For this blog post, I will be examining all of my blog posts since my second portfolio and categorize some of them by depth, riskiness, discussion, intertextuality, timeliness, and coverage. I will then evaluate my recent work in comparison to my previous work and decide how I did overall.
I’m most proud of the depth of my blog post about the violinist. I thought very critically about this story. I find psychology very interesting, and this story had me thinking about why people do what they do. I made some educated guesses about why people might not have wanted to stop and listen to the violinist and related those reasons to why people might not want to read certain news.
I went into a fair amount of depth in my blog about verifying math sources. I pulled from my own experiences as an amateur journalist and related them to the material of the story.
Overall, I’m still pretty happy with my depth. I think I did a good job of going beyond what I read and relating it to my own experiences and what I’ve learned in class.
I think that my story about the Washington Post and the Roy Moore accuser was fairly risky. I compared the story to the campus rape story from the Rolling Stone. It is easy to come off as insensitive when discussing stories of sexual assault and rape, especially when discussing fake stories about those subjects. That didn’t stop me from being honest about them however, which I think could be seen by some as risky.
I believe I took a few risks in one of my math related blog posts. I admitted to having almost “published” fake news myself in an article because I almost didn’t double check it with a second source. I also admit just how bad I can be at math, and how tempting it is as a journalist to take a sources word for it when it comes to math. By admitting this, I was able to show the importance of not doing that, and writing the most truthful story possible. Admitting mistakes can be risky, but beneficial.
I’m happy with my riskiness. I think by admitting mistakes and talking about controversial and sensitive subjects, I produced interesting blog posts.
I had a very pleasant discussion with Andrea about how the Washington Post handled the potential fake news situation. She brought up how easy it can be for a reporter to panic when things aren’t panning out, which I agree with and found very interesting. We both felt that the Washington Post did a great job with their fact checking and handled the situation very professionally.
I left a comment on one of Abby’s posts where she brought up the idea that people the people who would pay to see Bell play regularly were the people who were ignoring him in the station. I hadn’t considered this idea before reading her post. It made me think of how we interpret value, and that is what I discussed in my reply to her post.
I definitely could have been more active in replying to people’s posts this time around. I am happy with the discussions I did have, however. Reading the replies to my post and reading other people’s posts really made me think of things in relation to the stories that I hadn’t thought about before, which made for some interesting discussions.
In my blog post about the violinist in the busy station, I pulled a bit from conversations we had in class. We talked a lot about how people often only go to news sources that they already know aligns with their viewpoints and avoid the rest. I was reminded of this while reading about Bell and how people didn’t listen to him because it wasn’t what they knew they liked and they didn’t seek it out on their own. Pulling from class conversation makes this a more intertextual blog post.
I discussed the Washington Post dodging a public relations bullet by doing proper research. I related this to the campus rape story in the Rolling Stones that we read and discussed in class a few weeks ago. Comparatively, the Washington Post did everything that Rolling Stone should have done, at least as far as the extensive fact checking is concerned. This post is one of my more intertextual posts because I referred to a story that we read in class previously.
I think that I really improved my intertextuality this time. I did a better job of relating the stories we read to information we discussed in class and stories we read earlier in the semester.
My timeliness was decent this time around. I was able to get everything that I blogged about up on time. A few examples were my blogs about fake news and the Washington Post and my post about newsroom math.
My coverage is probably my weakest area. I missed two blog posts, which hurts my coverage. I did, however, provide good coverage on the blog posts that I did get up. One example is my coverage of the story of the violinist. I pulled from other conversations in class and in that way, covered the story fairly well.
To conclude, I really think that I improved my intertextuality and riskiness since my last portfolio. I’m happy with the depth that I’ve maintained. I had quality discussions in which I got different perspectives, but I could have had more discussions. My timeliness and coverage were my weakest areas.
Source: Portfolio 4