I was reading some of my classmates' blogs this morning for fun, and I was deciding what my blog should be about, too. It was between the process editors have to go through regarding stories that might or might not be "appropriate" and something that has to do with copy editing.
After reading Scott Frankel's entertaining blog this morning, I will write about neither. I'll have to take the other side of his conclusion this morning.
He wrote about the media coverage of Sarah Palin and how we have been, for the past week, inundated with all things Sarah Palin. She has given a plethora of interviews, including multiple ones to CNN; she also let Matt Lauer interview her as she was cutting up some food in her kitchen in Alaska and as one of her daughters wore high heels (really! she was in the background and could be seen rummaging around).
Scott wrote, "I think it’s best for her to stop feeling the need to constantly defend herself in the public spotlight. Just go on with life." But readers, try to put yourself in Palin's shoes. Pretty much, imagine get skewered, slammed, and slimed all across America. Imagine getting strongly made fun of and being the punchline of every influential comedian and talk show host across America. Imagine being one of the key reasons that a genuine war hero can be ensured he will not be the next President of the United States. Imagine getting thrust on the national scene unexpectedly and botching a couple of interviews.
You'd feel the need to defend yourself, too. And Palin has every right to "clear her name" and try to let the American people know who she is and understand her side of things. Scott wrote, "It’s almost as if she’s insecure, and feels the need to constantly tell America that she can be a successful leader." Well, I don't know about the insecure part, but she clearly feels the need to let America know she can be a successful leader and that she isn't a joke. She wants to remind America that she isn't who the media made her out to be -- she did have a meteoric rise to the governor's mansion and knocked off the sitting Republican governor in the primary race. Impressive stuff.
Scott, the prank phone call thing occurred before the election, I believe, and that Africa as a country debacle is only according to some "unidentified" John McCain source -- but we can't see transcripts of those conversations and know what really went down. Clearly, the McCain people want to thrust the blame on her; they clearly don't have the capability of being generous and respectful -- like McCain himself. These things, for Sarah Palin, are important to clear up. If she wants a chance to have a greater future and be involved in politics on the national level and maybe run for president herself, she feels she has to clear up the drubbing she has taken.
Simply staying quiet was not an option, considering the McCain campaign kept her well-hidden. The McCain campaign mishandled her. Showing fear that a vice presidential candidate cannot hold an interview does not showcase confidence to a country.
Well, now she's everywhere and has rightfully explained her side of things regarding clothes and that African country thing (kind of strange for her to say she was taken out of context, though! That's not a straight up denial ...). To answer Scott's question, all of this attention is good, not bad, because she at least gets to tell her side of the story.
Of course, none of this changes some of my concerns I had -- and most of the country realizes she is too extreme and unquestionably not knowledgeable enough regarding domestic and foreign affairs -- at least, not even close to Joe Biden's, McCain's, or Barack Obama's knowledge. So, she has tried to undo the damage that has been done, but that damage will last. She seems to be popular within her own party, which is always a good thing. Like many have said, Democrats would love to see her win the primary for the presidential nomination in 2012; it would be a "gift" to us Democrats.
But first she had to clear a few things up. And unlike Scott, Bill Maher, and others, I do not blame her.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama Country
On the evening of Nov. 4, 2008, America was proud. We elected Senator Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, and the effect of this decision immediately reverberated around the world. Obama's name was the toast of the country Nov. 5, and he certainly received Front Page Treatment.
I'd like to take us through a few of these front pages and discuss them. The Press-Register, of Mobile, Ala., went a pretty safe route. I believe the paper has it right when under "Obama!" it has "CHANGE HAS COME" in red -- and all other headline text in black. This red is symbolic of change itself, as red is different than black; it also stands out. Presentation-wise, there is a nice info column on the left hand side of the page, and lots of newspapers did not do this. The "Press-Register" is right in trying to provide as much information as possible. Unfortunately, the front page, however, is very bland. The picture of Obama is not even a good one, and it's much too small for the enormity of the accomplishment and the change that has truly come to American culture and politics.
Plus, the very top of the page is about sports, which is completely inappropriate. The whole front page should be about the U.S. elections.
This next one is a matter of taste, but I completely love what the San Francisco Chronicle did for its front page. The entire page is a crystal-clear image of Barack Obama against the backdrop of a dark sky. The image is truly powerful and goes along with "CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA," as Obama symbolizes that change. The contrast of the white OBAMA letters to the rest of the image is creative. Smartly, there is a lot of negative space in the photograph, which makes the focus even more on the "change" (Obama) that has been vaulted to the most powerful position on the world.
To add, though, it's extremely obvious that Obama and the image have been airbrushed. If you look at it closely, you'd question if the image were literally Obama as he was. It's too shiny, too fake, and too perfect. The overreaction to trying to present Obama in a perfect light might cost the image's credibility -- but overall, the idea was grand.
Families are important in America and most other places, after all. The Washington Post did not forget about this fact, so it's appropriate that its dominant visual image for the front page was a marvelous photograph of Barack Obama, his wife and his two daughters -- amid American flags and a dark background. Barack Obama's tie and Michelle Obama's dress match up (regarding color) with the flags perfectly. Additionally, instead of using the word "change" like seemingly every front page headline, the top simply reads, "Obama Makes History." And the deck under it reads, "U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President" and on a second line "Democrats Expand Control Of Congress." All three of these lines are accurate -- and the order of them is perfect.
This front page does not go for glitz or too much style over substance. More impressive regarding this front page is the photograph below the dominant visual image. There is an image of the reaction of African Americans as CNN declares Obama the victor. This shot is touching and emotional, and it not only represented the joy of the individuals in the photograph -- but it represented a historical triumph that deserved the jubilation that ensued. The only criticism is one that will make my entry sound hypocritical. The front page seems formulaic and might not grab as much attention as others, but the decisions that were made were calculated and done right in a front page that will live on in history.
And finally, it's time to talk about the two main Chicago newspapers that can proudly call Obama their hometown fellow. The Chicago Sun-Times tried something bold, by having the photograph in black and white. The picture was just of Obama's face -- in a not particularly attractive shot. Now, if there's some kind of genius connection of how our history of "black and white" in our country (in an ugly way) is portrayed in the image, then it's genius. My guess is that was not the thinking, so it's pretty much a glorified mugshot that's kind of annoying. All it says is Mr. President, too. Well, this statement is not accurate, as Obama won't officially be the President until inauguration. I guess it wouldn't look as cool to write "Mr. President-Elect."
The Chicago Tribune's literal presentation was perfect -- and good thing, too, since the newspaper has the largest circulation in Illinois out of all the newspapers in the state. There is a colorful rectangular image that takes up 90 percent of the page, and under it there is a deck that explains Obama talking at Grant Park, emphasizing "Change has come to America." The image above is awesome, as it's a bit of an action shot with Obama moving his arm. It seems like one of those photographs that is literally a snapshot in time. Nostalgic, if you will. The image, with Obama's happiness but also his stare toward the future, brings back memories and more memories of the long journey -- and reminds me of the time "Good Riddance" was played in that final "Seinfeld" episode, with all of the images of the past. The image is emotional and makes you reminisce about the past, and at the bottom of the photo, on large letters taking up a whole line is OBAMA and on the next is "Our Next President." At the bottom section, I like the image of a mini American flag.
We should all be proud to be Americans, and for the most part, the newspapers should be proud, too.
I'd like to take us through a few of these front pages and discuss them. The Press-Register, of Mobile, Ala., went a pretty safe route. I believe the paper has it right when under "Obama!" it has "CHANGE HAS COME" in red -- and all other headline text in black. This red is symbolic of change itself, as red is different than black; it also stands out. Presentation-wise, there is a nice info column on the left hand side of the page, and lots of newspapers did not do this. The "Press-Register" is right in trying to provide as much information as possible. Unfortunately, the front page, however, is very bland. The picture of Obama is not even a good one, and it's much too small for the enormity of the accomplishment and the change that has truly come to American culture and politics.
Plus, the very top of the page is about sports, which is completely inappropriate. The whole front page should be about the U.S. elections.
This next one is a matter of taste, but I completely love what the San Francisco Chronicle did for its front page. The entire page is a crystal-clear image of Barack Obama against the backdrop of a dark sky. The image is truly powerful and goes along with "CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA," as Obama symbolizes that change. The contrast of the white OBAMA letters to the rest of the image is creative. Smartly, there is a lot of negative space in the photograph, which makes the focus even more on the "change" (Obama) that has been vaulted to the most powerful position on the world.
To add, though, it's extremely obvious that Obama and the image have been airbrushed. If you look at it closely, you'd question if the image were literally Obama as he was. It's too shiny, too fake, and too perfect. The overreaction to trying to present Obama in a perfect light might cost the image's credibility -- but overall, the idea was grand.
Families are important in America and most other places, after all. The Washington Post did not forget about this fact, so it's appropriate that its dominant visual image for the front page was a marvelous photograph of Barack Obama, his wife and his two daughters -- amid American flags and a dark background. Barack Obama's tie and Michelle Obama's dress match up (regarding color) with the flags perfectly. Additionally, instead of using the word "change" like seemingly every front page headline, the top simply reads, "Obama Makes History." And the deck under it reads, "U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President" and on a second line "Democrats Expand Control Of Congress." All three of these lines are accurate -- and the order of them is perfect.
This front page does not go for glitz or too much style over substance. More impressive regarding this front page is the photograph below the dominant visual image. There is an image of the reaction of African Americans as CNN declares Obama the victor. This shot is touching and emotional, and it not only represented the joy of the individuals in the photograph -- but it represented a historical triumph that deserved the jubilation that ensued. The only criticism is one that will make my entry sound hypocritical. The front page seems formulaic and might not grab as much attention as others, but the decisions that were made were calculated and done right in a front page that will live on in history.
And finally, it's time to talk about the two main Chicago newspapers that can proudly call Obama their hometown fellow. The Chicago Sun-Times tried something bold, by having the photograph in black and white. The picture was just of Obama's face -- in a not particularly attractive shot. Now, if there's some kind of genius connection of how our history of "black and white" in our country (in an ugly way) is portrayed in the image, then it's genius. My guess is that was not the thinking, so it's pretty much a glorified mugshot that's kind of annoying. All it says is Mr. President, too. Well, this statement is not accurate, as Obama won't officially be the President until inauguration. I guess it wouldn't look as cool to write "Mr. President-Elect."
The Chicago Tribune's literal presentation was perfect -- and good thing, too, since the newspaper has the largest circulation in Illinois out of all the newspapers in the state. There is a colorful rectangular image that takes up 90 percent of the page, and under it there is a deck that explains Obama talking at Grant Park, emphasizing "Change has come to America." The image above is awesome, as it's a bit of an action shot with Obama moving his arm. It seems like one of those photographs that is literally a snapshot in time. Nostalgic, if you will. The image, with Obama's happiness but also his stare toward the future, brings back memories and more memories of the long journey -- and reminds me of the time "Good Riddance" was played in that final "Seinfeld" episode, with all of the images of the past. The image is emotional and makes you reminisce about the past, and at the bottom of the photo, on large letters taking up a whole line is OBAMA and on the next is "Our Next President." At the bottom section, I like the image of a mini American flag.
We should all be proud to be Americans, and for the most part, the newspapers should be proud, too.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Copy editing and the changing world
Journalism has been quickly evolving. The Internet has certainly taken off within the last decade. And with this medium of the Internet making and breaking careers, as well as being the place where many people get their daily information, there comes a lot of responsibility and also a whole new way of thinking. Amy Gahran raises an interesting point regarding the readiness of college students in the journalism world.
Will we be ready and prepared based on knowledge we are given and the way we are taught? Do we need to be taught with a greater emphasis on the changing world? Are things much more different now than they used to be, and do the professors teaching us get us ready for any difference that there might be?
Part of this whole process is copy editing. For most mediums, there are strict rules and regulations -- and rightfully so. A strict style is actually a major key to a publication's success. People always know where a newspaper stands in terms of style, and the consistency and focus on accuracy have been dependable for a long time. But in terms of the higher up curriculum, is enough focused on copy editing? Certainly, at the University of Illinois, there seems to be an emphasis on it. When writing for reporting classes, "style" is certainly graded, and the class I'm currently in right now is indeed an editing one. Editing is very underrated because without it, a good story might as well be no story; if everyone laughs at the one spelling mistake or the inconsistencies within a story, no one will focus on the tremendous amount of work that was done.
But I believe in most colleges around the country, including this one, copy editing is not something that's built into the system. Sure, we learn about the "AP stylebook," but we are not becoming experts on it, as we seem to be beginners. Even the top bright student in any given class sometimes can't catch 9 out of 10 or even 8 out of 10 copy editing errors, and the reason isn't because he or she is not intelligent. If copy editing were bred into early classes and if there was more of a focus on it, then other publications would be mightily impressed, and journalism as a whole would benefit.
Additionally, I want to get back to what I was talking about before regarding the way that mediums are changing. With the Internet, I have noticed that in many places, copy editing isn't really being used. Is there a difference because something is read off the Internet as opposed to the text being on a printed page? The answer is yes, but in terms of principle, value, and credibility, I want to say no. The Internet ought to be treated in a very serious way. There should be media classes regarding the Internet collaborated with copy editing and all of the other important tenants of journalism.
In a nutshell: There need to be more classes. Students should be given as much information from experts as possible. After college, and maybe one year of graduate school, the education in terms of the focus on a pupil stops. Moving away from the realm of copy editing, do we know enough about economics and business to write about other numbers? Do we know enough about history to refer to other events? What about science?
Here at Illinois, we are required to take a certain amount of hours of other classes. I think this system is fine as is. If we collaborate with other departments, as suggested by Gahran, then do we lose out on journalism itself? There are not an unlimited amount of hours; we can't take 30 hours per semester. I think the system that is set up regarding other departments is fine. Journalists are rarely "experts" in a beat they are covering, but the journalists are certainly good at interviewing and processing information. The journalism itself should be emphasized more by journalism schools, and students should take their other classes seriously so there is a foundation of knowledge to expand on. An ignorant journalist is a bad journalist.
I don't think the collaboration business is a good idea, but I am always up for keeping an open mind, and if something genius can be worked out that benefits all of us, then that information would be important to know and should be strongly considered.
Will we be ready and prepared based on knowledge we are given and the way we are taught? Do we need to be taught with a greater emphasis on the changing world? Are things much more different now than they used to be, and do the professors teaching us get us ready for any difference that there might be?
Part of this whole process is copy editing. For most mediums, there are strict rules and regulations -- and rightfully so. A strict style is actually a major key to a publication's success. People always know where a newspaper stands in terms of style, and the consistency and focus on accuracy have been dependable for a long time. But in terms of the higher up curriculum, is enough focused on copy editing? Certainly, at the University of Illinois, there seems to be an emphasis on it. When writing for reporting classes, "style" is certainly graded, and the class I'm currently in right now is indeed an editing one. Editing is very underrated because without it, a good story might as well be no story; if everyone laughs at the one spelling mistake or the inconsistencies within a story, no one will focus on the tremendous amount of work that was done.
But I believe in most colleges around the country, including this one, copy editing is not something that's built into the system. Sure, we learn about the "AP stylebook," but we are not becoming experts on it, as we seem to be beginners. Even the top bright student in any given class sometimes can't catch 9 out of 10 or even 8 out of 10 copy editing errors, and the reason isn't because he or she is not intelligent. If copy editing were bred into early classes and if there was more of a focus on it, then other publications would be mightily impressed, and journalism as a whole would benefit.
Additionally, I want to get back to what I was talking about before regarding the way that mediums are changing. With the Internet, I have noticed that in many places, copy editing isn't really being used. Is there a difference because something is read off the Internet as opposed to the text being on a printed page? The answer is yes, but in terms of principle, value, and credibility, I want to say no. The Internet ought to be treated in a very serious way. There should be media classes regarding the Internet collaborated with copy editing and all of the other important tenants of journalism.
In a nutshell: There need to be more classes. Students should be given as much information from experts as possible. After college, and maybe one year of graduate school, the education in terms of the focus on a pupil stops. Moving away from the realm of copy editing, do we know enough about economics and business to write about other numbers? Do we know enough about history to refer to other events? What about science?
Here at Illinois, we are required to take a certain amount of hours of other classes. I think this system is fine as is. If we collaborate with other departments, as suggested by Gahran, then do we lose out on journalism itself? There are not an unlimited amount of hours; we can't take 30 hours per semester. I think the system that is set up regarding other departments is fine. Journalists are rarely "experts" in a beat they are covering, but the journalists are certainly good at interviewing and processing information. The journalism itself should be emphasized more by journalism schools, and students should take their other classes seriously so there is a foundation of knowledge to expand on. An ignorant journalist is a bad journalist.
I don't think the collaboration business is a good idea, but I am always up for keeping an open mind, and if something genius can be worked out that benefits all of us, then that information would be important to know and should be strongly considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)