Extra Credit Post: What is a Journalist?

We've spent a lot of time this quarter talking about the things that journalists do. In our last class, I'd like us to consider a question: Are all the people who do the things we've discussed worthy of the title "journalist?"

The question is about more than semantics. In December, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a blogger in Portland was not a journalist, in a case that (coupled with others) could have major consequences. The Oregon blogger faces a $2.5 million defamation lawsuit filed by a company she has been investigating . She was seeking protection under Oregon's shield law, a law that protects journalists from having to divulge the identity of their sources in court. Her state's supreme court said she didn't have the credentials to qualify as a real "journalist." Read more about her story here and check out her blog here.

Also take a look at this story out of New Jersey, in which we learn about another case in which bloggers tried (and failed) to get the same legal protection afforded to traditional journalists. For reactions to the New Jersey case, click here and here.

So here is my question to you: What must one do to be considered a "journalist?" Or, perhaps more appropriately, what should one have to do to be considered a journalist? Talk in some depth about these questions, and consider the examples from New Jersey, Oregon and other places.

We will discuss your thoughts in class Thursday - you MUST participate in the group discussion to receive the full extra credit.

For Feb. 16 discussion: Revisiting Zanesville

All of us probably remember the surreal story that broke out in Zanesville, Ohio, last October. The escape and subsequent killing of dozens of exotic animals were international news items in the weeks that followed.

Two major U.S. magazines, GQ and Esquire, revisited that mayhem in this month's issues. The stories don't really break a whole lot of new ground. But they do paint fascinating pictures of the escape and its aftermath using what is commonly referred to as a "tick-tock" story format - an hour-by-hour (or in some cases minute-by-minute) narrative account that includes incredible detail and context (almost in the form of play-by-play) from the important actors.

Reading the two stories back to back is an interesting exercise. We have two talented reporters writing for major media outlets, both of whom enjoy large budgets and virtually unlimited space. The final products are similar in many respects, but different in others.

Compare and, more importantly, contrast the two stories. What made them different, and how did those differences affect your enjoyment of the articles? Give some specific examples of what you liked (and perhaps what you didn't like). I'll share my opinions Thursday, but here's a preview: I find one of these stories above average. I find the other breathtakingly good.

Here are the links to the stories:

GQ

Esquire

For Feb. 16 discussion: What can you say in 300 words?

Sometimes, you can say an awful lot.

Case-in-point: Brady Dennis, former night cops reporter for the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times.

Dennis, who is now with the Washington Post, decided he wanted to highlight some people who never found their way into the newspaper. So he and photographer Chris Zuppa began a monthly series called “300 Words,” in which they set out to tell the stories of toll booth operators, dads in jail, rodeo clowns and others. The series won national acclaim.

In a 2006 interview, Dennis said he wanted to take on the project because “I believe that each person not only has a story to tell, but that each person has a story that matters. I’ve always felt humbled in the presence of everyday, ‘ordinary’ people who are willing to share their lives with us.”

Later in the same interview, he discussed how the series – specifically the rigid word limit – made him a better journalist (read on after the jump):

For Jan. 12 discussion: Pirates, Iranians and the U.S. Navy ...

... what else could you want out of a story?

The New York Times shared this story last week about the dramatic rescue of Iranian fishermen who were held captive by pirates. Reporter C.J. Chivers was actually on the ship that came to their rescue


The article includes this nice paragraph, which puts the piece in context:

The rescue, 210 miles off the coast of Iran, occurred against a tense political backdrop. On Tuesday the Iranian defense minister and a brigadier general threatened the Stennis with attack if it sought to return to the Persian Gulf, which it had left roughly a week before. The warning set up fears of a confrontation over the vital oil shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Consider these questions: We discussed the news value of conflict last week - does conflict play a role in the newsworthiness of this story? What other elements of newsworthiness does this story have? Why is this important? What did you think about the descriptions, and the way the story was told?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/world/middleeast/for-iranians-held-by-pirates-us-to-the-rescue.html?pagewanted=all

For Jan. 12 discussion: TMZ's Levin says media must change or die

Newspapers? They'd better kick print to the curb, or they're done for.

Magazines? Same deal.

Television news? It operates on a old model that no one cares about anymore.

At least, that's what Harvey Levin told the National Press Club late last year.

As creator, executive producer and guy who gets to write on the big glass wall at TMZ.com, Levin has made a lot of money and generated a huge following by creating "news" about the details of famous people's lives. During the press club speech, he told a room full of Washington news correspondents that young people didn't care about the mainstream media anymore, and that by sticking to old formulas and methods of delivery, newspapers and magazines are killing themselves. Likewise, TV news is stuck in an old, increasingly morbid formula that doesn't connect with readers, he said (Levin is a former television news reporter).

Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi writes:

It takes a pinch of chutzpah for Levin to go all media visionary on the Washington press corps, especially considering that Levin’s brainchild, TMZ, became an Internet star based on a brew of Kardashian videos, naughty bits (one of its Monday headlines: “Dancing with the Stars’ — Genital Exposed on Live TV”), and the latest Britney and LiLo legal news.

On the other hand, brashness has been golden for Levin, who is one of the most successful news entrepreneurs of the Internet generation. Levin, 61, seems to know a thing or two about what the celebrity-obsessed public wants. Since its launch in 2005, TMZ.com has become the foremost entertainment-news Web site in the world, with some 20 million unique visitors a month.

Levin argues the future of the news business is on the Internet, which will eventually merge with TV. When that happens, he said, journalism will become faster and more engaging. Farhi relates this argument from Levin:

Traditional journalists should throw off their tired old media, embrace the Web, and not worry so much that the speed and round-the-clock demands of the Internet will compromise traditional values, like accuracy. 

Here is the Washington Post's coverage of Levin's speech. You can watch his speech in its entirety on C-SPAN's website. If you watch the video, you'll hear Levin discuss his ideas on how to address young people. "Young people aren't interested in traditional media for the most part anymore. It doesn't speak to them," he said. The clip is an hour long, but it is worth your time (especially the first half).

Newspapers don't have to die, he says, but they do have to reinvent themselves online. But the way newspapers are trying to do that now aren't working because they are still entrenched in old ways of thinking. In five years, he suggests, media will be radically different - a "revolution" that will be guided by young people in the industry.

At age 61, Levin acknowledges he is "way over" his target demographic. He's interested in people your age. So what do you think? Is he right? How do you feel about what he has to say, given the fact that we're all interested in careers in mass communication? And how did you feel about the Post's coverage of his speech - did they give him a fair shake?

For Jan. 12 discussion: "The true meaning of the vow 'in sickness and in health'"

The Lifestyle section of last week's Washington Post featured a moving story about the relationship between former Post journalist Robert Melton and his wife Page, and the ways in which their relationship changed following Melton's traumatic brain injury.

I don't want to give away a lot of the details in this post, because the writer of the piece (Susan Baer) uses a lot of foreshadowing and suspense to move the story along. Rather than telling you what it is about, I will share with you how I came to find it, and how I responded as I read it. This description is intentionally vague ... I don't want to spoil the story for those of you who read it.

I came to read this story after seeing it several times on Twitter. As a former journalist who has a wife and children, I could relate to Robert Melton. I read the first 10 paragraphs and was interested in what, at the moment, seemed like a contradiction - Page's departure from the house seemed to be at odds with her dedication to her husband.

I kept reading, becoming more emotionally invested. Then, on the last page, the questions I had were answered. The answer was not the one I expected, and it troubled me (especially given the fact that I had continued to identify myself with Robert). At a point, I was so troubled that I kind of wanted to stop reading. However, the end of the story was near and I was, to use a poker player's term, "pot committed."

So read the story, and consider these questions. How did the reporter want us to feel at the end? What do you see in the story that makes you feel that way? Was everyone in this story treated fairly? If not, who was unfairly treated, and what might have been done to address it? Why is this story newsworthy? What else strikes you?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/a-family-learns-the-true-meaning-of-the-vow-in-sickness-and-in-health/2011/11/04/gIQAahyAdP_story.html

Also, if you are interested, the Post conducted a live web chat with Page Melton and Susan Baer. You can read the transcript here.

For Jan. 5 discussion: In search of political civility

The finger-pointing started almost immediately after the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Republic reporter Shaun Mckinnon reminds us in this USA Today piece.
We were told that shooter Jared Lee Loughner was motivated by caustic campaign rhetoric, that he was told (in his own mind at least) that Giffords should be a literal target for violence.

After Loughner's rampage, we said we wanted more civility in political discourse. But reporter Mckinnon tells us that civility is still quite elusive:

In the days after the shooting, the words from the memorial still fresh, lawmakers pledged to foster a new civility in tribute to Giffords and the others who were injured or killed. Yet one year later, Americans and their elected leaders still struggle to show each other respect when opinions differ. Partisan brinksmanship plays out in Washington. Back home, voters treat lawmakers with scorn and berate one another for differing opinions. Surveys suggest that Americans recognize the lack of civility and want their leaders to behave better, but experts say that until people exercise civility themselves and demand it from their representatives, little will change.

My questions about this story are twofold. First, tell me what you think about the writing itself. This piece is a little longer than standard USA Today fare (relatively few of its stories exceed 20 paragraphs). Was it interesting from beginning to end, or did you start to lose interest at some point? If your answer is the former, what kept you engaged in the story? If it was the latter (and this is, by the way, an entirely acceptable answer) at what point did you start to lose interest? Can you pinpoint the aspects of the story that bored you? How could it have been made better?

Also, if you want, feel free to talk about the media's role in fostering civility in public discourse. Should the media be interested in pursuing this? How could that be done? One could argue that visceral

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-01/giffords-civility/52322052/1

For Jan. 5 discussion: I've got 99 problems but redistricting ain't one

The nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica looks into all kinds of important issues. Their efforts are vital, especially at a time when many newspapers and television stations are cutting back on expensive investigative work.

Its reporters and editors come from, among other places, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. They are serious people doing serious work. And they do it very well. Last year, ProPublica won a Pulitzer for an investigation into euthanasia at a hospital in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. It won another this year for a series about the ways the "Wall Street money machine" worsened the economic crisis.

This fall, ProPublica's reporters started an investigation into redistricting the process by which the government decides where voting district lines are drawn. There are a lot of problems with this process. Partisan politics heavily influence the way voting district lines are drawn, and the resulting gerrymandered districts do more to help politicians and special interests than to serve the people who actually live in them.

To start to shed light on this, ProPublica gives us an enterprise story explaining the ways special interests can benefit from influencing the redistricting process. They offer up another piece that explains the jargon of redistricting.

Then, there's this. An original music video. Made by journalists. About government redistricting. Watch it after the jump.

For Jan. 5 discussion: After decades of secrecy, spy program becomes public

Photo: Fred Marra, left, listens as Bob Zarba describes the camera operation of the Hexagon KH-9 secret spy satellite in Danbury, Conn. They have been meeting here for 18 years, whiling away a few hours nattering about golf and politics, ailments and grandchildren. But, until recently, they were forbidden to speak about the greatest achievement of their professional lives. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)

You've seen groups like them a hundred times: old guys huddled around the table at Burger King, nursing coffee and talking to each other in hushed tones. Maybe they quieted down when you sat down in the next booth.

Were they yakking about politics, or about how badly the local high school football team played last night? Maybe. Or maybe they're remembering all those secret spy satellites they built back in the '70s?

Associated Press reporter Helen O'Neill found a group of men who did the latter. After more than three decades, they told her about their formerly-classified work. O'Neill writes:

It was dubbed "Big Bird" and it was considered the most successful space spy satellite program of the Cold War era. From 1971 to 1986 a total of 20 satellites were launched, each containing 60 miles of film and sophisticated cameras that orbited the earth snapping vast, panoramic photographs of the Soviet Union, China and other potential foes. The film was shot back through the earth's atmosphere in buckets that parachuted over the Pacific Ocean, where C-130 Air Force planes snagged them with grappling hooks.

The scale, ambition and sheer ingenuity of Hexagon KH-9 was breathtaking. The fact that 19 out of 20 launches were successful (the final mission blew up because the booster rockets failed) is astonishing.

So too is the human tale of the 45-year-old secret that many took to their graves.

The writing in this piece is strong, although there are some spots where it could have been better (I'll share my opinions in class; you can do so as well, or post them here). I'd also like you to consider these questions: What makes this story newsworthy? If you were looking for a story like this, where would you go? O'Neill includes some detailed descriptions - what do they add to the story? Which ones did you like the most, and why?

http://news.yahoo.com/decades-later-cold-war-secret-revealed-152207569.html

Welcome to our class blog

Hello everyone, and welcome to the class blog for Clay Carey’s section of Journalism 231a (News Writing). I hope this blog will become a place where we can read, discuss and learn from excellent journalism.

For that to happen, the class must populate it with good stories. I want those stories to come from a variety of sources, and I hope that in the process of seeking them out we all discover high quality news sources that we didn’t know about prior to this class.

In this post, I will share some of the outlets that I turn to for good journalism. I will also set up some ground rules for blog posts that should keep all of us on the same page as we look for stories to post.