Here's one from a guy you should get familiar with, media critic Jack Shafer of the electronic magazine Slate.com. This column on how newspapers serve up a steady diet of leftovers from their internet editions is especially timely for students in Communications 207 (editing for publication) because it updates the chapter on news editing and copy flow we read for Thursday, but it's important for all of us.
What does the future hold for newspapers? That's anybody's guess, but you'll be able to guess better after you read Shafer.
And it will affect all of us, even those of you who have no intention of going into the newspaper business (or like me who have no intention of going back to newspapering). The news business still sets a lot of the standards for the communications industry. So it's worth knowing.
Besides, questions like this -- what does the future hold for newspapers? -- have a way of popping up on midterm and final exam essay tests.
Read it, and be ready to discuss in class.
Here's another link. It's to Jim Romenesko's blog on newspapering and the newspaper business. Everything you need to know (and some you don't!) to keep up with the industry.
Check out, for example, the link to Washington Post metro columnist Mark Fisher's column on the Capitol Hill blogger who "outs" gay politicians. The headline catches Fisher's tone nicely: "Who Among Us Would Cast the First Stone? This Guy." Romenesko keeps track of the news biz for the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. There's a world of information in the FAQ about his blog, which is titled, logically enough, Romenesko.
5 comments:
The column of Fisher's was much extremely opinionated against Vargus. Attacking Vargus' methods and ethics were main intentions of this column. Clearly, Vargus' tactics deserve research, you can't just "out" a gay guy because you want him to be gay so you can prove a point. Fisher seems very impatient on the subject of Vargus' "outtings", and almost a little outraged. The news article seemed to be a bit more controled and calm in comparison to Fisher's column, which can be attributed to the formality of newspapers in contrast to the casualty and opinion-oriented character of one's column.
Fischer's column is more opinionated than Vargus'. The Vargus column was a run of the mill, just the facts type of column explaing what was and is going on, and how Roger's is going around outting people. Fischer is still explaining what is going on, but he is using his opionion and not just sticking to the facts.
"But for all his earnest honesty, Rogers has a blind spot. His work requires him to play God."
That quote stuck out to me because Fischer is saying that himself. Also, he says "...what appears in a newspaper such as this one remains quite different from what Rogers does." He is saying that he, a journalist, is differant than Rogers. However, Vargas didn't say anything like this, just sticking to the facts.
Jose Antonio Vargas' story was all about outing this Senator, Larry Craig. By making an ass out of other people it helps his story blogs get more and more hits. His way of telling the story is just trying to make other feel as if they are in the wrong for living their life they way they want.
Marc Fisher's story is almost a reply back to Vargas' telling the same story from a different angle and in a better way. "Koering convinced Rogers that he was, as the blogger puts it, "on a journey to a different place." Rogers agreed not to name the senator on his blog. Koering later announced he is gay, said he appreciated Rogers's restraint and won reelection." He shows that not everyone just because theyre gay dont do their job. "Whatever his motive, Rogers's vigilante reporting turns his targets' closets into even darker, scarier places. Do Rogers's outings really liberate anyone, or do the public figures he names just add another bolt and chain to the closet door?" says Fisher with closing.
Vargas' story is like a reminder to all poloticians, or congeressmen, or sentors to be careful with their private life. As for Fisher his story is saying why should people hide because of who they are, they're still getting the job done, and thats why should matter.
I thought the article on poynter.org went much more indepth with Craig's story and his character than the article on Washingstonpost.com. I also thought that it casted Larry Craig in a more positive light on the poynter site.
The column by Marc Fisher is obviously more opinionated than the article by Vargas.When someone gives their own opinion on a matter, they usually criticize or attack another person. Each of these writers(Fisher and Rogers) blame others of hypocracy in some way or another, however, they too are being hypocritical. Vargas on the other hand, simply wrote the facts of the story. He neither supported Rogers nor criticized him. To me, a true reporter should write like Vargas. As a reader, however, I am very interested in colums similar to Fisher's.
Post a Comment