Liar!

Journalism rests its foundations on integreity. Respect for the truth and the readers is essential--the news is an institution much larger than the writer or newspaper title. The news works on the basis of trust and integrity. Without that integrity in place the entire system of the news breaks down and the public has no one left to rely for what's happening beyond their door post. Whatever the reasoning, false reporting is propaganda in itself.

The field of journalism is unique from many other fields in that faking information is incredibly easy, and minor deceptions have a huge ramifications on career and reputation. It doesn't matter how skilled or talented a reporter is,  if they don't have good credit they have no career. More importantly offenders are abusing thier power to lie to the public. Politians are forever scorned once discovered to be deceiving the public either through the actions of their private lives, public money, or failure to live up to their word. Journalists who embellish pieces are using their power to literally lie to thousands of people for the sake of notariety or lessening their own work load. A politician's job is to represent people while a journalist career is to represent the truth. Between the two the journalist should be greater shamed for their failure to duty--the public puts far greater trust in the press than politions and their duty is far more clear.

Stephen Glass abused his power on no less than 29 occasions spanning over four different magazines. He deceived thousands for the simple purpose of continuing his own name regardless of the lies and reputations he destroyed.

In a 2003  60 Minutes interview Glass reflected, "“I wanted a story that I thought would be the perfect story. And that the readers would most enjoy to read....I remember thinking, ‘If I just had the exact quote that I wanted to make it work, it would be perfect.’ And I wrote something on my computer, and then I looked at it, and I let it stand. And then it ran in the magazine and I saw it. And I said to myself what I said every time these stories ran, ‘You must stop. You must stop.’ But I didn't.”

Ex-coworkers of Glass found him despicable.

"He's a worm," said New Republic editor Leon Wieseltier.

“If it was sunny outside and Steve and I were both standing outside in the sun and Steve came to me and said, ‘It's a sunny day,’ I would immediately go check with two other people to make sure it was a sunny day,” concluded Charles Lane, executive editor.

The truth is like others before and after him, Glass exploited the trust people put in him both on a personal level and and through the public. Glass failed to understand the  basic concept of journalistic responsibility--his ambition blinded him to the big picture of his actions and as a result his public image will always be questionable while his journalistic name will forever be associated with distrust and disdain.

Sadly characters like Glass will never leave the business and facts checkers and the public alike must remain on thier guard for faulty information.

Ahead of his compilation of Glass' articles Rick Mcginnis writes "fabrication, in small or large part, will always be common in a profession that, too often, values sensation over substance, and where older editors increasingly turn to younger writers to provide them with "buzz", or a window on trends, real or spurious. Freelance writers and junior editorial staff, like Glass, are the disposable shock troops of this regrettable but seemingly ineradicable side of the business." 

The field of journalism is the most precarious because it is entirely reliant on honesty and trust.

Harry Potter Baby Mama?

Ok I'm well aware that is is not an assignment, but I saw this and had to comment on it. Looking at the Sunday Post Secret postcards I came across a Harry Potter one. At first glance I assumed it would be a comment on somebodies secret attraction to Ron Weasley despite a deep seated hate for gingers or something. However, the secret is actually much more interesting than that.

Photos of several Harry Potter male leads are shown accompanied with a note that states, "One of these men is the father of one of the most amazing little girls in the world. He's never met her. He never will. He probably can't even remember my name."

Maybe I'm just Pott-ing out but in light of the latest premiere and the gravity of these people's fame I feel like I've just stumbled on something about to be discovered. Could this post card be legitimate? For the most part the Harry Potter crew--Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint in particular have pretty clean cut images. On the other hand they also have a multitude of adoring fans, and understandably put an emphasis on "private" in their private lives.

The post card--as all the post cards sent to Post Secret--is anonymous, which calls into question first how seriously it can really be taken, and secondly, why bother making a false story if it entirely anonymous? My point is obviously there is a problem with this source, but at the same time it doesn't follow the traditional pattern of lying for the sake of attention, particularly since it was never guaranteed to be posted by the regulators of Post Secret in the first place. If the story is false why be anonymous or just not post it in a traditional blog or gossip space? 

I actually hope something happens with this card in the media--after all if I'm curious as to whats going on, its a safe bet the other 500 thousand Harry Potter fans would be too.

Adjecctives make idiots

Adjectives pose a constant temptation in writing pieces--they can add color, excitement, emotion, not to mention take up space when those pesky facts are in low supply. The problem with adjectives is they tend to downgrade the quality of the writing, and as Carole Rich points out, "run the risk of inserting your opinions in the story" (Writing and Reporting News 192). Obviously news should be impartial, and whether intended or not adjectives are strong elements in writing--they can easily define a character or event one way or another. The devil's in the details, which for writers--and insults--means adjectives.

Just as important, adjectives can distract from the overall point of the piece. As Norman Miller so eloquently put it, "put 20 adjectives before a noun and no one will know you are describing a turd."(192)

Well said sir, well said.

Take in point the Washington Post piece, The Engine of Change . The actual story focuses on the demographics and economic struggles of one community as it faces the presidential election. The adjectives paint a very different story.

The setting is a "great old railroad and factory town". Okay so we're visiting the urban equivalent of Mulberry.

Populace is described as "excited, scared, "bitter"...hard-luck and high-pride[d]." The psychiatrist strokes his beard thoughtfully and scibbles notes at the question's response--how does that make you feel? 
Do the people sound overburdened? Its okay, according to the reporter the community is "plucky...Never fear!" Throw in a St. Bernard and a blonde kid and we have a t.v Disney movie.

Between the adjective binge and bizarre commentary on the part of the reporter--"Chin up!"--the actual story is lost. The reader is so distracted by the writing the facts go unnoticed and fade into the background. It was not until the second half of the piece that the actual story started coming out and the ridiculous word choice and comments stopped.

Adjectives are great, but at what cost? Try decent writing.

Capital Steps

Can I just take some time to say Capital Steps was absolutely hilarious? They hit plenty of big issues in politics and culture right now without making it tired, forced or even overly insulting. I particularly appreciated the rendition of "Welcome to Arizona" and the Obama/Old Spice commercial. And thank golly they made a point of going into American paranoia. You could easily pick up on a general atmosphere of general interest and appreciation for the group by the audience. Politics were made very accessible in this way particularly to our age demographic. It as a really good choice for the time of political elections and midterm.Overall the performance was entertaining and made me want to learn more about politics without feeling like an idiot. I was sad to see it end.

The overall consensus I found in other viewers was surprised appreciation. I noticed there was a full house, most people appeared to have stayed for the entire act, and there were several people from a few community retirement homes.

Ara Oniduar said, "It was great...I wasn't expecting that at all." she also said it made her consider going to more campus events. 

Story Sources--Observation

Reading the text, the issue of finding story ideas came up. The simple option of basic observation was highly useful and made the point of using what is literally in front of you for a story. When looking for story ideas I think the task is intimidating to find topics worth writing about that are not already common knowledge. However as the text points out you can easily "look at the bulletin boards on campus or in local government offices...Does anything make you curious? Is there a program or event that might be newsworthy?" The power of observation in a reporter is maybe one of the most important one, it enables the ability to see a story in plain sight within the community and see where it goes rather than waiting for stories to find you.

We used the basic concept of observation when looking around campus for posters and flyers for story ideas. This was the basis for my article on the "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" piece. Coincidentally it was also a main reference for volunteers of the race--most people who went heard about it the same way I did. While at the event I did several interviews with participants, but one of the most useful references I had was my own eyes in ears in capturing the tone and atmosphere for the event. In many ways my senses told me just as much as my interviews did. I'm going to continue to look in my basic community for story ideas.

 I also used basic observation in my interview piece for Jackson. The first couple lines from the piece were all based on what I literally saw of him--"arms lying limp at his side, Reynolds uses a single duck-taped shoe to twirl himself in a circle from his swivel chair.  Head lolling along the headboard, his eyes restlessly sweep the room." I used his physicality to paint a picture of him as a person before getting into any of the information from the interview. Observation is always a useful tool in writing stories for some purpose.

Out of the Ladies Room and into the Locker Room

Watching "old skool journalism film" the comments on the "special workspace" for women were met with the predictable indignant cries and outrage from viewers--well female viewers anyway. However you have to admit that its not terribly surprising, and is actually--lets be honest--expected in a film made somewhere in the 30s.

The incident with Ines Sainz and the New York Jets is telling of what a split point women have today. Sexual comments and sheer disrespect and unprofessionalism is obviously still a problem at times. However, the fact that sexual harassment and inappropriate comments made headline news at all is a testament that we have departed from the days of 'toots' and 'baby' in the workplace. As the Yahoo! article states, "the Association for Women in Sports Media has filed a complaint on Sainz's behalf." There's an entire association supporting women working with sports media. Sainz is a woman in journalism with a respectable job title covering the ultimate male past time of professional sports. The struggle for equality isn't easy or over but we've left the dark ages people.

In some ways the Jets behavior towards Sainz is a new low considering how far we have come with women in the workplace. Its good to know that so many people were thrown by the player's behavior. Justin Tuck pretty much says it all when he said "I've got sisters. I know how I would want them to be treated. Not like that." That kind of respect can't be met in any other relationship. This is by no means the last time a woman will have issue somewhere in the field or the office I'm sure, but it still seems we've come a long way and women are here to stay.

In respect to Sainz it must be said--a smokin' hot chick on the field with a load of jocks, odds are someone's going to say something whether it gets back to the woman or not. C'est la vie...unfortunately.

Viagra: Drug Dealer's New Herion

Cancer, obesity, genetics, bird flu, hold your breath ladies and gentlemen, we have a new health concern to unveil! The name of the game is pharmaceuticals, and apparently there is a booming business in faking them. Common especially in Asia, counterfeit drugs are becoming increasingly harder to track and more frequently consumed. The growing trend in internet is leading towards more consumers to purchase false drugs online.

It’s an obvious problem for consumers--who wants to be the poor shmoe with placebo Viagra, much less a flu shot?--as well as pharmaceuticals. Counterfeits are getting incredibly sophisticated, to the point where even experts can't spot a false. Scammers also turn twice the profit as legitimate companies--big surprise seeing as only one product actually has to work--while at the same time giving a bad name to the industry in general.

As an industry, health care is largely based on trust. We take prescription of so-and-so and expect to recover. I'm curious how far these scams reach. Again, while nobody wants to be the forty-year-old man who discovers his Happy Pill are fakes Saturday night, how great are the ultimate ramifications to these false companies? We are increasingly internet dependent for products. This system of purchase--not unlike that of health care--is based almost entirely on trust. How many drugs for cancer and mental health issues ordered in bulk online by doctors? And how many people have died or suffered because their medications can't fight body odor much less leukemia?

As an issue, drugs have mostly been investigated in the sense of a black van scoping out owners of suspiciously bulky trench coats on street corners. In the case of drug counterfeit however, the legal ramifications don't appear to be severe for an industry that could literally cost lives, if not at least take fraud to a new personal low. This seems to be just one more example of courts and police falling behind technology while a load of crooks take advantage of the internet and unsuspecting.

You can see for yourself what I'm talking about and come to your own conclusions. Feel free to drop any comments on the matter: USA Today: Growing problem of fake drugs hurt patients, companies