Coverage and Timeliness- Not only do I cover things well, but I also do them on time

There's a lot of Crime in Chicago- and everywhere else
Don't Mess Up- no one likes people who make mistakes
The Best Stories are the Bad Ones- because who wants to read about anything good?
Newspapers are Unfair...- apparently always
Not a Classic for Me- I go against the standard
The Amazing One Sentence Article- not a sideshow attraction, I promise
A Newspaper Novella- can't anyone just write a normal article?
Yes! The Inverted Pyramid is Back, Baby!- after reading this, you'll be just as excited about it too
The "Deep" Stuff- the Ethics of Journalism- you always have to do the right thing

Depth- Diving deep and sinking in

Don't Mess Up
Not a Classic for Me
Yes! The Inverted Pyramid is Back, Baby!

Interaction- What's the fun if we can't interact?

Don't Mess Up

Discussions- Where people talk about how amazing my entries are...or, um, something like that...

There's a lot of Crime in Chicago
The "Deep" Stuff- the Ethics of Journalism

Xenoblogging- totally made up word

Comment Primo
Bethany- Creative Crime Report, Morrie's Man
Dani- http://blogs.setonhill.edu/DaniellaChoynowski/2007/11/just_the_factsand_then_some.html
Mitch- Like a Pilot Episdoe of Some Court Drama, Creative- Maybe. Chaucer- No!

Comment Grande
Mitch- Queens on the Diamond
Maddie- This is So a Story!!

Wildcard
Nostalgia- reach for the tissues

El fin.

Upon this realization, I started to feel a little nostalgic. While I wasn't part of the class the pioneered blogging at SHU (that was the class of 2007), I am in the group that has blogged the longest. For four years I've turned to Moveable Type to express my like, dislike, or all and all hate of classroom readings. I've written completely random entries about all sorts of topics, from driving to "Gilmore Girls." I have interacted with classmates, shared ideas, argued, and formed weird blogging friendships. For four years, I have to say blogging has taken up a lot of my time.

In honor of my last official entries, I am taking a look back at my first: Look at Me, I have a Blog! Wow was it bad (and yet for some reason was cited in a grad student's paper). A lot of my first entries were pretty sad, a little over eager, and sometimes not even very informative. However, they were still distinctly me. I am proud to say I have maintained my sarcastic and hopefully somewhat witty tone throughout my time blogging. I developed a "blogging personality," if you will. Out of it came a tone and a blogging name- "Special K" (which is not a drug reference, geez. It's a play on the cereal name because my last name starts with K. I always thought that'd be obvious until I realized it really wasn't). I have also developed my skills as a blogger. My entries are no longer the ones written by the freshman of four years ago. No, I have progressed, dug deeper, explored more, and have come out a well seasoned blogging senior.

This isn't a good bye to blogging. I'm sure I'll start up when the mood hits or whenever I have something particularly snarky or interesting I need to share with the world. But until then, it's been fun.

While most of the chapter was just a restatement of the Code of Ethics (summary: be honest and fair when reporting), I liked the section on plagiarism, creatively titled "Plagiarism: The Unoriginal Sin". Within this section were reporting standards by Robert Steele that outline all the questions journalists should ask themselves when reporting on and then writing an article. It is a pretty standard checklist for a news story, yet I can see it being helpful as well. "What is my purpose?" and "How reliable are my sources?" are great questions when writing-- sometimes, under deadline, I could see a reporter quickly composing a story in order to finish it on time, without realizing they are using unreliable sources or even having a real angle or purpose for writing. Take some time out and go through the checklist in your head-- the article will only be better because of it.

(Side note: why does "TK" stand for "To come"? Shouldn't it be "TC"?)

Chapter 10 of ABNW could also have been titled, "Vanessa's high school journalism classes". Yes, years and years ago I took several high school journalism classes that instilled in me the the same ideas as presented in the chapter. Also, experience has made the newswriting style almost inevitable (I didn't say I was good at it- just that I can do it). However, reviews are always good.

"Reporters fall into two categories: those who get assignments and those who generate ideas. And of those who get assignments, there are also two categories: those who do what they're told and those who expand the assignment and make the story their own" (290).

I loved this quote. Journalists should keep this phrase in mind when faced with a difficult (or even overly easy assignment). Who do you want to be- the easy way out writer or the dive right in and get the best story possible one? I think we're all trying for the latter here. However, deadlines can pose problems or a novice writer might be too afraid to "expand the assignment" since they are used to just doing what they are told (I would be that reporter). However, try to do the best assignment possible, no matter what the subject, and take a risk every now and then. It might just work *cough*Onesentencereporter*cough*.

Again, I find this to be another article that goes against the norm of regular journalism writing. Sure, it's a feature piece, and you can apparently do whatever you want in a feature piece, but the long sentences and witty quips ("Don't break a nail, honey") seem pretty different than the newswriting we are being taught. To make a reference to a class I'm currently taking, an article like this seems almost more like a personal essay, due to the description and tone of the work. Sometimes the reader just wants the stripped down information about an incident, but sometimes, we want to know the people behind the facts.

"Maybe Ken Fuson is the next Geoffery Chaucer" (212).

No, he's not. I spent an entire semester in a class all about Chaucer and never once did he write like this. Everything the editors of ABNW said was so great about the article truly annoyed me. I'm sorry, but it's not the way I would ever write an article, even a little piece like this one. "Repeating 'by' creates parallels". No, what it does is seem overly repetative. "Semicolon breaks the sentence into manageable parts". So do periods. This just seems to go against all the journalism writing techniques I've learned thus far. When I try to get creative like this, it backfires and doesn't get published. Maybe I'll go work for "The Des Moines Register".

If I have to chose an article though, I would say Dorothy Thompson's "Mr. Wells and Mass Delusion" works for me. While I am not writing an opinion piece, this was an article that wasn't too "hard" (like hard news). The technique I found useful was the tone of the piece. It wasn't too serious or commanding, even thought it was a persuasive essay, but read much like, and I hate to say it, a magazine piece. I've gotten used to this sort of short clipped get-it-all-in-as-few-words-as-humanly-possible style of newspaper writing that to see a longer more prose style clicked for me as something I could possibly use in my article. Since it would be more of a feature article, I could potentially have a little fun with it and use a similar style.

The part I especially liked was, "They have demonstrated...they have cast...they have shown...they have proved..." etc. (264). While I couldn't replicate this style in my article (plagerism=bad), the idea of a list of things seems like a good device to use, especially in an article like mine. A list of ways students feel they are unprepared, perhaps?

Ok, while that's not a direct quote from the book, it might as well be. Ever get the feeling you can't do anything right? That's sort of how this book made me feel. The public looks down on journalists so much, apparently. Anything can be considered "unfair" through the public's perception, which makes it hard for journalists to catch a break it seems.

Apart from being a little let down at how others view journalists, the book did provide some interesting advice on how to kill these negative assumptions. It's one thing to say what the newspapers are doing unfairly, but this problem also needs solved as well. The advice given for what journalists and newspapers can do will help publications run in the best and most ethical way possible so that the negative views slowly disappear. Who knew journalists were liked about as much as lawyers?

Sound familiar to anyone? It's the same old song- journalists only report on the bad news, bad news sells, etc., etc. However, if we keep reading about how only the bad news gets printed, or how the good stories are practically hidden on the page, there must be a good bit of truth to it, hm?

The chapter doesn't really give too many examples of what can be done to fix the problem, though. Ok, sure, report on the good things as well as the bad but after the obvious, what else is there? The media reports manin on the bad news because A) that's the interesting story that people need to know about and B) it's what sells. Bad news is generally interesting and good news, while interesting in it's own right, won't create the same buzz as a good accident. Although it might be a "best practice" to report each equally, even the book seems to know that the bad news is what's always going to be out there.

Sometimes, you just can't win. As Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists outlines, there are a lot of mistakes that can go into newspaper reporting...as well as a lot of corrections. In newswriting, correcting the error is more important than the error itself; if we don't admit to our problems and mistakes, we have created distrust in our readers, further propelling the negative journalist stereotype that is apparently so common in the public.

"They say they understand that reporters have to work very hard and fast under pressure, and they aknowledge that is not a system likely to produce perfection...but they do not believe this should exempt the newspaper from cleaning up its messes promptly and fully."

(HA! There was even an error in that sentence- can you spot it?) While, as someone going into a journalism-type field, I know first hand how easily errors can occur, I too find myself laughing at the paper when I see simple grammatical or punctuation errors and think "Shouldn't someone catch that? Wanna hire me as a copy editor? I'd find it" (Ok, I just really want a job). However, it's easy to see other people's mistakes. I, God knows, and not free from error myself- a missed comma here, a wrongly spelled word there. Rarely have I ever had any factual information incorrect, but even the little things look bad to the public. Readers expect to read something that is edited correctly and well, free from errors, neveryoumind that they were still editing at 3:00am when the words begin to blur from sleep depervation and too much coffee.

Has the chapters stated, though, it is the responsibility of the newspapers and journalists to acknowledge these mistakes and correct them in a timely manner. However, for everything? Do we really need a section for every incorrect comma splice? The big stuff- sure. The little stuff- I'm sorry that it happened, but I'm probably not going to point it out to the larger public.

While Meyer did present a lot of information, I think she may have provided just a little too much. When I think of a crime article, I think of something a bit more concise and to the point; Meyer's article read more like a crime novel instead of an article about sex-offenders. I'm also not sure how I feel about the point of view she used- I don't want to be in the room with her, I just want the information. An excellent article, to be sure, but not the best example of crime reporting.

Coverage and Timeliness- All the entries, all on time. Yes.

What's the Truth?-Heck if I know.
Digging for Buried Treasure- And I have yet to find any...
Creating Optimism- Yes, you can make it
Sink or Swim- Swim, hopefully
So That's Why I'm So Paranoid- Yeah, among other reasons
Go Ahead, Shoot the Messenger- This time, he deserves it
In Conclusion... - The end of the book

Depth- Sometimes, I go above and beyond

Creating Optimism
Go Ahead, Shoot the Messenger

Interaction- Where I play nicely with others

What's the Truth?
Creating Optimism

Discussions- Entries where I get people talking, er, commenting

Digging for Buried Treasure
What's the Truth?
Creating Optimism
So That's Why I'm So Paranoid

Xenoblogging- Totally a made up word

Comment Grande:
Dani- Only Chicken???
Tiffany- Statistics Disproven
Maddie- Americans Afraid of Risks?
Mitch- Blame O.J.- He Don't Mind, Poll Dancing

Comment Grande:
Tiffany- Frog Blog
Maddie- Whoever Will Win, the Foxes or the Hedgehogs?

Wildcard:
Halloween Scrooge

"One of the most common is that of the vilian, the victim, and the hero. If a story can be arranged in this format, it will get media attention, often without a great deal of scrutiny as to who, exactly, the respective players are and by what criteria they were assigned their roles" (188).

As journalists, we are casting people in a play and assigning them roles which they will forever keep. Ever hear of an actor that can't break out of a previous role (once Marcia Brady, always Marcia Brady)? Same goes for the "characters" in articles. Once a jouranlist have villanized a company or group, they will always been seen in this negative light. Even if they do something amazing, like donate millions of dollars to some charity, the journalist will continue to cast them as a villian and focus on the negatives becasue, well, the negatives sell.

What have I gained from this book? To make sure I know my facts...all of them. Look at both sides of the story, and report on them too. And nothing is ever as it seems.

(Sidenote: This is my 201st entry. The 200th was the Halloween one yesterday. 4 years of blogging, 200 entries. Wow do I feel old)

I can't blame it all on getting older. Halloween takes on an entirely new form when you're older; I still had to have a great new costume, but the goal is not scare but how little can I wear and still be decent/look like I'm wearing an outfit. Also, instead of coveting sweet candy, I can enjoy treats of a different sort now. So shouldn't Halloween still be exciting?

Honestly, I just sort of forgot it was Halloween time. I'm so busy with school and activities that time literally just slips by. Up until last week, when I saw Halloween decorations out in the stores, I said, "Isn't that a bit early?" After this weekend's costumed festivities, the actual day of Halloween becomes just Wednesday, not one filled with spirits and excitement of the past. I guess I'm a Halloween scrooge, but don't worry- I love Christmas.

Chapter 9 in It Ain't Necessarily So looks at how peer reviewed journals are not always the best, since the peers might have had an agenda while reviewing the article. (As someone who has learned to put a lot of importance on peer reviewed sources for research paper thanks to Dr. Jerz, this was slightly surprising) Often, the media ignores the findings of the article and instead focuses on how it was funded- like a study showing the benefits of calcium funded by the dairy corporations. The results are often dismissed as biased and therefore not useable if the media focuses more on the funders than the research itself. However, can you blame them? Perhaps I'm just used to the media conditioning, but if I'm reading a story about how bad Coca-Cola is for you, funded by the Pepsi Co., of course I'm not going to put as much faith in the resutls. As we have learned, polls, surveys, and research studies can be skewed one way or the other, depending on what is the desired result. Sure, the research itself might carry a lot of meaning, but allowing the names of the funders to come out can greatly impact how that study is viewed in the public eye.

"But reporters who excelled at conveying one part of the explanation paid no heed to an important second part" (170).

Chapter 10 takes on the idea that the media is often so focused on one part of a study or research that it fails to see the rest. This sounds familiar...haven't we learned this previously? Yes, the media picks and chooses what it reports and how, whether it is by only emphasising the bad side of the story or making something out of nothing. There is always a story behind the story, the good behind the bad, and more facts behind those presented. Nothing is as it seems- polls and surveys aren't always done correctly, stories are reported on without having all the information, and scientific research neglects to look at all sides of a problem.