The question for my final exam in advanced journalism had to do with the idea of truth in journalism. This is a tricky question, because what is truth is a tricky question. I eventually decided to write my essay on honest, and take truth right out of the equation.
How important is truth in journalistic writing is an evil question. Of course truth is important. Journalism is the business of telling the news. If news doesn’t tell people what’s going on then it loses its only purpose (I’ll let you judge if it has lost purpose). The only way to tell people what is going on is to tell the truth. Truth is the root of journalist ethics. Still, I don’t like the word. Truth weighs too much. Truth makes writers feel that they should be giving people something golden, shiny, and permanent. To quote an overly quoted Robert Frost poem, “Nothing gold can stay.” That’s true, and truth works the same way. What is true one day may not be true the next. It is an evolving creature, which adapts in ways that people cannot foresee. That is why truth makes people nervous. That is why people who attempt to be truthful are often labeled as untruthful. That is why people think there is no truth in journalism. So, in my writing on journalistic ethics I am omitting the word truth. I have decided to change my vernacular to honesty.
Truth is the actual state of things. In this postmodern world, who is to say what the state of things really is. Everything is constantly up for debate. There is no actual state of things anymore. This makes things hard for journalists, because they can write up everything they see, hear and smell; but someone can always disagree with them. Honesty is more forgiving to a writer. Honesty is sincere. Honesty is upright and fair. And I think this is more important to journalism than truth. Honesty is exactly what writers such as Murray are talking about when they talk about getting away from the situation and just reporting the facts, and not attempting great writing. That is what honesty is about. Truth is getting everything down, and making sure it’s correct beyond the shadow of a doubt. Honesty is about getting all that you can, and knowing that the information you have is the best obtainable at the time. This might seem like a very miniscule detail, but it speaks volumes. Honesty is just more real. It gives readers more credit to know what facts are fluid. It is good journalism without the piety.
Last Friday someone hijacked Hillary Clinton’s campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire. While the situation was unfolding the television news networks were there. Fox News was the first to release a name. They confidently released the name Troy Stanley. CNN was the second to release a name. CNN hesitantly released the name Leeland Eisenberg; making sure the entire time that there audience was aware it was a tentative name and revealing where they got their sources. In the end CNN had the right name and Fox was wrong, but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is not the CNN had the truth. What matters is that CNN was being honest. They did not try to report the situation like they knew everything. They let their audience know that they were just going with the best information they had, and told them where that information came from. It’s that honesty that matters in this situation, journalists can be wrong as long as they let their audience know, that they are not sure. Granted, journalism should have fact checked enough that they know they are right, but in “breaking news” situations, I guess things are a little different.
Still, even when a journalist has all of his facts, he should report honestly. By reporting honestly I am echoing a phrase by Carl Bernstein. Bernstein says that journalism is, “the best obtainable version of the truth.” And that takes honesty. That is why journalists always have to quote their sources, or even put themselves into a story so that a reader knows how the information was discovered. It is the honesty that really matters. Even if what was accepted as truth changes, an audience knows that a reporter did the best to discover what the actual truth was because the reporter was honest.
Donald Murray says that he finds using the first person narrative alright in some situations. Murray says that using the “I” is alright when the writer has, “special authority, experience, or reaction.” I disagree; I think that floating in and out of a first person narrative can be a great thing in cold news and even most hot news stories. “I” lets a reader know how things where discovered, how various people responded to being interviewed, and just how things were taken care of. Sure it’s not a practice that should always be used; but if you need to be in a story for things to be clear, than put yourself in the story. It’s the honest thing to do.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
How to get the best obtainable version of the truth
Carl Bernstein says that the best the press can do is get the best obtainable version of the truth. He says that to get the actual and complex truth, "requires hard work, digging, reporting"
Wow, that is the fanciest way to say nothing that I have ever heard. Let's face it, Bernstein is a reporting legend who is now on the "rubber chicken dinner circuit" and is preaching to those who think he's great. Now, I don't want to say that his points are not valid, or that its all fark, but its a little grandiose.
In the speech that we read, Bernstein manages to say a lot of things that touch on important topics, but doesn't say a whole hell of a lot.
Still there are some great points in here. He hits it right off the bat, " Today we in journalism limit ourselves more often in finding out the truth than the government limits us, because we are not willing to do the hard work of good reporting, of searching out the truth." This gets us into the "best obtainable version of the truth". If anyone really wants the truth they have to get that first polished quote from the government and then sniff around and talk to workers, see if this is really going on. They have to look at records. They have to go in depth.
Bernstein then goes on to talk about why reporters don't go in depth. Trash sells, timeliness is better than good reporting, and people want easy truths not complex ones all fall into why journalism doesn't go in depth anymore.
I have to agree with Bernstein--Rupert Murdoch sucks.
Yet, you have to look at it in some context. Bernstein needs this lecture circuit. If he doesn't talk like the whole of American journalism is going to hell, no one wants to listen. So yes, Bernstein has a lot of good points, but it doesn't go for all of American journalism.
here is one quote I really like. It doesn't really fit in with what I am talking about, but its fantastic!
"The truth is often complex, very complex "The best obtainable version of the truth” is partly about context and this is perhaps the greatest single failing of our journalism in media today. For too much of it is utterly without context. Facts by themselves are not necessarily the truth. Thus the gossip press, the tabloids, too much of what we see on the air, even when the facts are somewhat straight, they are often a form of misinformation, because their aim is to shock, to titillate, to distort, to give grotesque emphasis."
Again, this fits for a lot of the fark you see on TV and in the isle of your local grocery store, but it is not all American journalism.
Bernstein has alot of good points in his speech. Jouranlists should fact-check, talk to multiple sources, follow all stupid lead just incase, and really get thier hands dirty. Journalists shouldn't publish anything till it is well polished and makes sense, but hey that still happens. There is still hope. Smile Bernstein--smile.
Wow, that is the fanciest way to say nothing that I have ever heard. Let's face it, Bernstein is a reporting legend who is now on the "rubber chicken dinner circuit" and is preaching to those who think he's great. Now, I don't want to say that his points are not valid, or that its all fark, but its a little grandiose.
In the speech that we read, Bernstein manages to say a lot of things that touch on important topics, but doesn't say a whole hell of a lot.
Still there are some great points in here. He hits it right off the bat, " Today we in journalism limit ourselves more often in finding out the truth than the government limits us, because we are not willing to do the hard work of good reporting, of searching out the truth." This gets us into the "best obtainable version of the truth". If anyone really wants the truth they have to get that first polished quote from the government and then sniff around and talk to workers, see if this is really going on. They have to look at records. They have to go in depth.
Bernstein then goes on to talk about why reporters don't go in depth. Trash sells, timeliness is better than good reporting, and people want easy truths not complex ones all fall into why journalism doesn't go in depth anymore.
I have to agree with Bernstein--Rupert Murdoch sucks.
Yet, you have to look at it in some context. Bernstein needs this lecture circuit. If he doesn't talk like the whole of American journalism is going to hell, no one wants to listen. So yes, Bernstein has a lot of good points, but it doesn't go for all of American journalism.
here is one quote I really like. It doesn't really fit in with what I am talking about, but its fantastic!
"The truth is often complex, very complex "The best obtainable version of the truth” is partly about context and this is perhaps the greatest single failing of our journalism in media today. For too much of it is utterly without context. Facts by themselves are not necessarily the truth. Thus the gossip press, the tabloids, too much of what we see on the air, even when the facts are somewhat straight, they are often a form of misinformation, because their aim is to shock, to titillate, to distort, to give grotesque emphasis."
Again, this fits for a lot of the fark you see on TV and in the isle of your local grocery store, but it is not all American journalism.
Bernstein has alot of good points in his speech. Jouranlists should fact-check, talk to multiple sources, follow all stupid lead just incase, and really get thier hands dirty. Journalists shouldn't publish anything till it is well polished and makes sense, but hey that still happens. There is still hope. Smile Bernstein--smile.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Writing about Katrina
The staff of the Times Picayune, started a blog to reach the people of New Orleans, even though they could not distribute a hard paper.
These pieces are all very different in format and style. The first articles read like normal news stories. They get out the hard facts, they serve the public by giving out warnings and advice, and the do so with out bullshit! They are straight and to the point. Everything is written in a tone that shows the immediacy of the situation. They don't sugar-coat anything. They don't have time to write it, the reader doesn't have time to read it. Facts are what's important.
"The weather service cautioned motorists not to drive on roads covered by water because it's difficult to judge the depth. People in vehicles caught in rising water should abandon them immediately and seek higher ground. Winds of 100 mph have been reported on Grand Isle, and gusts of 70 have accompanied rain squalls in the New Orleans area that have dropped as much as 2 inches of rain an hour. Rain totals of 15 inches are possible in some areas today, as Katrina moves over the area."
Only pertinent news.
In the aftermath of the crisis the articles that really stick out are the editorials. Articles titled, "An open letter to the President" and "It's time for a nation to return the favor" do more than just stir dissidence and rage. They are well worded pleas that give moral to a city (reminding it of its greatness), critique a government's failures, and tell those reading from a safe distance how they can help. These editorials go far past rants, but truly serve their readership.
However, the most impressive article that I read from the Picayune's blog was posted on September 19, "'Help me, please don't let me die'". This article is about the 911 operators in New Orleans. It was grim. It was depressing. It showed exactly what it was like to be in that room. It showed the helplessness of the operators. It showed the devastation and despair of the callers. It showed the entire tragedy in one article.
What really moves this piece is the dialogue. They give you every kind of story, the kind that work out:
"'I'm calling to report a fire, at 6131 Bundy Road.'
'What type?'
'There's a whole apartment complex on fire ... ' '
Do you know how long ... ,' the operator interrupts. '
No, ma'am.'
' Do you know if anybody's inside the house?'
'I know there's people over there, that's what I'm trying to say ... '
'... OK, we'll get somebody out there.'
'Ok. Thanks.'"
and the ones that don't:
"'Seek higher ground' - that was all that Allen could tell them, in the calmest voice she could muster. 'I'm already on my roof,' so many of them would respond. "
The article is filled with great quotes, and what really amazed me is that the reporter went through so many 911 tapes. He, Brian Thevenot, writes that the police tapes have been released to the public, and to get the right ones he must have gone crawling through tape after tape.
The most amazing thing about this article is that Thevenot ends in on a (relatively) high note.
"But she said she plans to keep her $9-an-hour job, and to stay in New Orleans. 'I'm not leaving New Orleans,' she said. 'If I have to rebuild, I'll rebuild.'
This last quote leaves the reader with a optimistic idea about such a grim article.
These pieces are all very different in format and style. The first articles read like normal news stories. They get out the hard facts, they serve the public by giving out warnings and advice, and the do so with out bullshit! They are straight and to the point. Everything is written in a tone that shows the immediacy of the situation. They don't sugar-coat anything. They don't have time to write it, the reader doesn't have time to read it. Facts are what's important.
"The weather service cautioned motorists not to drive on roads covered by water because it's difficult to judge the depth. People in vehicles caught in rising water should abandon them immediately and seek higher ground. Winds of 100 mph have been reported on Grand Isle, and gusts of 70 have accompanied rain squalls in the New Orleans area that have dropped as much as 2 inches of rain an hour. Rain totals of 15 inches are possible in some areas today, as Katrina moves over the area."
Only pertinent news.
In the aftermath of the crisis the articles that really stick out are the editorials. Articles titled, "An open letter to the President" and "It's time for a nation to return the favor" do more than just stir dissidence and rage. They are well worded pleas that give moral to a city (reminding it of its greatness), critique a government's failures, and tell those reading from a safe distance how they can help. These editorials go far past rants, but truly serve their readership.
However, the most impressive article that I read from the Picayune's blog was posted on September 19, "'Help me, please don't let me die'". This article is about the 911 operators in New Orleans. It was grim. It was depressing. It showed exactly what it was like to be in that room. It showed the helplessness of the operators. It showed the devastation and despair of the callers. It showed the entire tragedy in one article.
What really moves this piece is the dialogue. They give you every kind of story, the kind that work out:
"'I'm calling to report a fire, at 6131 Bundy Road.'
'What type?'
'There's a whole apartment complex on fire ... ' '
Do you know how long ... ,' the operator interrupts. '
No, ma'am.'
' Do you know if anybody's inside the house?'
'I know there's people over there, that's what I'm trying to say ... '
'... OK, we'll get somebody out there.'
'Ok. Thanks.'"
and the ones that don't:
"'Seek higher ground' - that was all that Allen could tell them, in the calmest voice she could muster. 'I'm already on my roof,' so many of them would respond. "
The article is filled with great quotes, and what really amazed me is that the reporter went through so many 911 tapes. He, Brian Thevenot, writes that the police tapes have been released to the public, and to get the right ones he must have gone crawling through tape after tape.
The most amazing thing about this article is that Thevenot ends in on a (relatively) high note.
"But she said she plans to keep her $9-an-hour job, and to stay in New Orleans. 'I'm not leaving New Orleans,' she said. 'If I have to rebuild, I'll rebuild.'
This last quote leaves the reader with a optimistic idea about such a grim article.
Monday, November 5, 2007
More about 9/11
David Usborne's September 11 articles are great pieces of writing. Personally I like his retrospective piece a lot more. I think that it paints a much clearer picture of what was happening that day. Thinking about it though, I imagine that with so much happening it must have been hard to focus the deadline story. Usborne had so much to tell his reader's in England, but not enough space to really do it. There was just so much. So his focus was a little off, but it told the entire story--from his disbelief to the lines of people donating blood. The retrospective piece was written after everyone already knew what had happened. He does not have to make us believe or see anything--we already have. So with this piece he can speak less of facts and more of details, emotions, and his own story.
The good aspects of his deadline article is that he is in tune with his reader. While taking them through his own 9/11 experiences, Usborne answers all the questions the reader would ask. How many are dead? What are the people in New York doing for each other? Who is responsible? What does the city look like now?
I learned from Usborne that you have to find the story. You have to watch and you have to investigate. Usborne says that he did not even believe the man who said something about the towers being hit by a plane:
"The towers at the World Trade Center had just been struck by two large passenger planes, he told me...Clearly Mr. Mckinney's explanation wouldn't do...it was too outlandish."
Still he goes out to the sight and sees what he can see. Granted eventually he turns back--I suppose the lesson here is to know when to back off.
Usborne really gets a feel for the horror of the day, and with his generous use of the word I, the reader really gets involved in the story.
Finally, Usborne taught me through this article that a good simile never dies. In both articles he compares the Twin Towers to Lego towers. Its rather effective, and I am glad that he brought it back in the retrospect article.
The good aspects of his deadline article is that he is in tune with his reader. While taking them through his own 9/11 experiences, Usborne answers all the questions the reader would ask. How many are dead? What are the people in New York doing for each other? Who is responsible? What does the city look like now?
I learned from Usborne that you have to find the story. You have to watch and you have to investigate. Usborne says that he did not even believe the man who said something about the towers being hit by a plane:
"The towers at the World Trade Center had just been struck by two large passenger planes, he told me...Clearly Mr. Mckinney's explanation wouldn't do...it was too outlandish."
Still he goes out to the sight and sees what he can see. Granted eventually he turns back--I suppose the lesson here is to know when to back off.
Usborne really gets a feel for the horror of the day, and with his generous use of the word I, the reader really gets involved in the story.
Finally, Usborne taught me through this article that a good simile never dies. In both articles he compares the Twin Towers to Lego towers. Its rather effective, and I am glad that he brought it back in the retrospect article.
Friday, November 2, 2007
A No Prize Winning Review of a Pulitzer Prize Winning Article
The assignment for today was to read the Pulitzer Prize winning stories of the Wall Street Journal--the guys who won Pulitzer's for thier breaking news of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. After reading we were supposed to write about how these award winning journalism articles related to fiction.
The article I read for this project was "I Saw It All. Then I saw Nothing" by Daniel Henninger. Let's stop there. The title even sounds like fiction. I put it up there with The Sound and the Fury. I mean damn, that is a loaded title.
I always learned that good fiction starts in the middle of the story, and then gives you background, goes back to the middle, and ends with an open but understandable conclusion. Henninger does a great job of this. He opens in the middle of the story, not only is this interesting but it is the information the reader came for.
"I saw the airliner at the instant it hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. A little later I saw the flames burst out of the south tower when the second airliner hit it. I saw people fall from the top of the World Trade Center. I saw the south tower fall down. A little later, I saw the north tower fall down. I have, in the past several hours, looked into lower Manhattan, and each time, where the World Trade Center stood, there is absolutely nothing."
What Henninger also does in this opening graph is introduce us to his hero--himself. We see the entire incident through Henninger's eyes, and we know that. We follow his path through September 11 and live his experiences. (Read this and try to take the I off my keyboard.) Also Henninger has a great Anaphora with him. The repitition of "I saw" really gets the reader into what he in fact saw.
Now lets talk about setting. Ok, in the first draft we understood that the events take place in New York. To me, New York is a television set. I don't know what it's like. I just know that they have a really nice ball that they drop every New Year's Eve. Henninger does a great job showing us the area around the towers, before the attacks. He makes everything seem real to those who have never been there, and probably makes it concrete for those who have.
"There is a small coffee shop, with very good cinnamon-raisin croissants, across from American Express in the northern tower of the World Financial Center. Dow Jones is in the WFC's southern tower, and the whole complex sits in the shadow of the World Trade Center."
As for dialogue, Henninger does a good job tracing his internal monologue throughout the entire article. As for external dialogue, Henninger does not have much, but the bit that he does have really hits the spot. Its poignant in how it characterizes New Yorker's speech and the insantity that was the disaster.
"He got out and cops were telling people to 'make for the water.'"
There are alot of good things about how this article is written. Henninger is constantly pulling out little sides that really make the story flow. From his quick anecdote about his collegue, to his side about it seeming calm and crickets chirping, he makes the experience come alive.
Near the end of the story Henninger gets a little to artsy and deep for my personal tastes. He really wants the reader to feel the same sense of emptiness that he does. I really didn't feel it, but whose to say that means other people won't?
The article I read for this project was "I Saw It All. Then I saw Nothing" by Daniel Henninger. Let's stop there. The title even sounds like fiction. I put it up there with The Sound and the Fury. I mean damn, that is a loaded title.
I always learned that good fiction starts in the middle of the story, and then gives you background, goes back to the middle, and ends with an open but understandable conclusion. Henninger does a great job of this. He opens in the middle of the story, not only is this interesting but it is the information the reader came for.
"I saw the airliner at the instant it hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. A little later I saw the flames burst out of the south tower when the second airliner hit it. I saw people fall from the top of the World Trade Center. I saw the south tower fall down. A little later, I saw the north tower fall down. I have, in the past several hours, looked into lower Manhattan, and each time, where the World Trade Center stood, there is absolutely nothing."
What Henninger also does in this opening graph is introduce us to his hero--himself. We see the entire incident through Henninger's eyes, and we know that. We follow his path through September 11 and live his experiences. (Read this and try to take the I off my keyboard.) Also Henninger has a great Anaphora with him. The repitition of "I saw" really gets the reader into what he in fact saw.
Now lets talk about setting. Ok, in the first draft we understood that the events take place in New York. To me, New York is a television set. I don't know what it's like. I just know that they have a really nice ball that they drop every New Year's Eve. Henninger does a great job showing us the area around the towers, before the attacks. He makes everything seem real to those who have never been there, and probably makes it concrete for those who have.
"There is a small coffee shop, with very good cinnamon-raisin croissants, across from American Express in the northern tower of the World Financial Center. Dow Jones is in the WFC's southern tower, and the whole complex sits in the shadow of the World Trade Center."
As for dialogue, Henninger does a good job tracing his internal monologue throughout the entire article. As for external dialogue, Henninger does not have much, but the bit that he does have really hits the spot. Its poignant in how it characterizes New Yorker's speech and the insantity that was the disaster.
"He got out and cops were telling people to 'make for the water.'"
There are alot of good things about how this article is written. Henninger is constantly pulling out little sides that really make the story flow. From his quick anecdote about his collegue, to his side about it seeming calm and crickets chirping, he makes the experience come alive.
Near the end of the story Henninger gets a little to artsy and deep for my personal tastes. He really wants the reader to feel the same sense of emptiness that he does. I really didn't feel it, but whose to say that means other people won't?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Seeing the world thourgh journalists' eyes
In Margaret Tablot's article David Simon talks about reporting for the Baltimore Sun. There are some quotes in here that let you know how a reporter sees the world, even when he is not talking about reporting.
"'You can’t make this shit up...stealing life,' as he once described it to me—and knowing which parts to steal."
Great quote. It shows that you can never have an idea of what you are going to write. You have to figure it out first, and then you can report it. Knowing what is bs and what is true and honest--that is the trick.
"To be a decent city reporter, I had to listen to people who were different from me,” Simon explained. “I had to not be uncomfortable asking stupid questions or being on the outside. I found I had a knack for walking into situations where I didn’t know anything, and just waiting. A lot of reporters don’t want to be the butt of jokes. But sometimes it’s useful to act as if you couldn’t find your ass with both hands.”
A good reporter has to go beyond himself at times. He has to be honest about what that means. If it means you have to look at a criminal and tell him that you don't know if 50 bucks is fair for a gram, that means you ask it. If you are going to get the facts, you have to assume you don't know jack.
"I always have to trust my own ideas"
The journalist is the one stuck in the story. The people who really know it, don't know how to write. Others might know how to write, but not be in the story. Follow your gut. If the story is going one way, follow it. It might be a dead end, but even if it looks like a good story follow it. The writer knows what he is looking for and should go for it.
"'You can’t make this shit up...stealing life,' as he once described it to me—and knowing which parts to steal."
Great quote. It shows that you can never have an idea of what you are going to write. You have to figure it out first, and then you can report it. Knowing what is bs and what is true and honest--that is the trick.
"To be a decent city reporter, I had to listen to people who were different from me,” Simon explained. “I had to not be uncomfortable asking stupid questions or being on the outside. I found I had a knack for walking into situations where I didn’t know anything, and just waiting. A lot of reporters don’t want to be the butt of jokes. But sometimes it’s useful to act as if you couldn’t find your ass with both hands.”
A good reporter has to go beyond himself at times. He has to be honest about what that means. If it means you have to look at a criminal and tell him that you don't know if 50 bucks is fair for a gram, that means you ask it. If you are going to get the facts, you have to assume you don't know jack.
"I always have to trust my own ideas"
The journalist is the one stuck in the story. The people who really know it, don't know how to write. Others might know how to write, but not be in the story. Follow your gut. If the story is going one way, follow it. It might be a dead end, but even if it looks like a good story follow it. The writer knows what he is looking for and should go for it.
Friday, October 26, 2007
"He's king; the L.A. loft scene is his throne"
Steve Lopez, writer for the LA Times, does a great job writing feature stories. He does this because he is a good writer. He can take the reader somewhere. In his article "He's king; the L.A. loft scene is his throne" he really shows the reader downtown LA and Mr. Brady Westwater. It is his attention to detail that really gets to a reader.
The best part of Lopez's writing is that it shifts as the story needs to shift. He shifts from first person to second person to third person, and does it so fluently that one hardly has time to notice.
He begins his story in second person.
"You might guess that a 2,500-square-foot, three-bathroom unit, with private elevator and a price tag of $4.9 million, was in Bel-Air or Holmby Hills.But not this one.
Would you believe it's beyond the eastern edge of downtown L.A.'s skid row, surrounded by warehouses and not far from the railroad tracks?Stop shaking your head."
Then he shifts nicely to first, and stays there for awhile. While in first, he makes a few jabs at himself, it really shows that style of the place they were at. The mannerisms of Westwater and makes the reader laugh a little. It's a light hearted article, why not laugh?
"don't think the concept was working for Zion, who wondered what my relationship to Westwater was."This is the guy who once called me the worst columnist in America," I told Zion."
Finally Lopez lets the real estate agent Russell Roney tell the story and the narration slowly slips into third person before the story ends.
"Roney represented a Hollywood Hills couple who wanted to sell and buy something smaller because their sons had grown and moved out. Nothing in the hills jazzed them, so they came downtown on a lark, and Roney liked what he saw just as much as his client, Vicky Deger."
And the rest of the story reads like a news article, but one the audience wants to read because of the beginning. The end of this story is where all pertinent information is given, but no one would care if it wasn't for the beginning.
Lopez also has a great way of shifting focus. Lopez, in this article alone, takes you from a runway to a building downtown, into the lives of a local couple, and then finally, the whole of LA. Lopez gives you scope.
The best part of Lopez's writing is that it shifts as the story needs to shift. He shifts from first person to second person to third person, and does it so fluently that one hardly has time to notice.
He begins his story in second person.
"You might guess that a 2,500-square-foot, three-bathroom unit, with private elevator and a price tag of $4.9 million, was in Bel-Air or Holmby Hills.But not this one.
Would you believe it's beyond the eastern edge of downtown L.A.'s skid row, surrounded by warehouses and not far from the railroad tracks?Stop shaking your head."
Then he shifts nicely to first, and stays there for awhile. While in first, he makes a few jabs at himself, it really shows that style of the place they were at. The mannerisms of Westwater and makes the reader laugh a little. It's a light hearted article, why not laugh?
"don't think the concept was working for Zion, who wondered what my relationship to Westwater was."This is the guy who once called me the worst columnist in America," I told Zion."
Finally Lopez lets the real estate agent Russell Roney tell the story and the narration slowly slips into third person before the story ends.
"Roney represented a Hollywood Hills couple who wanted to sell and buy something smaller because their sons had grown and moved out. Nothing in the hills jazzed them, so they came downtown on a lark, and Roney liked what he saw just as much as his client, Vicky Deger."
And the rest of the story reads like a news article, but one the audience wants to read because of the beginning. The end of this story is where all pertinent information is given, but no one would care if it wasn't for the beginning.
Lopez also has a great way of shifting focus. Lopez, in this article alone, takes you from a runway to a building downtown, into the lives of a local couple, and then finally, the whole of LA. Lopez gives you scope.
FIN
Thursday, October 25, 2007
me myself and I
In the 1948 Boston Globe Newsroom the Capital I's were filed off the Royal typewriters. This is so journalists would not put themselves into the story--makes sense for hard news. I don't think it works for feature stories though. Murray says that the "I" is important, "for the reporter to speak directly to the reader of his or her own experiences, observations, knowledge" I suppose, but the real reason I think that the "I" is important in a feature story, especially in the Midwest is that the "I" implies a "we".
A feature story should take a reader somewhere. A feature story involves a lot of information, and the best way to give it to a reader is through a narrative. A smart feature writer tells his audience a story, and fills in the facts as they are necessary. One of the best ways to take the reader on a journey is to tell them yours. No "I' works.
"In a dank jail cell in Wonderland sits the Mad Hatter. He sits with a slump, and remembers the little girl who got him into this predicament."
But an "I" can help bring the reader into the world. The reader trusts the paper, and wants to feel the writers emotions. Ones they would probably share.
"When I first saw the Mad Hatter in Wonderland jail, I wondered what such a friendly man was doing in this environment. As I walked down the hallway I saw murders, druggies, and gangster rabbits; what was this genial guy doing here?"
Both are good ledes (to a bad story), but in the Midwest, where family and community are still valued the reader wants to be led by the hand. He does not want to go and visit something alone. He wants to know you are there too, and you will explain it all. You will still explain it objectively. You will still explain it in full detail. But they know you are the one doing it. That matters in the Midwest.
A feature story should take a reader somewhere. A feature story involves a lot of information, and the best way to give it to a reader is through a narrative. A smart feature writer tells his audience a story, and fills in the facts as they are necessary. One of the best ways to take the reader on a journey is to tell them yours. No "I' works.
"In a dank jail cell in Wonderland sits the Mad Hatter. He sits with a slump, and remembers the little girl who got him into this predicament."
But an "I" can help bring the reader into the world. The reader trusts the paper, and wants to feel the writers emotions. Ones they would probably share.
"When I first saw the Mad Hatter in Wonderland jail, I wondered what such a friendly man was doing in this environment. As I walked down the hallway I saw murders, druggies, and gangster rabbits; what was this genial guy doing here?"
Both are good ledes (to a bad story), but in the Midwest, where family and community are still valued the reader wants to be led by the hand. He does not want to go and visit something alone. He wants to know you are there too, and you will explain it all. You will still explain it objectively. You will still explain it in full detail. But they know you are the one doing it. That matters in the Midwest.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Feature Stories
the feature story I read was entitled "War child who 'disappeared' finds her way back" by Joseph P. Kahn of the Boston Globe.
It was a story about a 26 year old woman from Massachusetts who finds her birth parents in El Salvador. She was kidnapped at the ripe old age of two, by guerilla warriors during the civil war. Then, she was adopted by a New England couple, forgot any spanish she might have known, learned to drop her R's, and became a social worker. Last April she met her birth parents.
The date is probably my favorite part of the article. It is dated April 5, 2007. I know the Globe hasn't had this story sitting on their websight for seven monthes. It is probably a new post, but it had enough emotional pull, proximity, and interest to have a rather long shelf life.
The article highlights this meeting, but discusses that it is not isolated. Hundreds of El Salvadorian Children are returning home (basically the baby bussiness brought in big bucks for barborous milia men in the 80's).
The article was alright. It was not notably well written. All the names began with a B, and that got confusing. There was not really a good introduction to any of the people. The reasons I liked it though, was because it showed how long of a shelf life some stories have. I also liked that it took a foriegn issue and gave it proximity by using a Massachussettes woman.
I also really liked that it took a regular story, "hundreds of orphans find famliy in El Salvador" and made it human. It made these meeting tangible, even if it only discussed one.
It was a story about a 26 year old woman from Massachusetts who finds her birth parents in El Salvador. She was kidnapped at the ripe old age of two, by guerilla warriors during the civil war. Then, she was adopted by a New England couple, forgot any spanish she might have known, learned to drop her R's, and became a social worker. Last April she met her birth parents.
The date is probably my favorite part of the article. It is dated April 5, 2007. I know the Globe hasn't had this story sitting on their websight for seven monthes. It is probably a new post, but it had enough emotional pull, proximity, and interest to have a rather long shelf life.
The article highlights this meeting, but discusses that it is not isolated. Hundreds of El Salvadorian Children are returning home (basically the baby bussiness brought in big bucks for barborous milia men in the 80's).
The article was alright. It was not notably well written. All the names began with a B, and that got confusing. There was not really a good introduction to any of the people. The reasons I liked it though, was because it showed how long of a shelf life some stories have. I also liked that it took a foriegn issue and gave it proximity by using a Massachussettes woman.
I also really liked that it took a regular story, "hundreds of orphans find famliy in El Salvador" and made it human. It made these meeting tangible, even if it only discussed one.
THE END
JODA LEJOS
Monday, October 8, 2007
Eat this, you pompous, idealist ass
On September 19, 2007 Mark Morford wrote an article for his sfgate.com web sight entitled, "Eat this, You fat, sad idiot." In this article Morford relentlessly attacks not only the fast food industry, but also the fast food consumer. He attacks the products calling them, "The burger is this: two sickeningly brownish-gray, chemical-blasted 1/4-pound beef like patties, intersliced with two slabs of neon-orange cheeselike substance, slathered with mayonnaise, all topped with the big kicker: six (yes, six) strips of bacon. Oh my, yes. It's like a giant middle finger to your heart." That's rather scathing, don't you think? Morford then takes on the advertising. He takes off the gloves and goes for all advertising that is marketed to as he describes them, "slovenly, apparently hugely unhelathy, largelly illiterate audience."
Now, I will give Morford the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this is not the way he views the population at large, in fact he could be defending the larger population that he feels is smarter than that. I am not sure, but whether he had good intentions of bad, he just pissed off a lot of people. He pissed on weekend sports fans. He pissed of consumers of fast food, and he did so in a childish and too intense way. If you segregate your audience you are not going to reach anyone. Especially when the people you scorn in your article are the majority.
Of course, if the article was not so intense there would be no reason at all to read it. (Hell, I laughed my ass off when I read it. I gave it to my vegetarian girlfriend, she couldn't stop laughing either.) But one thing is for sure. My veggie girlfriend is not most Americans. If she laughed, they would probably just get pissed.
I have the feeling that Morford would probably just say most Americans don't read and leave it at that.
In short I think that Morford's article would insult to many people to be considered great. Though maybe that shit flies in California, I don't know. I do know, that most people I know would just laugh and say, "That's me!"
Now, I will give Morford the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this is not the way he views the population at large, in fact he could be defending the larger population that he feels is smarter than that. I am not sure, but whether he had good intentions of bad, he just pissed off a lot of people. He pissed on weekend sports fans. He pissed of consumers of fast food, and he did so in a childish and too intense way. If you segregate your audience you are not going to reach anyone. Especially when the people you scorn in your article are the majority.
Of course, if the article was not so intense there would be no reason at all to read it. (Hell, I laughed my ass off when I read it. I gave it to my vegetarian girlfriend, she couldn't stop laughing either.) But one thing is for sure. My veggie girlfriend is not most Americans. If she laughed, they would probably just get pissed.
I have the feeling that Morford would probably just say most Americans don't read and leave it at that.
In short I think that Morford's article would insult to many people to be considered great. Though maybe that shit flies in California, I don't know. I do know, that most people I know would just laugh and say, "That's me!"
Monday, September 24, 2007
THE BLOG on THE WAR
The line, as I see it, for the war is people. There is conflict between what people know from text books (and a multitude of Tom Hanks films), and what really happened to people in the war.
This TV series is not about telling the facts and figures of the war; this series is about life for the average person in the war. This goes from men serving, mothers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers. This film is telling the experience, not the event.
This is what the line is. This is how the story will unfold.
The creators must have known what the line was before they created it, because of how they got their information. They got all their footage, stories, and pictures from national archives, but also from people! They put ads in newspapers asking for people's pictures, film, medals, and stories. Then they honed it down to what they wanted to use--what they could use. This film expressed the war from the bottom up, so the creation had to also be from the bottom up. There were not war diaries from generals. There were pictures from families.
This TV series is not about telling the facts and figures of the war; this series is about life for the average person in the war. This goes from men serving, mothers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers. This film is telling the experience, not the event.
This is what the line is. This is how the story will unfold.
The creators must have known what the line was before they created it, because of how they got their information. They got all their footage, stories, and pictures from national archives, but also from people! They put ads in newspapers asking for people's pictures, film, medals, and stories. Then they honed it down to what they wanted to use--what they could use. This film expressed the war from the bottom up, so the creation had to also be from the bottom up. There were not war diaries from generals. There were pictures from families.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Observations turn to stories..
The observation I chose came from Jeremy D. He was in Chicago when he was doing his observation assignment, but I have noticed the same thing in Spfld.
Cigarette butts all over sidewalks
What I really got from the Tom Ashbrook story was the idea of the story as a diamond. Start a story, ask more questions, ask more questions, ask more questions, and then bring it on home again.
For this story on cigarette butts, I would start downtown. Talk to a local business owner who is having problems, or is at least angry about it. Then talk to the city sanitation department, see if they are doing anything to clean the sidewalks and streets. If yes, see how much money that costs. If no, see if anything is being done. The next question I would have is what does the beautifying Springfield group think about this whole issue? Are they trying to do anything about it. Where can I get rough numbers of how many people smoke on a Saturday night in Springfield? If sanitation does clean up, is that why taxes per pack are going up (I highly doubt it)? Talk to the tourism info, see if this is an issue with them at all. Then bring it all back home as a sanitation crew cleans up the mess, or the business owner does, or the butts just sit there as more and more people come outside to smoke.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Observe This!
Saturday night, as soon as I got off work, I had to go to my girlfriend's birthday party. It was toga themed. I had tons of homework to do the next day, and probably shouldn't have gone out at all. Still, I knew I had to attend so I took this unique opportunity to do my observations list. Besides being bombarded with questions of, "What the hell are you writing" I think it went pretty well.
1.) Punk Rockers stay in the kitchen
2.) They probably stay there because that's where the beer is
3.) Punk music means a lot of people singing along with the stereo
4.) Guys pump the keg for girls
5.) Guys are reluctant to pump the keg for other guys
6.) The best togas have leafy accessories.
7.) No one pays attention to their card game
8.) Brother's friends don't mingle well.
9.) Dancing mother's attract a crowd.
10.) "I'm wasted" becomes a substitute for conversation.
11.) The less attractive the girl, the skimpier the clothing
12.) When one smoker lights up, at least one more does too.
13.) The later it gets the more people smoke.
14.) Every time someone new enters the conversation switches
15.) Cameras cause guys to pose horribly.
16.) Cameras cause girls to look cute.
17.) People at toga parties make a lot of references to the movie, "300"
18.) Whenever my friend Ernie meets a new guy he tells a story about a fight he has been in.
19.) Whenever my friend Ernie meets a new girl he talks about his kids.
20.) The drunker the guys get the more touchy-feely they get with each other.
21.) The dogs look sad.
22.) Drunks cannot decide on a CD for more than two songs.
23.) People get a lot quieter as soon as they go outside.
24.) People seem to enjoy Steak-n'-Shake a lot more when drunk.
25.) Steak-n'-Shake seems to enjoy people a lot less when they are drunk.
26.) Theme parties are the best parties.
1.) Punk Rockers stay in the kitchen
2.) They probably stay there because that's where the beer is
3.) Punk music means a lot of people singing along with the stereo
4.) Guys pump the keg for girls
5.) Guys are reluctant to pump the keg for other guys
6.) The best togas have leafy accessories.
7.) No one pays attention to their card game
8.) Brother's friends don't mingle well.
9.) Dancing mother's attract a crowd.
10.) "I'm wasted" becomes a substitute for conversation.
11.) The less attractive the girl, the skimpier the clothing
12.) When one smoker lights up, at least one more does too.
13.) The later it gets the more people smoke.
14.) Every time someone new enters the conversation switches
15.) Cameras cause guys to pose horribly.
16.) Cameras cause girls to look cute.
17.) People at toga parties make a lot of references to the movie, "300"
18.) Whenever my friend Ernie meets a new guy he tells a story about a fight he has been in.
19.) Whenever my friend Ernie meets a new girl he talks about his kids.
20.) The drunker the guys get the more touchy-feely they get with each other.
21.) The dogs look sad.
22.) Drunks cannot decide on a CD for more than two songs.
23.) People get a lot quieter as soon as they go outside.
24.) People seem to enjoy Steak-n'-Shake a lot more when drunk.
25.) Steak-n'-Shake seems to enjoy people a lot less when they are drunk.
26.) Theme parties are the best parties.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Suprises on SCI campus
Well, maybe I am just too easily entertained, but I think that suprise is all over the S.C.I. campus. The fact that Green Club is growing as a club and growing fast is amazing. Green Club fliers are everywhere. They are giving out green slushies today. They are having an event on saturday. This club that didn't exist last year is becoming one of the major (and best known) clubs on campus. I'm suprised by that.
The biggest suprise I have had this semester was with my interview with Rihab Mousa (whose name I am still having problems spelling). I interviewed here about the Dominican Sisters, and life in and out of Iraq. I was really suprised by what I expected to hear compared to what I heard. I expected a lot of heart strings pulled, and honestly, a pretty sappy interview. Once me and Rihab got to talking, I found out I was wrong. She is a very strong and straight talking woman. She gave me fantastic quotes and kept a strong demeanor the entire time. It spoke volumes about her character, which is much stronger than I expected.
This last part probably shouldn't have suprised me but it did. How easily one source can lead to another. From tlaking to Rihab, I really didn't hav ea whole story. Then she offered to get me in touch with some other Dominican's who are doing more peace keeping missions. I probably shouldn't have been suprised that people will help you out, if you go the right way with it, but I was.
Now, time for the suprise ending.
The biggest suprise I have had this semester was with my interview with Rihab Mousa (whose name I am still having problems spelling). I interviewed here about the Dominican Sisters, and life in and out of Iraq. I was really suprised by what I expected to hear compared to what I heard. I expected a lot of heart strings pulled, and honestly, a pretty sappy interview. Once me and Rihab got to talking, I found out I was wrong. She is a very strong and straight talking woman. She gave me fantastic quotes and kept a strong demeanor the entire time. It spoke volumes about her character, which is much stronger than I expected.
This last part probably shouldn't have suprised me but it did. How easily one source can lead to another. From tlaking to Rihab, I really didn't hav ea whole story. Then she offered to get me in touch with some other Dominican's who are doing more peace keeping missions. I probably shouldn't have been suprised that people will help you out, if you go the right way with it, but I was.
Now, time for the suprise ending.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Tips for College Writers--or--Who am I to be Giving Advice
David Murray's basic Outline for the writing to a deadline process is:
Explore
Focus
Rehearse
Draft
Develop
Clarify
I suppose mine would look more like this:
Explore--Well, duh! You can't really write anything until you know what you are writing about.
Rehearse--Actually, until Murray wrote about, "writing away from the desk" I just thought I was lazy. I just thought that the ideas I would kick around in my head were useful starts, but didn't really do me any good away from a computer. After reading this chapter though, I realized that thinking about something is just as important (if not more so) than writing it. It's all about thought, you can only write after you have ideas.
I skipped the "Focus" step because that usually falls between the rehearse and the draft. It is either when I am thinking about what and how to write that I find the focus of my story. Sometimes it comes a little bit later as I draft a story and I realize that some of my ideas are superfluous.
Draft--And then, I write.
String it along--I suppose that this is much the same as Murray's "develop". Murray likes to develop his story into a true story. You got to make it move. My version is just going through the article to make sure it has flow. Always make sure to transition from graph to graph. You never want the reader to say, "how the hell did he get there?"
Edit--I hate editing.
Finally, and Murray says it to, the best advice ever:
How do you get to the Washington Post?
Practice Practice Practice
What did I get from David Arnold?
First, I like all of David's rules. I am not going to type them all out, but here are a few that I find more helpful than the others.
There's always a story in there somewhere
If the story's good, don't let the writing interfere.
Try for an action verb in the first sentence
Don't lead with a quote
Don't lead with a subordinate clause
use descriptive detail, but only what everyone would notice
Don't end your best quotes with an attribution.
I also liked When Arnold tells the reader to stretch out, and let the editor reign you in. I suppose since I am the writer, I will write how I see fit. If the editor doesn't like it I can change it, but if he does like it, then he liked my actual piece.
It was also good that he told us not to overwrite. Not that I usually find that a problem, anymore.
Explore
Focus
Rehearse
Draft
Develop
Clarify
I suppose mine would look more like this:
Explore--Well, duh! You can't really write anything until you know what you are writing about.
Rehearse--Actually, until Murray wrote about, "writing away from the desk" I just thought I was lazy. I just thought that the ideas I would kick around in my head were useful starts, but didn't really do me any good away from a computer. After reading this chapter though, I realized that thinking about something is just as important (if not more so) than writing it. It's all about thought, you can only write after you have ideas.
I skipped the "Focus" step because that usually falls between the rehearse and the draft. It is either when I am thinking about what and how to write that I find the focus of my story. Sometimes it comes a little bit later as I draft a story and I realize that some of my ideas are superfluous.
Draft--And then, I write.
String it along--I suppose that this is much the same as Murray's "develop". Murray likes to develop his story into a true story. You got to make it move. My version is just going through the article to make sure it has flow. Always make sure to transition from graph to graph. You never want the reader to say, "how the hell did he get there?"
Edit--I hate editing.
Finally, and Murray says it to, the best advice ever:
How do you get to the Washington Post?
Practice Practice Practice
What did I get from David Arnold?
First, I like all of David's rules. I am not going to type them all out, but here are a few that I find more helpful than the others.
There's always a story in there somewhere
If the story's good, don't let the writing interfere.
Try for an action verb in the first sentence
Don't lead with a quote
Don't lead with a subordinate clause
use descriptive detail, but only what everyone would notice
Don't end your best quotes with an attribution.
I also liked When Arnold tells the reader to stretch out, and let the editor reign you in. I suppose since I am the writer, I will write how I see fit. If the editor doesn't like it I can change it, but if he does like it, then he liked my actual piece.
It was also good that he told us not to overwrite. Not that I usually find that a problem, anymore.
Friday, August 31, 2007
An Evening With David Mehegan
In this interview, David Mehegan gives the reader many strong points of advice. He tells begining writers to use strong verbs (hey, I am trying), to be trustworthy, and to be--above all--human. It was the human focus that first struck me. I was going to write about, "I try to write every story with such a voice and tone that the reader is aware that here is a person on this side of the keyboard." Thisis a great idea! Humanity from a newswriter, the concept never dawned on me that you could be reporter and person at the same time! I was so captivated by this idea that I started to soar out of my chair, but then I read this. "I also think we shoudl try to entertain whenever possible, to give good reading, using style and eyes for detail, without going so fatally overboard that we are attracting the reader's attention to us rather than to our story." Damn, he makes a good point, and my feet slowly came back down to the earth.
Balance. Oh, how easy it is to forget about balance. It is easy to write up a bare bones story with no voice and basic structure. It is easy to remove yourself from the facts, and have nothing human in your story. It makes for dry writing, but I was just saying that it was easy. (I should edit this to say easier and not easy, but I am not going to do that.) These are the kind of stories that I believe Mehegan is talking about when he says, "most stories read like they could have been written by a newswriting software package."
However, especially as a student, it is easy carried away with your own sense of self, that you forget why you started writing the article in the first place. You start thinking about getting noticed by someone, or writing an article that is so personal that any editor who ever sees it is going to hire you on the spot. That kind of writing has no place in a paper, and I fear will probably make every editor laugh, and throw away my portfolio.
Balance--One word. He never says it, and I may imagined this entire rant, but that's what I got out of this interview.
Balance. Oh, how easy it is to forget about balance. It is easy to write up a bare bones story with no voice and basic structure. It is easy to remove yourself from the facts, and have nothing human in your story. It makes for dry writing, but I was just saying that it was easy. (I should edit this to say easier and not easy, but I am not going to do that.) These are the kind of stories that I believe Mehegan is talking about when he says, "most stories read like they could have been written by a newswriting software package."
However, especially as a student, it is easy carried away with your own sense of self, that you forget why you started writing the article in the first place. You start thinking about getting noticed by someone, or writing an article that is so personal that any editor who ever sees it is going to hire you on the spot. That kind of writing has no place in a paper, and I fear will probably make every editor laugh, and throw away my portfolio.
Balance--One word. He never says it, and I may imagined this entire rant, but that's what I got out of this interview.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Donald Murray
Well, Doc wanted me to answer this question. Due to my love of passing his classes, I feel obliged to answer.
Donald Murray was 82 years old when he died. Is there anything in his last few columns that you can learn from in your own career as a professional writer?
I liked his style, but adapting someone's style to your own, just happens when you read thier work. Though I love his light conversation style, there is nothing to adapting such a style. What I truly learned from him, and I think I should try to integrate into my own life, I found in his obituary.
My parents and teachers got together and decided I was stupid," he wrote last year. "My response was to develop a private mantra: 'I'm stupid but I can come in early and stay late.' Surprise. It worked. Good work habits will beat talent every time."
I try to use this idea at work too. This is just a great mantra. Hopefully I have talent, but incase I don't I can still succeed as a writer.
Donald Murray was 82 years old when he died. Is there anything in his last few columns that you can learn from in your own career as a professional writer?
I liked his style, but adapting someone's style to your own, just happens when you read thier work. Though I love his light conversation style, there is nothing to adapting such a style. What I truly learned from him, and I think I should try to integrate into my own life, I found in his obituary.
My parents and teachers got together and decided I was stupid," he wrote last year. "My response was to develop a private mantra: 'I'm stupid but I can come in early and stay late.' Surprise. It worked. Good work habits will beat talent every time."
I try to use this idea at work too. This is just a great mantra. Hopefully I have talent, but incase I don't I can still succeed as a writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
