In Class Questions

My attitude in the beginning of the class towards the media coverage of government was a little nicer than it is now. I always thought that the mainstream media offered up a lot of good information and it was very entertaining in its presentation. I originally thought this was a good thing, however, now that I’ve taken this course, I see it much more as a way of television and the corporate, money-driven powers-that-be to feed information to the public in a way that is hard to dissect and fact-check in any sort of an easy manner.

I am mainly coming down harsh on cable television. TV news such as PBS, the BBC, and CSPAN are great examples of news stations that offer objective material without all the glittery embellishments needed to bring in ratings and dilute the real points.

I’ve learnt from this course to always research your sources. It’s not enough to just read about a particular subject, you have to understand where and who the material on the subject is coming from. Once you understand the sources and the medium in which the reporting is being delivered, you can make much better sense out of what you’re reading.

I don’t know what I would have liked to learn that I didn’t. That’s a tough question considering if I knew what it was, I probably wouldn’t need to learn it. Maybe it would have been nice to look at the way journalists covered the 2000 and 2004 elections. Hindsight is always 20/20 and you have to learn from your mistakes. I think the media has been trying a lot harder this election to look at both sides considering the crappy job they did during the middle of the Bush Administration and it would have given us an interesting insight had we looked into some of the journalism of our recent past.

New Salem, Illinois Times, Doc, and My Valued Opinion

The day of class after we read your recently published Illinois Times article I got into a discussion about the piece with another teacher. He read your article and was very impressed. The discussion and article led him into a venting session about how important New Salem is and how insane all of these funding cuts are. You've done well Doc, you've done well!

The Wisdom of Cabinets...

Last night on The Daily Show with John Stewart there was a segment in which a picture of Barack Obama's potential cabinet was displayed... It was displayed in the context of discussing Obama's goal of having a diverse cabinet that incorporates both sides of the isle.

With the inclusion of Seth Rogen, Osama bin Laden, Sarah Palin, and Dennis Kucinich, Obama's "Team of Rivals" is hysterical!! Have any papers done a cartoon on this one yet?? It'd be great!

Anyways here's the link to the video... http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videold=210854&title=Obama's-Team-of-Rivals

Accurate Reporting?? About Science??

In today's class I brought up the story that broke today about a woman in Spain receiving a transplant for part of her throat... the crazy part is that her transplant came from her own stem cells, and doctors have "grown" a new trachia for her out of a dead person's throat and the living woman's cells.

Doc was so kind as to challenge the article and pose a skeptic's attitude towards scientific articles in general. Though I see his/your point, every article I have found on this story seems pretty legit. Granted, and as Doc pointed out, this article worked very hard to establish its credibility.

There was also an article several months back about a thumb that doctors/scientists grew back on a man. In this story cells from a pig's bladder were used. The thumb, which had been accidentally cut off, was grown back, finger prints and all.

This story was also very interesting and, clearly, had a lot to do with science and the medical field, however, it too was also reported on in a very clear, factual, credibly-backed up sort of way.

So in my opinion, stories we read about in the main stream media relating to scientific and medical breakthroughs are pretty factual. The reporter may not be the expert on such a subject, but he is an expert at reporting, and therefore can probably report what the Doc's and Science wizzes tell him.

So I may, in a way disagree with you, Doc, but you have a great point in saying that when it comes to Science and the medical fields, always make sure the reporter is building proper credibility before letting him lead you over the edge of the cliff.

HOW 2

The following is a list I've compiled of useful tools (in no particular order) to get an article published... No, I'm not just being really nice, Doc's making me do this...

1. Write an article that has rarely or never been written about.
2. Find a new angle.
3. Don't write anything that has been covered by the publication in the last three years.
4. Read at least the last 6 issues of the publication in order to get a feel for their style and focus.
5. Write about what you know.
6. Stick to the writer's guidelines provided by the publication.
7. Write a query letter.
8. Keep trying.
9. Write a great title.
10. TRIPLE check the article when editing BEFORE sending out.
11. Keep a record of which articles you've written, who you've sent them to, and when you sent them.
12. Learn to live with rejection.

http://www.essortment.com/all/howtogetanar_rsxa.htm
http://searchwarp.com/swa214378.htm
http://e-articles.info/e/a/title/How-To-Get-My-Article-Published/
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

What a Stud, Studs!

After reading the articles posted to the class blog I can only be sad that I had not known who Studs Turkel was sooner. From what every single article said, he seems to have been an iconic figure of our time. He was fortunate enough to live for nearly an entire century, something that most would do anything for. It seems that he found a good balance in between being extremely liberal, but also still being able to connect with people holding an array of philisphical views. His story is one of incredible determination. A victim of the "red scare", he kept on going... just in a little bit of a different route. I think this is a good lesson for journalists. Journalists are in a cut-throat environment, they're a dime a dozen; therefore it is ever so important for a journalists to be determined. Determination and optimism, like Studs had, is a vital necessity to today's reporter, interviewer, journalist, and anchor. His situation also goes to show that you have so much life ahead of you at any point. His book-writing career took off in his fifties... most people start planning for retirement, Studs was starting his next venture. It's this kind of love of life and really valuing one's own work that people in all professions, not just journalism, need to adopt. Studs clearly loved people and loved his career. This is, above all, the key to success. And this is a key that Studs found early in life...

Palin's Moose Poooop

This article carries a voice that I can certainly appreciate! I love the narrative it uses and the way it perfectly portrays Palin's "crappy" campaigning... This article sure hit home. I can't even count how many times I have been watching her and when I start negating something she's saying, she is three steps ahead of me with her crazy talk. Thank God for DVR, because without it I sure wouldn't be able to dissect her interviews nearly as easily. I only wish that these techniques provided the same satisfaction that a moose nugget jelly bean does... those taste good, but her stories are headaches waiting to happen. This piece pinned her on the head, and I love it. Kudos to the writing style, tone, and voice.