when it comes to EVERYTHING! Getting right down to it, the two things I found most interesting where how the actual survey question and the technique of how it was asked made such a large impact on the result.

With the example of reporst of child abuse dropping 50% from 1975 to 1985, the type of survey changed from interviewing in person and on the phone, therefore the answers actual have different varibles. If they were the same interviewing process the survey would be more accurate. Also like in the cause of denying the Holocaust, the ambiguous double negative surveyed question confused the people, significantly changing the responses. After the question was corrected the numbers decreased and made a HUGE difference.

The quote I chose says it all, you cannot trust the survey statistics until you know what the question was. I feel that in many cases with deadlines and tight schedules journalists may overlook something this "small". We must be interested in the question just as much as we are interested in the publics opinion. Because without one, you can't have the other!!!

I found it very easy to relate to the idea in It Ain't Necessarily So that information may be published in a different context than it was meant to be. I will tell you all a little story. It all happened on the worse week of my college career thus far...I wrote an article in the Setonian and I recieved an email from my Editor saying I misunderstood a comment an interviewee said and the interviewee wanted to talk to me. Fear struck and just think, this wasn't an issue of life or death I screwed up, but it still made a difference to the story.

So when this book talks says, "In this chapter we'll look at some examples of stories that became bigger than they should have been when reporters did not confuse their readers (or, perhaps, themselves) with some of the relevant facts." I was reminded of how something a writer may not understand, may turn into a different idea. In my case the story didn't get bigger, but I was embarrassed to see the mistake I made and learned from it. It all goes back to "verify or duck". If the writer doesn't exactly understand it, shouldn't they verify or ask the source. Than again when it comes to scientific writing, which I am now terrified of, who do you know if you do need to verify it? Ahhhhhh!!! It is all very confusing! Mistakes are much easier than I had imagined when it comes to news writing!

I will just have to accept that journalism will not always be perfect, journalist are only human--not all of them can be Superman!

While reading the intro. and first chapter of It Ain't Necessarily So, I thought I had a good angle for my blog. Then I got to the last few pages of chapter one and realized they had the same angle as I did. So I read in hopes that something else would pop out at me, and there is was "Coming to Terms with the News That Isn't There". In the 2nd paragraph it reads, "First, it's important to realize that even the best newspaper imaginable could not possibly offer anything like an accurate reproduction and distillation of reality."

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is against everything that we have learned so far in class. Maybe I am misreading this statement. I know there are errors in the paper, but this sentence is pretty much saying, there is always a bias in the newspaper? Please let me know what you thought when you read this, and maybe give a different alternative to this scary thought.

PS: On a less serious note, I would like to share something. I have to admit that I find blogging sometimes "dorky", but a good academic tool. With that, I was pretty much blown away when my Dad sent me an email with a link to one of my favorite baseball players blog. Ryan Garko of the Cleveland Indians blogs, I must be cooler than I think. Here is the link if you are interested... Ryan Garko's Playoff Blog

This not my very first portfolio, but it is my first of fall 2007. I have to admit that I have been struggling with the blogs. Not keeping up with the blogging assignments, but figuring out the trackbacks. Last spring I had no trouble figuring it out, and I think I keep expecting it to be the same as last year. I think I have it all figured out and hope to have better interaction, after my blogs begin to trackback. Aside from having blogging "issues" I feel that I have learned a lot about news writing and a totally new style of writing.


Coverage/Timeliness
Minor Injuries Make for Interesting News
Catching the Big One
Verify of Duck...the Judicial Branch is in your Hands!
Stabbing and Probing

Depth
Verify or Duck...the Judicial Branch is in your Hands!

Interaction
Verify or Duck...the Judicial Branch is in your Hands!
Minor Injuries Make for Interesting News

Comments
Jacquelyn Johns -Harsh Realities of Crime Reporting
Vanessa Kolberg -How Not to be "That" Reporter