"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible;
to be credible we must be truthful." - Edward R Murrow
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts

Happy Holidays

Posted in Labels: , , , | at 6:44 PM

Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.

- Walter Cronkite



I feel that way when it comes to journalism and blogging.
So, take away "opinion column" and put in "blogging" and there you go.

Hope everyone had happy holidays.
"A Trashy Tabloid Analysis" should be posted tonight.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Preview of "Trashy Tabloid Analysis"

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , , | at 1:12 AM




This is going to be broken up into parts.

Sure, people talk badly about the gossip magazines and say how unreliable the magazines are, but some of them have never read the magazine. Someone has to read it to be able to analyze if it is truly good or bad - so "Trashy Tabloid Analysis" will be the theme of the next few Future of Journalism & Zennie62 Media blog posts. (First posted on NikkyRaney.com & then Zennie62.com).

This may become a series in some way.
There will be a short (3 minute max) video to go along with the post where examples of good/bad journalism will be pointed out within the magazine - so that there are examples of either so that there is an example to base the opinion off of. Someone who thinks the magazines are awesome might like it without ever reading it either - just say, "Oh, I love reading that magazine." So, it's not good to judge something or form an opinion unless you fully understand it and have analyzed it (like when I did my 20+ page research paper on Fox News' Conservative Bias where I spent over a month watching Fox News and analyzing the web page and then comparing Fox to other news sources. So, I can truly say that I have a reason behind why I judge Fox - not just saying it or believing it based on hearsay or influence of those around me).

The only question is whether or not to include which magazine - because could there be a consequence in a legal aspect if I take photos of the magazine? I'm probably over thinking it.

This can be done without being bias.
This is going to be a journalistic analysis (with a bit of blog mixed in) of "trashy tabloids." Sure a lot of people call them "trashy tabloids" because of hearing what the publications report about, but most of those have never even touched the magazine. Like the way someone says they dislike something without ever actually understanding it.

An objective analysis of a magazine considered "trashy tabloid." The ones that are usually all about celebrities & scandals. (OK!, Life & Style, STAR, etc.)

So, that will start up tomorrow. The video aspect will show certain spots that have been circled with pen, etc & be able to show that I really do have a physical copy of the magazine and have done all the research first hand based on that magazine alone in regards to journalistic standards and principles (as well as which version of AP Stylebook is used; if there even is one used.)

Then the blog post accompanying will explain WHY that the publication did was GOOD or BAD. It's like a movie review, but a magazine review - without personal bias. Like pointing out a trend that the magazine may have like ALLOWING ALL INTERVIEWEES TO BE CONFIDENTIAL AND REFERRED TO AS "SOURCE" or "AN INSIDER." And then writing in a paragraph to explain WHY it's not okay for a magazine's only interviews in an article to be with an "anonymous source." These trashy tabloids need to stop only using anonymous sources within their publications - and that's something I will go into more detail about.

Hopefully if anyone that works on the staff at one of these magazines or is in affiliation with one of these magazines sees my posts the person won't take it as negative criticism or whatnot, but could possibly take my posts into consideration: I would love to interview the Editor-in-Chief at any one of the "trashy tabloids" just to find out what the manual & guidebook entails and what the Managing Editor deals with and why/how they consider themselves to be credible sources worth obtaining knowledge & news from when the sources that they are using to obtain this knowledge and news may not be credible.. and if the only source you can get for a story is an anonymous source -- then go out and try to get another interview or interview someone that WILL go on the record. "anonymous" sources are okay under certain circumstances in VERY SPECIFIC situations where there is a good need for confidentiality, but an article should NEVER only include the anonymous source. There needs to be some sort of PROOF not just a bunch of evidence (it's an analogy).

So, that will start tomorrow.
Now, it's time to go read a "trashy tabloid" while holding a pen so that I can pretend that it's the end of the print cycle and I am giving the publication a quick look-through to see if there's anything that should be fixed before it goes to print -- or if there's something very notable that should be complimented upon.

How sad, I am officially on winter break (no more school for a month), and I am basically doing all this research and work. Wow, I love journalism ; I'm a workaholic.


“To sit in judgment of those things which you perceive to be wrong or imperfect is to be one more person who is part of judgment, evil or imperfection.” -- Wayne Dyer


IASBRN

-- Nikky Raney 12/20/2010 1:11 AM (EST)


also posted on Zennie62 Media

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

WikiLeaks New Strategy

Posted in Labels: , | at 6:52 PM




Voice of America News online reports that WikiLeaks is following a new strategy in document release.

WikiLeaks has journalists that do journalism and they have won awards in journalism, but VOANews claims that WikiLeaks is "portraying itself as a news organization." It may not be a news organization, but it is definitely a source for news and information.

There is a lot of controversy saying that only a few of the reported documents are being published.

VOANews points out that Julian Assange, creator, thinks that WikiLeaks is a "journalistic institution" :

In a posting this week on the website CommonDreams, Assange said that WikiLeaks has invented a new type of reporting that he calls "scientific journalism" in which people can read a news story, then click online to see its veracity.


The strategy seems to be the gradual release of documents rather than releasing the documents all at once - which makes sense. There should not be complaints about this - people should want to know what the government is covering up.

VOA News continues:

Former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin says officials do not like surprises, and they are getting new ones every day.

"The fact that this is dribbling out, if you're in government now you have to wonder, 'What's next, and what am I going to have to cope with?' And it's likely to come at a bad time when you already have your hands full," said McLaughlin. "So it's another volatile factor in a world that's already too volatile."

The arrangement between WikiLeaks and the news organizations publishing the material - Le Monde in France, El Pais in Spain, the Guardian in Britain, and Der Spiegel in Germany - is unusual. It links media organizations to a group that is under what U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls "active, ongoing, serious investigation."


Well it is easier to click through and see a document accompanied with an article rather than have to post it all in a physical newspaper - so maybe this is where web journalism can really be kicking into gear - just thinking about the future of journalism.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Sources for articles: Hard News By Nikky Raney

Posted in Labels: , , , , , | at 10:13 AM

When writing a hard news piece (for print or web) it seems as though quite a few news outlets are publishing and producing stories with few sources.

Hard news is timely and usually also involves proximity. Some examples include fires, murders, business, politics, international affairs, etc.

With hard news the inverted pyramid structure (more about that here) is very useful.

Hard news generally will involve the reporter going out and obtaining interviews first hand. Although the news is timely and up-to-date that does not excuse laziness with sources. More and more there are news outlets serving stories that could easily be confused as blog posts - meaning the sources used are usually aggregated from other news sources. With blogging that is fine - bloggers are not held to the same standards as journalists.

With a hard news story there should always be a first hand interview included with someone directly involved with the story.

For example: If the reporter was assigned to cover and report about a local drug bust a source that is essential to the story would be a police officer or any other authority involved (it will later be discussed how to deal with those type of stories in terms of semantics). Another person who would be ideal to interview would be neighbors or friends that would be willing to go on record. If there is a family member that would be willing to contribute to the story that would be great.

Interviewing the police officer is essential, because that is where the information that will be in the lead is obtained. Finding out the who, what, where and when can all be done by an interview with the authority who was at the scene.

In some scenarios secondary sources are also good to add to go along with the first hand sources. Secondary sources would include information gathered via another news source or outlet that the reporter did not go out and directly get first hand (like citing another news source or web site).

The next blog posts will go into detail for the sources essential to features, columns, reviews, editorials, etc.

For the record, blog posts will most likely include side commentary and opinions from the blogger as well as news obtained from secondary sources (other web sites), and in some cases (like this entry) the information provided comes directly from the blogger.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Media coverage of suicides By Nikky Raney

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , | at 12:23 PM

Media coverage of suicides

 By Nikky Raney

Suicide is a very sensitive and serious issue, and the last thing any family or friend wants to do is talk to the media after a loved one has committed suicide.

Generally news sources have specific ethics, and for the most part suicides are not covered except in circumstances where the suicide is a part of a bigger situation entirely.

When I blogged about the "Craigslist Killer" dying in jail I made sure not to include the word "suicide" within the title - in order to not feed into the sensationalism of some news sources. I think the family is upset enough over the fact that Philip Markoff is known as the "Craigslist Killer."

The reason why that suicide was covered is that it shines a light on the way inmates are treated and watched over in jails. After being placed under watch for potentially being suicidal it doesn't seem right that he was still able to successfully end his own life.

Life behind bars can certainly effect someone's mental health. The lack of communication with the outside world as well as the lack of freedom really takes a toll. The bigger picture behind the suicide being covered was the conditions that led to the suicide.

NPR covered this subject in November 2009 with a segment called "Media Should Tread Carefully in Covering Suicide." The transcript along with audio focuses on when an adolescent commits suicide and the media reports on it - this has happened quite a few times, and it all comes down to ethics. It's how a journalist chooses to go about covering the story - what angle to take. Sometimes the journalist is not given the option to not cover a suicide, because the editor may assign the story and all the reporter can do is figure out a way to cover the story by the deadline.

The NPR piece includes an interview with psychiatric epidemiologist Madelyn Gould at Columbia University in New York City where she says:
"We know from studies that have looked at the impact of the media that there is something called the 'dose-response association.' So the size of the increase in suicides following a suicide story is proportional to the amount, and the duration, and the prominence of the coverage."
The piece continues:
"There are ways that the media can cover a suicide that can actually help mitigate the risk of additional suicides, says psychiatrist Paula Clayton, medical director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, who regularly advises the media on how to report on a suicide. For example, they should report on the many complex factors that may have led up to the suicide and emphasize that 90 percent of people who kill themselves have mental health problems."
Journalism Ethics' Stephen J. A. Ward did a piece on whether journalists exploit tragedies such as suicides. 
Ward does an amazing job at explaining what attracts journalists to covering these types of stories, and why journalists feel like it is a responsibility to cover these events. He writes:
"Take the case of suicides. To be blunt, suicides are frequently newsworthy – a public official in trouble commits suicide, a distraught military hero takes his life. But these cases are frequently more than newsworthy. They challenge journalists to explore the economic and social factors that may help to induce suicidal behavior. When we witness a string of suicides at a school or in an aboriginal community, suicide is no longer personal but social. It is the responsibility of journalists to explore the reasons for these disturbing patterns in the fabric of society. "

That really does sum it up quite nicely.  The problem arises when journalists forget about the sensitivity and emotion surrounding the matter and decide to take the sensational route that becomes more of an exploitation.

Some may wonder what counts as exploitation, Ward tells:

"What counts as exploitation? To exploit is to unfairly use people in a less powerful position to achieve your own ends — without a thought to their needs and interests. As Kant famously said, the basic principle of all ethics is: Do not treat other people only as a means to your ends….In journalism, Kant's principle works like this: In reporting on a person's tragedy I am, on one level, treating this event as a means to my end of getting the story. But on another level, I am not exploiting the situation if I treat the persons in question with respect and attempt to minimize harm. "

He continues:

"Ethical journalists still "get the story" but they do so in responsible ways that avoid callous harassment and crude exploitation."

The piece Ward writes is exactly what I believe, and it is good to know that there are journalists out there who share my belief on the ethics of journalism 

Yes, there are many ways to cover a suicide and have the most read or watched coverage - but what is more important is to cover the suicide with respect and sensitivity and get the story without causing more pain to those affected.

"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." - Potter Stewart

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Andrea's Blog + Personal Updates

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , | at 2:31 PM

Yesterday I set Andrea up with a blog.

When she is proficient and comfortable with blogging I hope to set her up to blog for Zennie62.com.
She is new at blogging, but she has a lot to say.
I will be uploading our videos soon.

I will be returning to school soon so more articles and less blog posts.
And also more blog posts about The Future of Journalism.

I recently did an interview with the upcoming rap group WE.G.I.
The article will be posted as soon as I finish a final interview with the female member of the group.

Lots of good things coming up.
I have been busy with personal dilemmas and issues, and I have rarely been at the computer. I haven't been posting many blog posts, and I definitely have not been tweeting as much. The world outside of the internet has been quite eventful - and I hope that it dies down and I can happily blog, write articles, and do what I do. When I go back to school I will dedicate specific time so that I will be blogging every day of the week multiple times, and working on articles. I am figuring out mobile blogging. So, good things to come.

She doesn't really blog about anything specific.
Our next vlogs deal with Chatroulette, FixItPro(Billy Mays product that we used and it works! photo taken from AsSeenOnTV ), Jessi Slaughter, Shane Dawson, Hotforwords, Cazwell video, and other things.

I also have a blog post planned about Newsweek. Since there is a new editor and it has been bought. I follow Steve Tuttle of Newsweek on Twitter, and he follows me back so I will see if he can provide me with any additional information aside from what he has already told me (Steve you're great, I appreciate that you take the time to message me back & that you are following me).

So, that's all for now.

P.S. For those who aren't familiar with the difference between blogging and journalism. Blog posts are allowed to have opinions and be from first person stand points. Journalism and articles (the ones that I write) are all done objectively and show both sides of the story. If you read my beginning blog posts I was scared to assert my opinion into the posts, but I was helped by my professor that blogs are allowing for opinion. I love articles and being objective more than I like blogging - so trust me, there will be many more articles to come and you can see the true journalist that I am.


I have a secret crush on Anderson Cooper. So I'll leave you with this quote:

"I think it's a good thing that there are bloggers out there watching very closely and holding people accountable. Everyone in the news should be able to hold up to that kind of scrutiny. I'm for as much transparency in the newsgathering process as possible." -- Anderson Cooper.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Fox News' popularity explained by:Nikky Raney

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , | at 7:29 PM

After writing a 26 page long research paper about Fox News' conservative bias for my college English Composition class it's simple to explain why Fox News is known as the "most popular" or "most watched" news station.


Doing the research paper involved actually watching programs such as The O'Reilly Factor and viewing segments on the show. Along with comparing the headlines and online content of Fox News as opposed to CNN's online content.

Instead of posting the 26 page long paper - this post will just be a simply explanation as to why Fox News gets the most views.

Fox News is the only news source of its kind. Fox News is where all the conservatives go to watch their news primarily. Fox News viewership is primarily white older males on the conservative sides.

On the opposite side of the spectrum there are news stations such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc. All the aforementioned stations are not conservative. Some may argue that the stations are not unbiased and objective - and most will say that most those stations lean to the left.

So, there is ONE station that leans to the right, but many stations that seem to lean toward the left.

The people who enjoy the news that leans to the left are all going to go to each of those stations. So all of those "left leaning" stations are competing for the views of those who watch those stations.

Fox News has no competition when it comes to news that leans far to the right and is sensationalistic. Now, conservatives and liberals alike will skim and view a variety of news stations and liberals will sometimes watch Fox and conservatives will watch CNN - but the majority of conservatives stick to Fox News. There are not a bunch of conservative news stations fighting for viewership of the conservatives.

The other news stations ARE competing for those viewers.

So. Let's say there are 50 conservatives and 50 liberals. All 50 conservatives are going to watch Fox News, but 20 liberals might watch CNN, another 20 might watch MSNBC, and 10 of them might watch CBS.

In that case the reason that Fox News is getting the most viewers is because it is the only station of its kind.

Now, there is much more that can be said about Fox News. Lots of time and research has gone into explaining and proving the conservative bias of Fox News, but for now that is all that needs to be explained.

Image taken from Gawker.com


"I firmly believe that respect is a lot more important, and a lot greater, than popularity."-- Julius Erving


Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Interview DOs and DON'Ts explained by Nikky Raney

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , | at 9:40 AM

After viewing the video of Journalism 101: Interview DOs and DON'Ts there may be some who are looking for further explanation. This is the blog post where the dos and don'ts are better explained. Please understand these are all relating to interviews for a print or web story. Interviews for broadcast are similar, but there are more restrictions.


1) Do not ask yes or no questions.

Don't ask questions that will only result in one word answers. Granted there are some instances where there needs to be background information obtained that may only require a one word answer, but it is always preferable that the questions asked require a longer answer. The purpose of an interview is to obtain quotes for the article. In addition to quotes any facts or statements included within the article can be attributed to the source in instances where the source has given information.

2) Don't ask misleading questions.

Misleading questions are when the question is looking for a specific answer that could possibly make the source say something negative or something that could come off as negative. An example would be when interviewing someone who is pro-abortion and asking, "What is the joy of an abortion like for one who has one?" The person is coming off saying that an abortion is a joyous experience, or asking a presidential candidate, "What about his plan is most unnecessary?" The quotes given can be misconstrued and the person can come off looking bad.

3) Don't rely on a voice recorder.

Yes, it's good to have a voice recorder to play back and make sure the quotes were correct. It also saves time on fact checking so instead of needing to call up the person and go over the quotes - the voice recorder is proof. Taking notes is necessary to write down the key points and quickly jot down quotes. The recording can be fast forwarded to the specific part so that the quote can be accurate. Without taking notes one would need to sit and listen to the entire recording again and write things down - where as taking notes saves from that hassle. It also shows the person that they are actually being listened to and that specific details are being noted.

4) Don't ask irrelevant questions.

This may seem obvious, but many reporters do this. Interviewing a source for an article is just that - interviewing for the article. Taking the time out of the day to make time for an interview with a reporter is something that should be appreciated. Do not waste the person's time rambling or asking things that aren't of any relation to the article. Getting some background information on the person is one thing, but asking personal questions that have no relation to the article is just a waste of time.

5) Don't interrupt.

So sometimes there are questions that need to be asked and limited time to ask them, but even when the source goes off on a tangent talking about things that have no relevance to the article and could not be used as quotes for the article do not interrupt. Interrupting is rude and when someone is taking time out of the day to squeeze in an interview respect is necessary. Especially when a time comes in the future when the source will need to be contacted again. Of course keep some questions prepared, but make sure to have follow up questions in your mind while the person is speaking. Never interrupt, because the irrelevant rambling could sometimes lead to a better quote than could be acquired from any question asked. A subject that was not thought of before could be touched upon, and there's also a lot of information that could be obtained.

6) Ending the interview by asking for additional information.

Make sure the source is given the opportunity to add any additional information that he or she finds important. There may be some things that he or she wanted to discuss, but the questions asked were never directed toward the topic. Asking at the end of the interview shows caring and gives the source a chance to open up freely and talk about things that may not have been covered during the interview. This is where the best quotes will come from.

7) Ask questions that only that person can answer.

Broad questions that could be answered by anyone aren't worth it. Ask questions that are personal and specific to the source. Ask questions that could not be answered by anyone other than that source.


That's all for now - there are more things to touch on, but the most important are there. More explanation will be posted within future blog posts.



"When I interview people, and they give me an immediate answer, they're often not thinking. So I'm silent. I wait. Because they think they have to keep answering. And it's the second train of thought that's the better answer." -- Robin Leach

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Raney Update

Posted in Labels: , , , | at 11:42 AM

The Journalism 101 video with Josh about interviews will be up when the editing is finished.


This blog will be updated more frequently once the school year starts up again & more journalism exposure and opportunities become available. This summer was a way to try and break into the world of blogging, because I over work myself when it comes to journalism which is bad for my health. Neglecting sleep, meals, etc just so I can edit, fact check, interview, etc. I am one of those journalists that is completely devoted.

So, this summer I have focused more on blogging. Blogging is less work, and is more relaxing - but it is only a quick fix. When I am back at school and I am given the okay from authorities that I am in better health & that they believe I will be able to balance my journalism with the rest of my life I will be posting articles, interviews, etc. The first posts on the blog during my Web Reporting course were very on cue.

So, thanks for sticking around for the ride.
Zennie62.com has been a great way for me to practice my blogging, and I will continue to do the blogs. Blogging is a good skill for journalists to learn. And for so long I was just a journalist & refused to do anything but journalism. It's good to finally break out and try something new.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

The Future of Commentary: print vs web by:Nikky Raney

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , | at 2:26 PM

When newspapers and magazines were more popular than web pages the way that the readers were able to comment and give feedback was through "letters to the editor." The editors of each were able to choose and edit which comments made its way into the paper.


With news being delivered online commentary is received instantaneously. Bangor Daily News' Jeff Tuttle is in charge of the newspaper's web site, and he came to my class and spoke about various topics involving moving the news from print to web; he also spoke about the commenting feature.

He told the students in the "Intro to News Reporting" class that Bangordailynews.com makes it so that commenting is only allowed through signing up on the site. Even when signing up for the site anyone is able to make a quick account and e-mail address and post things. The example that Tuttle gave was a comment that would say something along the lines of "so and so is sleeping with so and so's wife."

Of course magazines and newspapers still have their "letters to the editors," but by adding the commenting feature to the web sites commenters that know the negative comments given would never appear in the print edition are able to rant and rave as they please. The unfortunate part is when spam accounts are made, or the self-promoters use the commenting feature to get recognition.

There are certain sites where the comments may not even relate to the entry that the comment is about. Some commenters just comment about random things that have no relevance to the posts whatsoever.

With the online commentary enabling users to interact and give feedback the good and the bad are able to be shown, but sometimes the hateful and disrespectful comments are also present.

Sometimes articles that are known to be overly controversial will have commenting disabled, and in those rare scenarios the "censorship" of the readers is enacted. Commenting and giving feedback is good when the comments and feedback is constructive; whether negative or not there is a way to leave a comment of disagreement without being disrespectful and rude. The downside is that some commenters will use the opportunity to spread negativity and add absolutely nothing constructive to the "conversation."

The print edition will always have the most thought-provoking comments that stick out, but for all other commentary the web site will be able to include the comments that were unable to fit to print- as well as the comments that the print edition would never think to publish.


"Be careful. Journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. Your life can get out of balance. " - Dan Rather

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Social Network: the Facebook movie by Nikky Raney

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , , | at 9:16 AM


The movie "Social Network" directed by David Finch has just come out with its trailer. Nikky Raney's input on the movie which comes out October 1, 2010.

note: I have always called him David Finch ever since Seven came out, because it was a joking nickname. I probably should have mentioned that. His name is David Fincher, for anyone who was confused.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Nikky Raney: Journalist & Blogger

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , | at 10:48 AM


"There is no substitute for face-to-face reporting and research." -- Thomas Friedman

I recently received an e-mail from a Professor of Communications from a University in Oregon. I do not feel that it is important to name him or to name the university he represents. Anyway, he found my blog and thought it would be good to interview me for a book he is writing about "Social Media and Journalism."

I was very happy to receive this e-mail with the interview questions, but I think that interviews should never be done through e-mails. E-mails should be a last resort to the way to interview a source. I will do a blog entry about interviewing next, because I think that the future of journalism needs to not rely on technology for everything. Face-to-face interviews or phone interviews are the best way to get credible and accurate information, because you can hear the tone of voice, and you are able to ask follow-up questions. When you interview via e-mail you are limited. You cannot hear the tone of voice, and you cannot pick up on any other non-verbal communication, which is critical to interpersonal communication.

Anyway, I was deeply offended by one of the questions I was asked. It was not even a question, really.

"You have many pictures of yourself on your page and was wondering if you could comment about how your public persona may or may not be perceived as someone interested in so-called "serious" journalism.
I could be missing this here but this could be part of the "celebrity" journalism you are also writing about."

I think that I need to make this clear and concise to those who read my blog entries for both web sites. So, here is the answer I gave him:

"Okay, I am into serious journalism and my track record can prove that to you. I was apart of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and I am extremely interested with political and governmental affairs. Newsweek is my favorite magazine. My public persona may not seem that way, but my experience speaks for itself. As for the "celebrity" blogging. That is blogging, not reporting. That is not journalism, that is blogging. I was given an offer from Zennie Abraham, and I would never turn down an offer to write for a blog that was recognized and on TMZ's blogroll. It was a great opportunity to put my name out there and to slowly build my way up. It's baby steps. I am slowly trying to incorporate journalism into those blog posts. If you go to my website Nikkyraney.com, The Future of Journalism, you will see that the blog entries I write on that site will archive back and show that I truly am apart of "serious" journalism. I like to use photos of myself, because I like to be original. I don't want to just steal photos from google images and post them as my own. I did modeling for a while, and I quit modeling for journalism. This is also why I am interested in PRINT journalism. I do not to be judged by my looks. My public persona on Zennie62.com is mostly being critical of those who claim to be journalists (such as Perez & Tila) I was given this opportunity from Zennie, and I am thankful and glad. But it is a blogging opportunity. I would hope that I wouldn't be judged by that, but if I am then anyone can link back to my own website and see the truth. That question actually offended me a bit, because I would like to break the mold and be able to write about everything. I am a 19-year-old (soon to be 20), and I think that it is okay for me to do the celebrity blogging, because it is not easy to get those hard hitting investigative stories without a degree to show. I was a paid freelance columnist my senior year of high school for Foster's Daily Democrat. I would hope that people would not judge me based on my "celebrity blog entries," but on my actual articles that I have done, and for all the hard work and dedication I obviously have put into my career. If you read my blog entries for my own website you will see how highly critical I am of the media and sensationalism."


The reason I posted this was because: if he has that opinion of me - then he must not be the only one. When I started doing the celebrity blog entries, I knew that I would get some flack for it. If you actually read those posts though, the one entry in which I completely let loose and show the side of a true blogger is the recent blog entry that dealt with Tila Tequila calling herself a journalist. That outraged me.

I am extremely grateful and love being able to blog for Zennie62.com, but I don't want the role of "celebrity blogger" overtake my public persona. I am going to take that information, and I will try to show a more serious side to my blog posts. It is difficult to blog about the serious hot topics, because I want to go in and get my own interviews. I want to be at the scene. I want to go out and get my own photos. I want to be out there doing everything that a journalist does, because journalism is my passion.

I hope that this will clear the air. I want to be able to have recognition for being able to blog about the "entertainment" side of things, but also that I can report & write about the other matters. I would like to be able to serve all audiences.

The blog entries I have done on "Facebook Privacy" are definitely directed at a different audience than the blog entry I wrote about "Tila Going To Rehab." Just as the sources I cite for each are different. I make sure that I cite and use credibly sources within my blog entries.

I will keep this in mind during my future blog posts.

My next blog post for this blog will be about INTERVIEWS.
The way to conduct interviews, who to interview, etc.
I think that a big part of the future of journalism is being able to conduct the proper interviews with the reliable and credible sources, and the way to get in touch with these sources.

I do feel honored that I was chosen to be interviewed for this book - don't get me wrong. I also attribute that to the traffic and exposure I have received due to writing for Zennie62.com. I am not ashamed of any of my blog entries. I put all my blog entries into a document before I post it onto the web. I think that a better way to conduct the interview would have been to ask if it would be possible to call me, and to better explain why I am being chosen. I give him credit for the way he phrased the "question." So, if you would like to give me a follow-up interview I am willing to talk to you on the phone and discuss any further questions you may have.

I respect anonymity, and I did not think it would have been respectful or necessary to post who wrote the e-mail, because I could be wrong on his intentions. I may have gotten it all wrong, but the phrasing and way I perceived it made me feel offended. That is another part of why e-mail is not a good way to get interviews. I mean, what if my e-mail was hacked? Then the hacker would have e-mailed him back all sorts of random crap.

This is part of the reason why I admire Hunter S. Thompson. He could report and write whatever he pleased, and he was still known as a serious journalist. I can read Fear and Loathing in America over and over again, it is my all time favorite book. I love seeing the faxes and letters sent back and forth. I love how you can see his personality and the behind the scenes of what he was thinking as he wrote. I strive to reach that level, but I would like to be able to instill a bit more objectivity into reporting.

P.S. "Celebrity" news (Entertainment) is not any less news than sports, health, political, international, etc. It is a different beat, but that does not mean it is not important. The way the articles/blog entries are written are crucial to the understanding of what is being written about. Don't judge an article by its headline or topic. Actually read through and see what sort of interviews and information is being presented, and if there has been a credible source. I am sick of seeing the "an insider says" or "a friend close to the family." I want there to be a name. Find someone who will go on record and give a reliable quote.



That's all for now.

"In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story." --Walter Cronkite

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Objectivity and Bias: The Future Of Journalism

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , , | at 12:42 PM



Objectivity and Bias.


I have a strong belief that when writing a hard news story or a feature story it should be written objectively. That means getting interviews from both sides, secondary research that supports both sides, and not inserting your opinion.


News articles should not address the reader. There should never be an "I" or a "you" or "US" or "WE." Every sentence should be attributed and justified using sources.


At the end of the article the reader should not be able to tell from the article what stance the reporter has on the issue. And I think that is a big deal. I love reading an article and wondering at the end, "Which side does he/she support?"


With hard news stories there shouldn't be a need to insert an opinion. Just report the facts. If you really want your opinion in there then interview someone (a CREDIBLE source) that you know will supply a quote that will say what you wish you could say, but then make sure to get a quote of opposition. You can also do secondary research and cite a source that shows your opinion.


When it's straight hard news it shouldn't be an issue. Let's say there was a car crash, you really don't need to say, "Oh my gosh that driver was SOOoO stupid." No, you don't need to even say an opinion. Just write the who what where when, get quotes if you can from the sources there, interview the police at the scene. If you don't feel like you have enough you can always do a follow up story and elude to that at the end of the article.


If it's a controversial hard news story, say a gay-marriage protest. Interview the protesters, but make sure to interview those that oppose the protest. Interview as many people as you can so you get a variety of quotes and then pick which ones best support the article; this goes for any story written.


Features may make it harder to show your objectivity, but it still should be done. There's more room in Features (800 words or more), and since they are IN-DEPTH stories they take longer than a few days to do. That means you definitely have enough time to get interviews from both sides of the story.


I think that the future of journalism will rely on objectivity within the hard news, and it needs to. I think it is much easier to be objective through print and web reporting, because no one can see your face. Your tone of voice is not heard.


I think that the future of journalism will allow journalists to show opinions within BLOGS. My thoughts on blogging has completely changed since 6 months ago. But I do believe that opinions should be left in blogs, columns, and editorials. I will include reviews in that, but i am a bit iffy.


Now, news sources in the media have gained reputations for being "bias" to the right or left, but even so - that doesn't mean that it's okay to show that within reporting the news.


I am focusing more on print/web journalism within this post, because that is what I am passionate for. I will write more about broadcast journalism later on, because I do have experience with that. I worked at a television station and was in a radio news reporting course. I own the stylebook for broadcast, and the college I attend has a radio station that is listened to throughout the region. (It's an alternative rock station, I love that).


I have finally allowed myself to "let loose" and show some of my opinion. I have strong opinions, but as a journalist I try to hide it and stay objective. As a blogger, I am allowing myself little by little. I will definitely NOT let that slip into my writing.


The future of journalism is going to rely on drawing a line between BLOGS and ARTICLES. Blogs can be personal, blogs don't need to be objective, but there are rules for blogging that coincide with those of a journalist.


I don't know whether to focus on credible sources, credibility, or more so bias.

This one was definitely more about objectivity, but I will go more in-depth to bias later.


I did a 20+ page paper for my English Composition class on the conservative bias of Fox News. I did that paper extremely objectively, but then allowed my opinions to show because the professor asked us to have our opinions in it. I researched my tail off. I WATCHED Fox News, I read transcripts, I read and examined articles, I compared the headlines of Fox News to the headlines of other news sources.


I compared side by side a story written/broadcasted/covered by Fox News vs. the same story covered by another station.


I gained lots of insight.

I really dislike sensationalism.


Now, I am writing for a blog that is on TMZ's blogroll - Zennie62.com.

That website has me focusing on the guilty pleasure celebrity news blogging.

This blog is my serious journalist blog, BUT I will post links and posts I do for that site so that I will be able to show what I wrote for the other blog, but this blog is dedicated and will remain dedicated to the future of journalism.


I am into serious journalism, and I think that I have shown that

But I was given an amazing opportunity to blog and to get a lot more people to read my work, and I think that if people read the "juicy celebrity gossip," then maybe they will go to "nikkyraney.com" to see what else I have written -- and they will see that even though I am a celebrity blogger - I am also a serious journalist.


I want to be able to do both.

And I want to still be thought of as a credible, trustworthy, serious journalist.

My favorite news to cover includes politics, crime, etc. but I am not able to get the interviews at the time, but I can aggregate links to other news sources within the blog posts I write for Zennie62.com. It is a way for me to basically "relax" and not feel as much pressure.


I take Zennie62.com seriously, though.

I try to never be directly critical, and when I do state an opinion I show a link/article that supports my opinion.


So, that's what I have to say about Objectivity and bias for now.

I will be posting my "WORD OF THE WEEK" in a few hours.(I work on each blog entry for at least half an hour, but usually longer).



Oh my favorite moment of the week is trading direct messages back and forth with Steve Tuttle from Newsweek (via Twitter). He read the blog entry I wrote about Newsweek and he liked it.


I am surprised that my twitter got so popular. I love following, but I never expected that I would be followed. My numbers have been going up day by day. I don't ask for followers and I hate the spam "GET MORE FOLLOWERS" crap.







But, here's my twitter.

I post a lot of re-tweeting to news articles.

I post a LOT of news articles.

I post a lot of sarcastic/funny posts.

And I am highly critical of Tila Tequila, but I'll do an entire thing on her later.

I will be doing a blog entry on "CELEBRITY GOSSIP BLOGS" and the good, the bad, and the tila tequila. Don't get me started.


Cheers :)

Thanks for all the support.


To comment, contact, suggest, etc. please e-mail me :)

If you want to be a blogger for Zennie62.com e-mail me!


(p.s. I refuse to link to Fox News, because I am BIAS.)

(p.p.s) John Draper is helping to re-design the layout of my blog. EXCITING.



The mainstream media has its own agenda. They do not want to print the facts. They have an agenda, they have a slant, they have a bias. It is outrageous to me. --Curt Weldon


It is outrageous to me too. I'll fix it, promise. And yes, I did quote a Republican politician.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Share |

Comments Matter.

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , , | at 1:55 PM

Pretty cool: Yesterday I sent an e-mail to a blogger for the San Francisco Chronicle commenting on the flaws in the copy-editing & fact-checking of his blog entries Not only did he RESPOND to me in a positive/thankful way, he then sent me a FOLLOW request on Twitter. I feel pretty respectful & respected right now. I thought that my comment would be perceived as naive criticism from one of the many commentators.


This proves that no matter who you are, or how insignificant you may think your comment is. Even if there are 1,000,000 comments - your stills may be read & may have an influence on the writer. I know I see rude comments all the time on articles, blogs, etc. all the time. I do a lot of commenting as well (as an observer, not as a critic), and it is good to know that I'm not just wasting my time typing out what I think.

I am not going to post the comment or post who the person is, because I don't want to put any unwanted spotlight on him. I accept his follower request and I am also following him in return. It just made me feel good to know that I wasn't just looked at as "19-year-old journalism student who is trying to criticize a San Francisco Chronicle Blogger," and by the way he is also a business man and deals with advertising & hosts a show that is watched by many online.


Let this be a lesson to us.
Next time you comment on a blog, article, etc. think of what you would do if the person sent you a response. I had been unable to leave a comment so I had e-mailed the man, but it is the same concept. I did not leave a vicious or overly rude comment (it was a mature comment with a critical tone), but that doesn't mean that it could not have been taken in that manner. I feel respected and I feel respectful.


P.S. If you are one of the people on Twitter who follow & read my posts then you may know who I am referring to if you are going through my Twitter followers/posts. If you want to go do your own research and figure it out for yourself then so be it, but I don't think that those details are pivotal to this blog entry. I am talking about my personal experience in comparison to commenting as a whole.

Cheers :)


"Be careful. Journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. Your life can get out of balance." -- Dan Rather



Share |

The Future of Newsweek

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | at 7:56 AM

EDITED: I made this post a week ago, but I only included links. I have deleted the previous posts and decided to start from scratch. I was posting the links to articles, but I never really gave my own opinion. And I forget sometimes that on a blog I CAN give my opinion. I am so used to always trying my hardest to be objective that I am hesitant to go too far with lack-of-objectivity within my blog.

I have been subscribing to Newsweek since I was 13 (2003). Well, to be accurate it has been my dad who has been subscribing, but whenever a new issue comes in the mail he makes sure that he promptly hands it over to me, and when I am finished he can have his turn. Anyway, news of Newsweek going for sale has got me flustered. Jon Meacham has made changes to the publications over the years. One of the changes is that most of the articles have gone from objective features to personal essays. Even though I was not particularly fond of that change, it didn't change my opinion of the magazine itself. Although I do not choose to write/report in that sort of way, I still enjoy reading the articles/essays written by these Journalists. It may not be traditional journalism, or but it makes that news publication stand out. I enjoy reading the Editor's Note from Meacham in first pages, the Conventional Wisdom, Dignity Index, the frequent submissions from Fareed Zakaria, etc. And it makes me sad to see that it is for sale. I hope that this will be a positive experience in the long run *Crosses fingers* . When I was younger (16/17, I am currently 19) I wanted to write for Newsweek. I thought about even one day being an Editor for Newsweek. Although that dream has altered a bit (I really want to be able to write for a newspaper, even if that means writing mostly for the webpage of the newspaper), I still enjoy and always look forward to reading Newsweek. At 13, reading Newsweek helped spark my passion to be a journalist (and Hunter S. Thompson followed, and then Walter V. Robinson), and I hope that it will continue to keep me informed and content.

Articles regarding this:
Who Will Buy Newsweek? Three Likely Possibilities
With Newsweek for Sale, an Era Fades


I found that Meacham's Editor's note for the latest issue was really motivating and positive. I even found it quote-worthy.
Cheers, hope you like the new layout :)


*Please do not let Rupert Murdoch buy Newsweek, I beg this of you*



"Journalism is kind of like baseball: if you win, great, but if you lose, you suck it up and get back up the next day to do it again." -- Jon Meacham

Share |

Putting the TWIT in TWITTER

Posted in Labels: , , , , , , , | at 9:29 AM

Don't let your 140 character limit on Twitter updates compromise your intelligence.



Okay, I think that there needs to be some new rules that dictate to public figures that just because you have a twitter/facebook does not mean that you should "dumb down" your speech. I am appalled that it has become socially acceptable (or appears to have become) for politicians to write that way online. I have an example from Sarah Palin's official twitter.


"Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl change" **

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/6823906156


That is her exact tweet. I have not altered, changed, or edited anything from the original tweet.


Since when is it acceptable to write this way? For those of you who will argue against me and say that it's "easier" or "Twitter's 140-character limit makes it difficult," that should not matter. Either shorten your tweet to 140 characters OR make multiple tweets. She could have made two separate tweets and got the message across.


Who is the target audience here? I had my 60-year-old father read this tweet. He struggled to read it out loud, and he was very frustrated while trying to understand what she was trying to say. If the target audience for her twitter are other adults, then she may have a problem. I asked some of my friends (college-aged) to read the tweet, and most of them also struggled.


I think that writing in such a way does not promote literacy or clarity. I don't think that as a politician, on her public (not personal/private), Twitter, she should be writing in a way that misrepresents her intelligence.


I think that it seems rushed and careless. I don't even make my Twitter that way, and my Twitter is a personal "request only" account.


I have done research and noticed that I am not the only one to give criticism to Sarah Palin. Other criticism includes

"TWITTER ACCOUNT OF A 9 YEAR OLD"


I am not intentionally attacking or "dissing" Sarah Palin for the way she uses her Twitter. I am simply using her as an example of what I have seen on Twitter that I believe is not acceptable. I do not think I am alone in my opinion. I jokingly said to my aunt in an e-mail, "She puts the TWIT in TWITTER," and that is what inspired this blog entry.


Thanks for reading, cheers.


One last note regarding Twitter: My twitter is http://www.twitter.com/nikkyraney , I follow those who follow me, and I believe it is good to be following more people than are following you (unless you are a big time celebrity without the time for all that), because I think via Twitter LISTENING is more important than being heard. Twitter helps me gain information from others and I use it to mostly post articles & news related information. I like to follow a variety of people, and I think the more people you follow, the more information you can obtain. Twitter is extremely simplistic, but used in the proper way it can be a great tool for promotion and for news.




**does she mean EONS?





"Here's a little newsflash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve this great country." - Sarah Palin

Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

VISITOR COUNT

free web counter