Week 5

Unfortunately, I don't have much to comment on about last week's class since I was too sick to attend. This weekend I definitely started feeling a lot better so I did go to Monday's lecture. The Missourian editor had some good advice, but I could tell he was tired of lazy reporters. He seemed to get frustrated when he talked about finding sources and searching for facts. Journalism requires a lot of persistence and attention to detail. A reporter has to be willing to take the time to find all the information and make the effort to reach many sources. I'm sure that editor has dealt with plenty of students who haven't spent the energy they should have on a story.
Since all my classes have been focusing on how to write newspaper-style stories, I've been noticing "The Formula" of most stories I read. Reporters have an issue they want to talk about, but they need a human element so they find a specific person to embody the problem. That's how they come up with their lead. From there they move to the general topic and explain the wider significance, followed by a few more human examples or quotes from experts mixed in with the facts before finishing with a strong quote, maybe even from the original character we saw in the lead.
An example of this I found today was from the Wall Street Journal, "Pick Me," about rating systems on Internet dating sites. The article had a good punchy lead:
"The Internet lets people search billions of Web pages in a fraction of a second and instantaneously tap information around the globe. One thing it couldn't do: Find Brian Wolf a girlfriend."
From there it describes Wolf's situation as "one of the 25 million Americans who visit online dating sites annually." Then the writer moved on to explain more about specific Web sites and how rankings are affecting online dating hopefuls. And of course, it ends with a quote:
"I'm going to keep this up until I meet the right girl."
It's a solid story, but just follows the formula, which I am becoming increasingly aware of.

Week 4

This past week has been hard since I've been so sick. Last week started out OK. The fire story wasn't too difficult and I liked writing the reflection so you could see why I made certain decisions. By Wednesday night though I was feeling very tired and sick, and it's only gotten worse. I missed out on Friday's class, but as long as it was just a tutorial on iMovie, I think I will be fine. I've used the program before for fun and for a 30-minute class film. We will have to arrange something later this semester so I can make up the interview assignment. Let me know if you would like a doctor's note.
I also need to get notes from someone in class for Monday's lecture. I was in the emergency room with a 105-degree fever the night before so I was too tired and miserable to walk across campus.
I'm getting bored of being in bed, but I can't bring myself to do anything besides lie here. I have to take advantage of every small spurt of energy to get some work done.
I did find an interesting article yesterday online. It was called "Bye-Bye Blogger" and it was in the NY Times Sunday Magazine. It isn't a news article. Actually, it's a simple Q&A. It stood out to me though because we have been talking about interviews and how it is important to have good follow-up questions, instead of just a list that you ask in order. "Bye-Bye Blogger" was an interview with Lee Siegel, the New Republic writer who posted anonymous blog comments about himself and his enemies. I found the Times reporter's questions very hard-hitting.

Deborah Solomon asked: You yourself comfortably adopted a false persona when you had Sprezzatura comment about one of your critics that he “couldn’t tie Siegel’s shoelaces.” Doesn’t that show great immaturity on your part?

Siegel: I am too childlike to be immature.

Instead of accepting that answer and moving on, Solomon called him on it and asked, "Is that just doublespeak?" Another time after a confusing answer, Solomon asked, "What are you talking about?" I enjoyed the interview because Solomon kept slamming this guy. She proved herself as a journalist, while degrading one who made a big mistake.
In response to Siegel's explanation of his book title, Solomon said:

The title “Falling Upwards” seems to have acquired an additional and unintended meaning now that you yourself have taken a professional fall.

Siegel: Just a couple of feet. I didn’t fall out the window. I fell off my chair. I fell from my chair onto the floor.

Solomon: Which suggests you were not at a great height to begin with.

Oh, that's a burn.

Week 3

Over the past week we've talked a lot about interviews, in lab and in lecture. I think my interview with the manager of the Alpine Shop went pretty well. I picked him because I figured someone who worked in an outdoor shop would have a lot of experiences and maybe some interesting hobbies and stories. Jeremiah Wade didn't have any specific stories, but he did seem to have plenty of different experiences. I think I was able to put together the information fairly well, with the main theme starting in the lead and being repeated in the final quote from his wife—that Jermiah would always rather be outdoors.
One of the articles I read this week was "At $9.95 a Page, You Expected Poetry?" by Charles McGrath of the NY Times. It was an analysis of three different term papers written by three different Web sites. It was an interesting idea to order several papers then analyze them and show them to college professors. Overall the article was a good look at how terrible these services are and it had a fun style. However, one line stood out to me:
"It’s also written in language so stilted and often ungrammatical (...) that it suggests the author may not be a native speaker of English, and even makes you suspect that some of these made-to-order term papers are written by the very same people who pick up the phone when you call to complain about your credit card bill."
It was supposed to be funny, but it probably shouldn't have been included. I just know what my cross-cultural journalism professor would have to say about the stereotypical remark. But overall, I liked the piece and found it interesting.

Week 2

I enjoyed this week's focus on lead writing. The take-home assignment to create leads and headlines for Cinderella, etc. was fun. Since the topics were so colorful, it was almost easier to come up with feature leads than the straight news ones.
The in-class assignments were good practice, especially since writing in a short period of time has always been difficult for me. I think I understand the basic format of inverted pyramid lead-writing. So far, what we've been learning in class has been review since I've been studying journalism since freshman year of high school. But I understand that many students haven't had that experience. So even though I am ahead of some students, I need to challenge myself with each assignment and produce the best work I can.

I read two obituaries on Steve Irwin today, one in the NY Times and one from the LA Times online. I found the LA Times article much stronger from the beginning.

"He was the Evel Knievel of the natural world, tempting death by wrestling man-eating crocodiles or galloping into the Australian outback to commune with deadly snakes. So when the end came Monday for Steve Irwin, television's 'Crocodile Hunter,' it was surprising and swift: The 44-year-old was pierced in the heart by the usually placid stingray." Nelson, LA Times

I found the NYT lead a little confusing.
"Steve Irwin, the khaki-clad wildlife stalker who won global fame with his televised death-defying crocodile stunts and whose booming voice made 'Crikey!' in a ripe Australian accent an international catchword, was killed by a stingray yesterday while filming a documentary at the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s northeast coast. He was 44." Collins, NY Times

The first sentence is too long. I think a big problem comes with "in a ripe Ausralian accent." When I read the sentence without that phrase, it seems to flow better since "Crikey!" is put right in front of "an international catchword." I'm also not a fan of "televised death-defying crocodile stunts." It's another awkward sounding phrase that interrupts the flow of a lead with good intentions.
The obits generally contained the same information, but I enjoyed the LA Times version a lot more. And I should note that I read it after I had read the NYT article, since usually people prefer whatever they saw/heard/read first. In this case the style of LA TImes piece stood out to me more than the other.