This 3rd and final blogging portfolio is definitely a change of pace from the past few that I have done. These blog entries show elements of me blogging with confidence, originality, and deep thought. You might be able to tell that I was a bit more studious in the last half of the course, simply because I pushed myself. It didn't come easy - oh no - but it eventually came. And this portfolio is proof of that.

SO HERE WE GO!

Coverage: These are all the blog entries that I wrote in this final part of the course. I am proud of all of them:
- Can't...stop...reading!
- The effects of error
- The news nowadays
- The publics skewed opinion
- Creative writing in journalism?!
- News stories + Run-on sentences = good?
- The trump card
- Reporting with humility

Depth: These are the blog entries that I feel were most interesting and deep:
- The publics skewed opinion
- The news nowadays
- The effects of error

Interaction: Here is some proof that I was active on others' blogs, and attributed to their thoughts and discussions:
- Jackie Johns' response to Hull's Metal to Bone
- Mitch's response to Best Practices
- Jeremy's response to the first few chapters of Best Practices

Discussion: This portion of my portfolio proves that some of the blogs I wrote were interesting enough to start a discussion with my peers:
- The news nowadays
- Creative writing in journalism?!
- The publics skewed opinion

Timeliness: This is an area where I struggled in in the past. Not so much for this portfolio. I was on top of things and most of my blogs were written about 16-12 hours before class. That's pretty good for me. ::pats self on back::
- News stories + Run-on sentences = good?
- The effects of error
- The news nowadays

Xenoblogging: This is a section where I show that I helped others with their blogging. Writing this section makes me feel proud of what I have done for others with their blogs. :)
The Comment Primo:
- Maddie Gillespie - O'Ethics my Ethics!
- Bethany Merryman - Pretzels what?
The Comment Grande:
- Chelsea Oliver - Eight Deadly Sins?

The Wildcard: This is the time to get buckwild. I want you to see this blog more than anything else in my life. SO GO. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
- The news nowadays

This entry is very down to earth. It relates to a lot of the media seen on TV and the Internet. I think many people can agree with this blog entry, but some may be afraid to say it. You may call this a rant, but I call it the truth. Enjoy.

This section of Chapter 11 was pretty powerful, as Maddie said. It says that truth is unattainable, which is a coincidence for me. Today, in Dr. Klapak's final Faith Religion and Society class, we asked him what he thinks the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is. His answer? "The pursuit of truth."

ABNW Chapter 11 reinforces this, and so did Maddie's entry. If we strive for the truth, then we are doing our best. The truth will not be unveiled for a long time. Maybe not ever. But if we try our best to attain it, and especially in our news writing, we should have some success with it. Truth might not be available all the time, but you'll feel much better trying to tell what you DO know, rather than making it up.

It seems to me that the only way to break up the monotony of the cold, raw data is to include anecdotes. Only the best stories have these little recollections that are humorous or interesting. These anecdotes hook the reader in and keep them enthralled with the reading. In the chapter, they are referred to as "Golden Coins." They are the tools that journalists use to break up the story. I guess you could call it like their trump card. They use it in their stories if they have too much boring data. People want stuff that they can relate to. They want to know about personal experiences and how people resolved those conflicts. It inspires the readers. That's what the public wants. Inspirational writing.

Alright, now that that is out of the way: This was an interesting piece of news. Well, if you could call it news. It differed so much from what we call 'news' nowadays. But I think that was a good thing. He is definitely not the next Chaucer, as my coursemates would agree, (Mitch and Vanessa) I'll give him the creativity badge, because it really was an imaginative angle for a news story, but he is definitely no genius. I really liked the way that this piece of work demonstrated how versatile a news piece can be. It doesn't have to be the same, run-of-the-mill horrible / tragic news story every time. Artistic expression can, and has been implemented. To me, that is heartwarming.

Hull focused more on 'showing' us what happened, rather than telling. Dr. Jerz preached this in my Intro to Literature class, and I suppose it carries over even to journalism. The way that Hull writes, it seems that it should be published in a short story or something. If every ho-hum crime story were constructed with her creativity and angle, then the average crime story would be the top reason for getting my hands on a newspaper.

Hmm...this is one of the most interesting figures in Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists. I would really like to know how many people that they polled for this figure. They generalize this statement so much, by saying that they surveyed ALL Americans. Not possible. I was never asked this question. I, in fact, think that the news doesn't have enough freedom. My case in point, look at all the rules for Journalism. Where's the freedom there? I wouldn't have to take this class, if the press had too much freedom. I wouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars to take a class just to learn the rules and regulations of journalism.

From writing news stories first hand, I am an advocate that news writers need even more freedom. From the grammatical rules, to the amount of information that we can / can't reveal in a news story, the freedom that the public thinks news writers have isn't there. The Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists book illustrates the public's skewed opinion of journalism.

If they are becoming more aware, then why don't they do something about it? I know the media is all about getting the 'ratings' nowadays, but why can't they include some genuinely good news that affects many? I don't care if some lady birthed 8 babies at the same time. That doesn't affect me. What about the good news like, "Reduction in the number of starving people in Africa." or something. I think the media is governing our lives, and giving us stories that we shouldn't care about, but it is presented so that we do.

I talked to my father about this quote, and he went on to say that he has seen the degression of the news as the years have passed. The news used to be exciting, and fun. It would be a time where one could sit down, find out what's going on in America, (both good and bad), and absorb. It's not the same now. All we care about anymore are sex scandals, who's using _____ drug, who's trying to commit suicide, etc. It's irrelevant, and we need to realize it.

Why don't all newspapers do this? It seems like the Chicago Tribune is the only paper that has this whole process right. For one, this whole process is so redundant and time-consuming, that it would encourage their writers to try their best not to make mistakes. I mean, honestly. Who would really want to go through this whole process, if it could be avoided by close reading? Second, the things that the author must do when they DO actually make a mistake seem like it would correct it. If you find out who made the error, and under what circumstances it occurred under, and if it could have been avoided, then you are cracking down on the news writers, in turn making them more accurate, more complete writers.

I really wonder if other newspapers in the U.S. go through this same type of process, or if they just brush the errors aside. This shows that the Chicago Tribune isn't perfect by any means, but are willing to fix their errors and provide the public with accuracy. If competing papers don't do this process, what kind of process do they do? Is it as extensive? I JUST WANNA KNOW!

The news story, "Humanity on Trial" by Linnet Myers is a raw, no-holds-barred look into the judicial system of America. Myers went into the Chicago Criminal Violence Court, and witnessed trial after trial of violent acts. After so long, she got used to the talk of killing children, beating women to death, etc. It was kind of like humanity, in its truest form. Violent crimes happen everyday, and most turn the other cheek. Should we be on trial for not doing anything about these heinous crimes? If not, then what can we do?

As for the story itself, it was a gripping, brutal tale of criminal justice, that felt more like a story than a news article. Her writing style made this article. You really couldn't put it down. She accounted so many stories and events that happened while she sat in court, that one couldn't help but look. It was like looking at a car wreck as you pass it by on the street. It's wrong, maybe. But it's human instinct to see what happened. Is anyone hurt? Whose fault was it? . . . . These stories were the same. No matter how violent or appalled by the acts that she wrote about, we couldn't stop reading.

Depth: These were my best blog entries for this portfolio. I feel I had some good ideas, and related some of the material to real life, which is always a plus.

- This is from IANS Chapter 5 and 6 -Statistical Mischief
- This is from IANS Chapter 7 and 8 -The woes of TV news coverage
- This entry was created after our press conference with JoAnne Boyle -JoAnne Boyle isn't a fable!

Interaction: This is where I commented on my peers blogs, and attributed to their discussions.

-Carrie's Blog - Well Well, so that's what you think huh?
-Madelyn's Blog - You say tomato and I say...well, something different!
-Daniella's Blog - Paranoia

Discussion: This is where some of my blogs have sparked up some conversation.
-JoAnne Boyle isn't a fable!
-Tunnel Vision
-The woes of TV news coverage

Timeliness: This is an area where I struggled in. I was able to blog a few entries by their deadline though, so I guess that's alright.
- JoAnne Boyle isn't a fable!
- Tunnel Vision

Xenoblogging: This is where I contributed to my peers' blogs selflessly and generously! GO ME!
Comment Primo: Ellen's blog!
Comment Primo: Carrie's blog!
Comment Grande: Ellen's blog dealing with TV news covering the dumbest stories.

WILDCARD: THIS IS WHERE I GET BUCKNASTY! If there was one entry I want you to see, it's gotta be this- - - - - - -
The woes of TV news coverage

AND THATS IT. ::joy::

Ohkay. Sorry for that rant. But I guess IANS was really trying to stress the fact that polls deserve a second or third look. If I see one in a news story, I need to verify it, or just throw it completely out the window. See how many people were polled, how many responses were given, who collected that statistical data, and what kind of point it's trying to make. Like in Vanessa's blog, she mentioned the example of if Pepsi Co. issued a piece of data that portrayed how bad Coca-Cola is for you, she would totally disregard it. They are competing companies. Of course they would try to persuade you with material that doesn't completely add up. They are just trying to make money.

Chapter 10 talked about tunnel vision, and how people fail to see beyond the "box". People take everything that is given to them, and never question "How?" or "Why?". We need to see beyond what's handed to us, and actually do some research. Take everything with a grain of salt. Keep your mind open. Thank you IANS. =D

The information that really counts shouldn't be deemed as boring and obscured by useless crap. It's a damn shame that TV news coverage thinks differently. Every time I turn on the television, my eyes are filled with dumb reality TV shows where some lady can't figure out her own sexual preference, so she has to choose between 15 guys and 15 girls. My mind is polluted with the TV news coverage that KDKA touts on it's program, where it usually starts with some sweaty, incomprehensible member of the Steelers, giving the same quote every time: "We're gonna go play hard on Sunday, and see what happens." Oh great. You get paid $3 million a season. You better go out and play hard, dummy. Then, the news usually goes into some random story of a dog rescuing a local boy from a playground disaster. WHERE HAS ALL THE NEWS GONE? What about this war in Iraq that has been going on for what seems like forever? What about the economy? What about politics? Why have celebrities and movie stars become the highlight of a newscast? I don't want to see them. I want to know what's going on in the world. But society has deemed that entertainment is much more important than fact. We try to block out what's really going on in the world by filling that void with entertainment, and other useless garbage.

This is a quote from chapter 5 of It Ain't Necessarily So. The chapter went into the details of statistical figures, and how they can be manipulated in order to have a story lean one way or another. I liked the quote that Mitch used in his blog, how "numbers don't lie. The words that surround them do." His point is this: Raw data is data. It is collected and given a value. But as a reader of news stories, we don't know how the data collector went about obtaining that information. Could they have only polled 10 people? If they polled as many as 1000, how many people did they actually have to ask in order to get 1000 answers? When using data as a news writer, we want to keep our bias' in check, and report the exact findings that we have acquired. Don't candy-coat them or make them look a way that they aren't intended to. When it comes down to it, it's all about ethics. Do we want to lie to our readers just to prove an alarming, yet skewed fact? Or do we want to conduct research that is fair, balanced, and relevant, without having to be dolled up?

On Wednesday's class, we had a mock press conference with SHU President, JoAnne Boyle. Up until class, I had always thought she was a fabled character, only spoken about in hushed voices. But, she turned out to be very charismatic, energetic, and socially-engaging. Her presence actually made me want to ask questions. Usually, I'm a quiet kid in class, but I felt that this was my opportunity to fire away at "the big cheese." It also helped that I did my 1st article dealing with a background story of Seton Hill Football (a team that she helped create). I didn't have the chance to ask her these questions during the interview process, but it was nice to finally know her opinions on such matters as the goods/bads of the football team thus far. The mock conference was also cool because I got to see a glimpse into the future of SHU. Rumors of a new dorm? A new dining hall? A new building devoted to the arts? Whoa. Things are definitely looking bright for this institute, and I could only see that through JoAnne Boyle's description.

One last thing that I thought was really great to see was that the President of a major university took the time out of her hectic schedule, in order to do a *MOCK* press conference. It made me think that she really cares about us, as students. It gave me a whole new appreciation for the staff/faculty and my fellow students at SHU.

Is it really the reporters fault that they are pulling false numbers? The numbers that they pull usually aren't researched by them. Isn't it typical for an editor, or some other outside source to pull up the statistics for a story? So if these statistics that are pulled for the story confuse the reader, who are we to blame? I know it all goes back to the rule of "Verify or Duck", but shouldn't that go for the editor as well? Like Bethany Merryman said, I am very scared of writing scientific data. Even if it is remotely incorrect, it will backfire in my face. Mistakes are easy to make when writing in this industry, and stats and facts only make it easier to screw up.