When you hear the word "pirate," what image pops into your head? Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom? Eye patches and bottles of rum in the 18th century? Sitting on a slow moving boat through a ride in Disney World?
I know when I first heard about the Somalian piracy problem, that's what I thought of. When you are not educated about a story, you might think it's a joke, or a "bright" for the page. Disney has taught us that pirates are fun and entertaining. People dress up as them for Halloween. Video games are made about them.
But these modern-day pirates are serious.
They are hijacking ships with oil, taking hostages and asking for ransom money. If ships have to be rerouted, the cost of oil is going to increase because the cost to deliver the oil will increase. They are living lavish lives and costing countries a lot of money.
As editors, we need to think about the effect one word can have on a reader. We need to make sure headlines are clear and written to convey how serious the story is. We need to make sure stories are edited so that the point of the story is transparent.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Online news judgment
Yesterday in class, we talked about what stories we would put on our A1. We had to weigh what the most important stories were for our readers. But when looking at news Web sites this afternoon, it got me to thinking: How do editors choose what should be at the top of their Web sites?
News judgment for online has many of the same aspects of newspaper judgment. One must consider what the reader must know. But since the Internet is so much more fluid, editors can choose to put lighter stories up for just a little while, and take them down if something more important breaks. Newspaper editors must consider what the most important news will be when the paper is printed, but online editors get to tell readers what the most important news is at that exact moment. And that is a large benefit to be able to tell readers what they need to know when they need to know it.
But do editors put certain items higher on their sites because they know they are going to get a lot of clicks? CNN.com ranks their stories in one section of their site by the 10 most popular. At the time I am writing this, the top story is about Obama reversing Bush's policies, Gun sales spiking after the election gets second place, and the 10 healthiest grocery stores gets first. It's interesting that the top two deal with politics and the third is a lighter story. So how do we learn proper news judgment for online journalism?
News judgment for online has many of the same aspects of newspaper judgment. One must consider what the reader must know. But since the Internet is so much more fluid, editors can choose to put lighter stories up for just a little while, and take them down if something more important breaks. Newspaper editors must consider what the most important news will be when the paper is printed, but online editors get to tell readers what the most important news is at that exact moment. And that is a large benefit to be able to tell readers what they need to know when they need to know it.
But do editors put certain items higher on their sites because they know they are going to get a lot of clicks? CNN.com ranks their stories in one section of their site by the 10 most popular. At the time I am writing this, the top story is about Obama reversing Bush's policies, Gun sales spiking after the election gets second place, and the 10 healthiest grocery stores gets first. It's interesting that the top two deal with politics and the third is a lighter story. So how do we learn proper news judgment for online journalism?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
gchat for journalists
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that when I log on to any computer, I immediately go to gmail.com. I check to see if I have any new messages and then create a new tab for whatever other Web site I go to.
In the past two years that I've had gmail, it's become a minor obsession. I can easily see when I have a new message. And the best part of gmail? Gchat.
For anyone who doesn't have a gmail account, gchat is very much like AOL instant messenger. The difference is that once you e-mail someone with a gmail account from your gmail account, their name shows up in a "chat" box on the left side of the screen. One can then message any of their contacts when online. In AIM, one has to ask for a screen name and add the person manually. But gchat does it automatically and you talk to 'Joe Smith' instead of joeysmithdawg35 on AIM.
So how does this relate to journalism? E-mail is of course used to stay in touch with sources. And when both the reporter and the source have gmail, they are in each other's contact boxes. This summer, I had a source gchat me with something he forgot to tell me during the interview (I just saw his name in my chat box, which made me think of the idea for this post). It caught me off guard. But it was helpful.
I think it is OK for a source to tell me something quickly on gchat, or set up an interview if I was somewhere quiet and I had met the source previously. But if this is a trend and it continues, I think gchat might become a sort of crutch for journalists, just like some people like to use e-mail instead of picking up a phone.
In the past two years that I've had gmail, it's become a minor obsession. I can easily see when I have a new message. And the best part of gmail? Gchat.
For anyone who doesn't have a gmail account, gchat is very much like AOL instant messenger. The difference is that once you e-mail someone with a gmail account from your gmail account, their name shows up in a "chat" box on the left side of the screen. One can then message any of their contacts when online. In AIM, one has to ask for a screen name and add the person manually. But gchat does it automatically and you talk to 'Joe Smith' instead of joeysmithdawg35 on AIM.
So how does this relate to journalism? E-mail is of course used to stay in touch with sources. And when both the reporter and the source have gmail, they are in each other's contact boxes. This summer, I had a source gchat me with something he forgot to tell me during the interview (I just saw his name in my chat box, which made me think of the idea for this post). It caught me off guard. But it was helpful.
I think it is OK for a source to tell me something quickly on gchat, or set up an interview if I was somewhere quiet and I had met the source previously. But if this is a trend and it continues, I think gchat might become a sort of crutch for journalists, just like some people like to use e-mail instead of picking up a phone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
