The Packers beat the Vikings today. That makes them 4-0 for the first time since 1998. But what's really attracting attention is the fact that Brett Favre, the quarterback, just beat Dan Marino's record for most touchdown passes. This story seems more substantial than the typical sports record story partly because Favre is famously modest. But also because his work ethic and dedication are almost universally lauded. The guy has played 17 years in a sport that pretty much grinds your bones to dust (having 350 pound guys trying to jump on you all day will do that). And to top it off, it was only two years ago that the Packers went 4-12 and the sports writers and fans were howling for him to give it up. Better than most stories now right?
I thought I would compare the AP story to the Green Bay Press-Gazette and look at their different writing styles and focuses.
Both of these stories combine the news that the Packers won with the news that Favre beat the record. They both lead with this record information, but the AP uses it to segue into news of the win (and the Packers record). The Press-Gazette explains the how (the slant pass) to set up the story. Then they go into chronological mode and describe the scene leading up to Favre's first touchdown and the ensuing celebration. An analysis of his performance follows, closing by getting a teammate to describe his post-game speech.
The AP is more information based. They talk about the issues: the record, the win, the 4-0, and the interception record he's approaching. It closes by providing some drama, essentially some calls that Vikings staff didn't like. My impression would be that it's a boring way to end such an interesting story (especially when you have the awesome tools of sports journalism at your fingertips), but maybe it's just that it's the AP and they need to just provide the straight facts while the Press=Gazette, the hometown paper, can emotionalize it.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A crisis in journalism?
Wow. There's an interesting article in the NY Times today about the newspaper industry. It turns out that all these media corporations who've been squawking that newspapers are dying and cited all these drops in circulation, have only just given up on certain demographics and let them drift away because the advertisers aren't interested in them. The Dallas Morning News, LA TImes, and ( I would include) our very own Pioneer Press.
It leads with stats about the drop in circulation and then segues into filling out their argument that newspapers are doing this on purpose by quoting a marketing exec. He is followed by facts from a newspaper association showing how it makes economic sense to stop trying to get certain demographics.It then gives examples from papers, even the Times.
It leads with stats about the drop in circulation and then segues into filling out their argument that newspapers are doing this on purpose by quoting a marketing exec. He is followed by facts from a newspaper association showing how it makes economic sense to stop trying to get certain demographics.It then gives examples from papers, even the Times.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Bush now believes in global warming
George Bush has somehow managed to go seven years without admitting to the rest of the world that global warming is real. One more legacy of the administration falls away as he has now not only admitted it, but believes that human might play a part in it. I'm interested what role the media has played in allowing this "belief" to persist for so long against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do journalists have a responsibility to ask questions over and over even if someone says they just "believe" something? Do we have to ask why people believe something? Is this news worthy of attention, or is there space for it in between all the human interest stories about geese accidentally being adopted at an animal shelter?
I intentionally looked at two extremely different sources, an AP story published in the Washington Post and the Guardian UK. Obviously the Post is just a little bit conservative in its approach while the Guardian is a little lefty. How did their ideological approach differ?
The titles are obviously a good starting point. Here it is:
"Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'"
The sub head has two points:
"· US isolated as China and India refuse to back policy.
"· President claims he can lead world on emissions."
Now, I know that Bush doesn't probably even know what the Guardian is. But if he read those headlines over his breakfast of pretzels and powerade it might make even him lose his appetite. Obviously they're intended for someone who already has an opinion about the president.
The Washington Post AP article says only, "Bush Seeks New Image on Global Warming"
The Post is based out of that former swamp brimming with politicians. If they took every opportunity to slam politicos then it would make doing their jobs more difficult. The headline tells us that they're taking the story in a different direction, covering the news that Bush is even talking about about global warming and his PR approach.
The AP however can't avoid the issue that other countries were upset by the proposal of a "voluntary" reduction in greenhouse gases, they mention it in the lead. THe first four paragraphs, however, talk about the good things Bush has done, how this is revolutionary for them to even participate. It gives an introduction to the event and then more postiive reactions. It's only on the second page, with seven paragraphs left to go, that it brings up negative reactions. It closes with a quote from some diplomat saying that while he think this si a good step, it probably has more to do with U.S. elections than global warming.
The Guardian story leads by painting the administration as isolated. It then goes into the plethora of people who had problems with the voluntary approach. About halfway down it notes that some people were excited about the prospects of the U.S. participating Guess what? They're not anymore. It closes with a quote from an environmentalist basically saying that the whole conference was a "diversion."
Something I rarely hear about in these journalism classes is discussion of how a story changes depending on who you decide to interview, whose perspectives are valid. Noam Chomsky has a thick book talking about it. Essentially, official positions are given precedent because they're easy and have immediate legitimacy. The critical mass story I blogged about last week is an interesting example.
I intentionally looked at two extremely different sources, an AP story published in the Washington Post and the Guardian UK. Obviously the Post is just a little bit conservative in its approach while the Guardian is a little lefty. How did their ideological approach differ?
The titles are obviously a good starting point. Here it is:
"Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'"
The sub head has two points:
"· US isolated as China and India refuse to back policy.
"· President claims he can lead world on emissions."
Now, I know that Bush doesn't probably even know what the Guardian is. But if he read those headlines over his breakfast of pretzels and powerade it might make even him lose his appetite. Obviously they're intended for someone who already has an opinion about the president.
The Washington Post AP article says only, "Bush Seeks New Image on Global Warming"
The Post is based out of that former swamp brimming with politicians. If they took every opportunity to slam politicos then it would make doing their jobs more difficult. The headline tells us that they're taking the story in a different direction, covering the news that Bush is even talking about about global warming and his PR approach.
The AP however can't avoid the issue that other countries were upset by the proposal of a "voluntary" reduction in greenhouse gases, they mention it in the lead. THe first four paragraphs, however, talk about the good things Bush has done, how this is revolutionary for them to even participate. It gives an introduction to the event and then more postiive reactions. It's only on the second page, with seven paragraphs left to go, that it brings up negative reactions. It closes with a quote from some diplomat saying that while he think this si a good step, it probably has more to do with U.S. elections than global warming.
The Guardian story leads by painting the administration as isolated. It then goes into the plethora of people who had problems with the voluntary approach. About halfway down it notes that some people were excited about the prospects of the U.S. participating Guess what? They're not anymore. It closes with a quote from an environmentalist basically saying that the whole conference was a "diversion."
Something I rarely hear about in these journalism classes is discussion of how a story changes depending on who you decide to interview, whose perspectives are valid. Noam Chomsky has a thick book talking about it. Essentially, official positions are given precedent because they're easy and have immediate legitimacy. The critical mass story I blogged about last week is an interesting example.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Somalia on brink of starvation
Refugees who fled violence is cities like Mogadishu are now facing the threat of starvation as crops fail and political instability hinders food aid. There's 13,500 children at risk for starvation according to UNICEF. The government is isolated in a few buildings in Mogadishu and pirates, rebels, and militias control the countryside.
Both the NY Times and LA Times article are exceptional (of course). They both contain excellent assessments of the current situation with analysis of what brought i about and the prospects for the future, which are not too bright. So in this blog I'd like to look at a characteristic of stories that I haven't before, the overlying theme or message that resonates with the reader.
Each story starts with a theme in the lead that is then echoed or resolved in the close.
The LA Times profiles a baby who was starving and needed medical attention. The description of the baby's actions and situation and the mothers reaction to them, resonate immediately with the reader. The writer describes how the doctors say she will die unless treated and then connects it to the rest of the crisis.
The New York Times starts with a violent conflict over a bag of food aid where there's a fight and people pull weapons. It gives the reader a sense of the conflict as well as a taste of the proximity of violence in these peoples lives.
The LA Times comes back to the baby at the end when they report that the doctor is skeptical that the mother will bring her to the hospital like he insisted. He explains that she has four other kids and closes with an awesome quote that I'll just stick in here. "Sometimes they just wait and hope the baby gets better," he said. "These are the kinds of choices mothers are having to make."
Ouch.
The writer has succeeded in opening and closing this story by giving the reader a sense of the personal tragedies occurring. And then sums up the desperation of the situation with a closing quote.
The New York Times goes back to the fight at the food shipment at the end. The writer describes that the dispute ended in a typically Somali way, with three militiamen pulling their own guns on the fighting people and making them get equal portions. He then describes the truck "sputtering" away and uses the sputtering as a metaphor for Somalia. These closing lines give an understanding of the situation to the reader that the bare facts wouldn't. Also awesome.
Both the NY Times and LA Times article are exceptional (of course). They both contain excellent assessments of the current situation with analysis of what brought i about and the prospects for the future, which are not too bright. So in this blog I'd like to look at a characteristic of stories that I haven't before, the overlying theme or message that resonates with the reader.
Each story starts with a theme in the lead that is then echoed or resolved in the close.
The LA Times profiles a baby who was starving and needed medical attention. The description of the baby's actions and situation and the mothers reaction to them, resonate immediately with the reader. The writer describes how the doctors say she will die unless treated and then connects it to the rest of the crisis.
The New York Times starts with a violent conflict over a bag of food aid where there's a fight and people pull weapons. It gives the reader a sense of the conflict as well as a taste of the proximity of violence in these peoples lives.
The LA Times comes back to the baby at the end when they report that the doctor is skeptical that the mother will bring her to the hospital like he insisted. He explains that she has four other kids and closes with an awesome quote that I'll just stick in here. "Sometimes they just wait and hope the baby gets better," he said. "These are the kinds of choices mothers are having to make."
Ouch.
The writer has succeeded in opening and closing this story by giving the reader a sense of the personal tragedies occurring. And then sums up the desperation of the situation with a closing quote.
The New York Times goes back to the fight at the food shipment at the end. The writer describes that the dispute ended in a typically Somali way, with three militiamen pulling their own guns on the fighting people and making them get equal portions. He then describes the truck "sputtering" away and uses the sputtering as a metaphor for Somalia. These closing lines give an understanding of the situation to the reader that the bare facts wouldn't. Also awesome.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
St. Paul duck loses head over idiot- literally
A St. Paul duck had it's head ripped from it's body by a Denver man who was reportedly drunk. The lead of the Fox 9 story is factual, giving a general review of the event with who (26-year-old Denver businessman), what (Duck gets head ripped off) and where (a hotel lobby). The Pioneer Press article starts with a kind of sappy lead:
"He ripped the head off a live duck inside a hotel lobby. According to St. Paul...." Both stories then go into the details of the actual event. The Fox story sums up the charges he's facing and then uses a quote from human society offical which they then spin into a statement on the danger of keeping ducks in hotel lobbies. The PP merely stated that neither the accused nor the hotel manager would comment. It closes by noting that there are still other ducks in the hotel lobby. Unless they think this isn't an important story they could use a little more perseverance there. My first sign that it was important was that, right after I read it, I said to my roommates, "Holy shit, come and read this." Novelty.
"He ripped the head off a live duck inside a hotel lobby. According to St. Paul...." Both stories then go into the details of the actual event. The Fox story sums up the charges he's facing and then uses a quote from human society offical which they then spin into a statement on the danger of keeping ducks in hotel lobbies. The PP merely stated that neither the accused nor the hotel manager would comment. It closes by noting that there are still other ducks in the hotel lobby. Unless they think this isn't an important story they could use a little more perseverance there. My first sign that it was important was that, right after I read it, I said to my roommates, "Holy shit, come and read this." Novelty.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
St. Paul man shot by police
A Man was fatally shot by St. Paul police when, according to police, he rushed them with a knife. This story was covered in both the Star Tribune, through the AP, and the Pioneer Press, through a local reporter.
The leads for them differ mainly in that the Pioneer Press opens up with a quote overheard by witnesses: "A knife-wielding man screamed, "F--- you, cops!'" It's a sensational way to open up the story. I'm not sure if it's necessarily respectful to the guy who died considering that not all the information about the shooting is out yet, or to his family. I realize the AP has guidelines against including profanity without need so it's understandable that it's not included in their story. Both authors then give the description of his girlfriend being "huddled in fear" The AP article does not go in to much depth, taking all the quotes from the police spokesperson, while the Pioneer Press contains quotes from neighbors as well as police which provide background information to the incident. However, the AP manages to get the names of the officers involved while the PP doesn't.
These stories show two different approaches; the traditional AP and a more spectacular and personal approach. For the purposes of the AP the official incident is probably enough but for local readers the descriptions of streets and neighbors is more interesting.
The leads for them differ mainly in that the Pioneer Press opens up with a quote overheard by witnesses: "A knife-wielding man screamed, "F--- you, cops!'" It's a sensational way to open up the story. I'm not sure if it's necessarily respectful to the guy who died considering that not all the information about the shooting is out yet, or to his family. I realize the AP has guidelines against including profanity without need so it's understandable that it's not included in their story. Both authors then give the description of his girlfriend being "huddled in fear" The AP article does not go in to much depth, taking all the quotes from the police spokesperson, while the Pioneer Press contains quotes from neighbors as well as police which provide background information to the incident. However, the AP manages to get the names of the officers involved while the PP doesn't.
These stories show two different approaches; the traditional AP and a more spectacular and personal approach. For the purposes of the AP the official incident is probably enough but for local readers the descriptions of streets and neighbors is more interesting.
Dan Rathers sues CBS
Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS, its former parent company and three former bosses. Rather contends that CBS used him as a scapegoat in the controversy surrounding his report on President Bush's National Guard service in March 2005.
The New York Times initially broke the story so their version is the most in-depth. It goes into the general details of the lawsuit followed by a refresher of the scandal itself. Next, it covers the allegations that Rather was denied air-time and used as a "patsy" during the fallout from the scandal. They also report that Rather makes the interesting claim that the board which was supposed to investigate the reporting was biased.
The story was also covered by the Los Angeles time, although in less depth. It's interesting to me the aspects of the case that appealed to them. It has little mention of the scandal itself, focusing on the lawsuit and Rather's claims as well as his professional trajectory, the closing sentence noting that he now anchors a small program on an HDTV channel. The LA Times, however, does explicitly mention "pressure from the white house" as a factor while the NY Times only mentions "pressure from the right wing."
The New York Times initially broke the story so their version is the most in-depth. It goes into the general details of the lawsuit followed by a refresher of the scandal itself. Next, it covers the allegations that Rather was denied air-time and used as a "patsy" during the fallout from the scandal. They also report that Rather makes the interesting claim that the board which was supposed to investigate the reporting was biased.
The story was also covered by the Los Angeles time, although in less depth. It's interesting to me the aspects of the case that appealed to them. It has little mention of the scandal itself, focusing on the lawsuit and Rather's claims as well as his professional trajectory, the closing sentence noting that he now anchors a small program on an HDTV channel. The LA Times, however, does explicitly mention "pressure from the white house" as a factor while the NY Times only mentions "pressure from the right wing."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Critical Mess- The Star Tribune vs The City Pages
This blog entry will focus articles about the arrests that occurred at Critical Mass on Friday, September 3rd. It will use primarily the Star Tribune article of September 1st by Joy Powell and the City Pages article of September 12th by Matt Snyders. It also might reference the story by Randy Furst and David Chanen of the 4th.
In this blog I'd like to concentrate more on sources and "fairness" than on actual mechanics.
In Joy Powell's breaking-news story there is only one source quoted, Minneapolis Police Lt. Marie Przynski. She provides not only the quotes but is able to frame the events in terms that are sympathetic to the police actions, "Soon, the two officers were surrounded by about 30 people, and they issued the call "officer needs help."" The story also paints demonstrators as violent, "When officers tried to arrest a rider they felt had been trying to provoke them, a scuffle broke out." What exactly is Powell insinuating when she reports that police "felt" that a rider was "trying to provoke them?" What does that entail? So, she is more or less saying that the rider was trying to get arrested or sprayed with mace, so for that reason the rider needed to be arrested? Is this a hint to dig a little more and find out exactly what the situation was?
Powell reports that many riders were part of the anti-Republican Convention protest group and then goes on to describe the police presence of 48 officers from 6 different departments and a helicopter, without exploring possible connections between these circumstances. She closes with a quotation of the age-old assertion that there were outside agitators involved.
I find it difficult to believe that Powell had no opportunity to speak to any of the 200 participants, the lawyers representing them, or the anti-RNC group. There were even videos posted on Youtube that would have shown a different side of the situation. She based her story on one source, one who had an interest in presenting a certain view of events, and her story was unbalanced in that direction.
It can be contrasted to the analysis story in City Pages by Matt Snyders. He directly quotes at least 10 people while providing background with information from others. He lets the statements by the MPD stand, but contrasts them with other observers, witnesses, and arrestees. All in all it's a more balanced piece that, without taking sides, uses the information provided by the divergent views against one another to try and get a clearer picture of what really happened.
In this blog I'd like to concentrate more on sources and "fairness" than on actual mechanics.
In Joy Powell's breaking-news story there is only one source quoted, Minneapolis Police Lt. Marie Przynski. She provides not only the quotes but is able to frame the events in terms that are sympathetic to the police actions, "Soon, the two officers were surrounded by about 30 people, and they issued the call "officer needs help."" The story also paints demonstrators as violent, "When officers tried to arrest a rider they felt had been trying to provoke them, a scuffle broke out." What exactly is Powell insinuating when she reports that police "felt" that a rider was "trying to provoke them?" What does that entail? So, she is more or less saying that the rider was trying to get arrested or sprayed with mace, so for that reason the rider needed to be arrested? Is this a hint to dig a little more and find out exactly what the situation was?
Powell reports that many riders were part of the anti-Republican Convention protest group and then goes on to describe the police presence of 48 officers from 6 different departments and a helicopter, without exploring possible connections between these circumstances. She closes with a quotation of the age-old assertion that there were outside agitators involved.
I find it difficult to believe that Powell had no opportunity to speak to any of the 200 participants, the lawyers representing them, or the anti-RNC group. There were even videos posted on Youtube that would have shown a different side of the situation. She based her story on one source, one who had an interest in presenting a certain view of events, and her story was unbalanced in that direction.
It can be contrasted to the analysis story in City Pages by Matt Snyders. He directly quotes at least 10 people while providing background with information from others. He lets the statements by the MPD stand, but contrasts them with other observers, witnesses, and arrestees. All in all it's a more balanced piece that, without taking sides, uses the information provided by the divergent views against one another to try and get a clearer picture of what really happened.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Bush's beacon of hope snuffed out
Right now it's big news in Europe, if not here, that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik who helped bring about the "Anbar Awakening," as some have named it (the alliance of Sunni tribal elites with the United States in the Anbar province in the Western part of Iraq that has been pretty much the only success of the Iraq War) was assassinated after meeting with Bush.
I chose two sources to look at. The first is the BBC and the second is the Guardian. Obviously these two sources have completely different ideological slants they like to look through.
First off, the titles stand out. The BBC says, "Iraqi Insurgents Kill Key U.S. Ally." While the Guardian says, "Bush's 'Beacon of Hope' Killed." These headlines certainly define what the pieces are about.
The Guardian starts by talking about how Risha was lauded by politicians and diplomats. They go on to describe his relationship with Bush and his role in Middle Eastern media, which was relatively recent, as a spokesperson against extremism. They finish by listing other Sunni leaders who have been killed for cooperating with Washington.
The BBC, however, mostly focuses on the political implications, i.e., whether the Anbar movement will die, what Bush will say during his address tonight, and whether other tribal leaders will dare to take up his position. They end by quoting an interview he did where he said: "I wish we could do in all the provinces of Iraq what we did in Anbar, which is that the people and the government come together."
All in all, it seems that BBC is focusing very much on what Risha represented FOR the war effort while the Guardian focused on how this will pan out and what the implications will be AGAINST the war effort.
I chose two sources to look at. The first is the BBC and the second is the Guardian. Obviously these two sources have completely different ideological slants they like to look through.
First off, the titles stand out. The BBC says, "Iraqi Insurgents Kill Key U.S. Ally." While the Guardian says, "Bush's 'Beacon of Hope' Killed." These headlines certainly define what the pieces are about.
The Guardian starts by talking about how Risha was lauded by politicians and diplomats. They go on to describe his relationship with Bush and his role in Middle Eastern media, which was relatively recent, as a spokesperson against extremism. They finish by listing other Sunni leaders who have been killed for cooperating with Washington.
The BBC, however, mostly focuses on the political implications, i.e., whether the Anbar movement will die, what Bush will say during his address tonight, and whether other tribal leaders will dare to take up his position. They end by quoting an interview he did where he said: "I wish we could do in all the provinces of Iraq what we did in Anbar, which is that the people and the government come together."
All in all, it seems that BBC is focusing very much on what Risha represented FOR the war effort while the Guardian focused on how this will pan out and what the implications will be AGAINST the war effort.
Co-founder of Minneapolis cooperative movements dies
The blog topic I chose today is an obituary for the death of Deborah Shroyer . She is a legend in the Minneapolis cooperative community. With her sister, she started the Peoples' Pantry on the back porch of a West Bank apartment. People would come and grab a pound of real oats or whole wheat flour and leave their money in a can. This led to a huge co-op revolution in the cities; people say there were more than two dozen worker run groceries at one time in the early seventies, most of which are now consumer co-ops (except North Country). Although she became increasingly debilitated by M.S., she remained an important figure for the cooperative movement here, as did the grocery she started and which people refer to as the "mother-store," North Country Co-op. There's a good book written by Craig Cox of the Utne Reacer and dealing with the Co-op movement, which was and still is one of the biggest in the country, it's called Storefront Revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
