Ware en the Warld Are the Edditors?

By Austin Bates

Well, obviously they aren't here looking at my blog, otherwise they would have caught the various misspellings I made in the title of this very blog post! But while I make light of a growing situation in the media world, especially that of newspapers, it is a serious issue, raising questions and concerns for many involved in the news reporting industry. Deborah Howell originally posted her thoughts on the issue concerning the loss of copy editors, especially with the Washington Post, where she reports from.

Of course, it's no secret that the newspapers are steadily, and seemingly, irrevocably, losing sales; NewsBlog reports that newspaper advertising sales were down 9.4 percent last year, according to the Newspaper Association of America, which is the worst it's been since records began in 1950. But of course, some critics would point out that newspapers have consistently had profit margins of up to 25%, which is far higher than any other industry, even the hated and despised oil mining industry. However, I think it's clear newspapers are losing money and conscious of this fact, and their possible future: which is that they may not have one. After all, how many times are youths known these days to sit down and read an old-fashioned printed newspaper unless they have to? Who has time for that, when other concerns, like Facebook and MySpace, are out there?

Regardless, newspapers like The Washington Post are reacting to changing times by dropping many of their copy editors; Howell reports a 40% loss of editors, or 32 of 75 editors have left or been "bought out". Apparently, newspapers are seeing less of a need to have so many people make sure that what they put out is so perfectly refined and ready for consumption. With more and more media outlets becoming 24 hour sources of information and entertainment, newspapers are also apparently attempting to join this trend, and seeing editors as somewhat counter-productive to this goal (one way you can put something out faster is by having less people check, edit, and revise it).

While Howell does a good job providing plenty of testimonials and examples of why copy editors are so important in the newspaper industry, and how many people appreciated their services, one thing she doesn't explore is something I wonder about: what will become of editors in general? What kind of message, or change to society, will having fewer and fewer editors produce? Media as it is already poises itself constantly to find every little mistake that some celebrity, or politician, or president, or government official, or corporate executive might make, and then paste it all over every outlet they have; tabloids make their living off of this sort of thing. So if newspapers themselves are dropping editors, raising the risk that they'll make more mistakes of more types, what message does this send? Further, newspapers are one of the last objective sources of information left, and if they are thinning their methods of maintaining objectivity, what happens to our news? Further, what about what kind of message, and information, this might transmit to youths in this changing media world? What will we be teaching our youth if our newspapers become about as well manicured as most text messages?

Now, some of these concerns may be unwarranted or exaggerated, but surely there's nothing good that will come out of dropping the number of people that will correct newspapers and maintain their integrity on the front line. And having reporters more carefully edit their own material won't work; any one who's had to write any number of essays before can say from experience that you can't catch half your own mistakes, and even after a day or so of rest, many errors may remain overlooked.

Basically, editing is what makes the difference between a poor source of information, and a good one. Validity, at least for me, is first and foremost based in presentation, and that includes whether you took time to make sure your words and sentences are composed correctly. If fewer and fewer people are doing this, how will anyone be able to find a good, objective source of information?

Read more...

Citizens or Consumers?

By: Alex Jones

Low voter turn outs across the board, and an overall indifference being felt lately in American Politics, could this be attributed to the poor coverage major news stations are currently displaying? Alarming to me is that the three major broadcast stations in America: NBC, ABC and CBS seem to be down-playing their coverage of the current presidential race and instead focusing more on their ratings.

With these major stations worrying about their ratings, there seems to be no time for the Presidential race. In 2004 NBC aired Fear Factor in place of the conventions where current Democratic Presidential hopefully Barack Obama made his first appearance (Karr). No wonder America has become disinterested, voter turn out, especially in youth has been in a "steady decline" and voter turn out overall is only striking between "50-55 percent" (Karr).  

In my experience it is tough enough for the youth of today and voters overall, to maintain their interest in politics without the temptation of flipping the station to see their favorite reality T.V. show airing at the same time. Journalism should strive to cover all of the political hype, regardless of ratings. It is their job to provide accurate information to the masses. Without the help of these major television stations how are the citizens of America supposed to stay informed? More people continue to tune in to their television sets for their current news. I cannot help but feel that this is an incredibly low blow to broadcast journalism overall.    

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/networks-sleep-while-demo_b_121438.html

Read more...

Lack of Information or Lack of Respect?

By: Katie Anthony

In today's society, it seems that hearing about certain deaths become more and more common in any form of media that's available to the public. However, while it is so common, it seems that a few newspapers aren't finding it necessary to print about a local "violent death." The New York Times, The New York Post, and the New York Daily News remained absolutely silent about a death of a man who was found stabbed in his apartment. There was only a brief statement on The New York Sun website with a title that read "Man Found Dead in Bathtub." At the crime scene, it was noted that they found knives, but the police quoted that there was "no criminality suspected."

Though it was thought to be a suicide, the fact that it was very poorly reported, I find to be extremely disrespectful. A professor of journalism at Ohio University says that the reason it was so poorly reported was due to the fact that suicide is a "touchy subject." However, when it was thought that Heath Ledger's death was an appararent suicide, it was all over news mediums, both printed and online.

Virginia Heffernan, a noted New York Times blogger, went on to Google News and typed in the deceased man's name. Only five articles were found. Most of them vague about the cause of death (and any details), due to the fact that nothing "official" had been determined. One of the articles closed with their condolences to the man's friends and family, but the article was found to be so brief that the closing seemed to be the most important part of their article. There was hardly a body to this supposed story.

So, how is the media prioritizing stories? If there was a suicide of anyone in the "public eye," it would make the front page of any major papers. If there was a suicide bomber, who, only ended up killing himselves overseas, I'm sure that that would be in the major papers as well. I believe it to be sad that a death that was noted as "violent" without a true cause of death, got hardly no attention at all.

I believe it to be a sad day once one person is allowed to choose which stories, based on death, they will or will not publish.

Read more...

Obama Takes the Cake... Will the Convention's Journalists do the Same?

By: Kathryn Lisk

While politics have always played a large role in society, America seems to be especially interested in November's presidential election. Barack Obama's speech was not only given in front of While politics have always played a large role in society, America seems to be especially interested in November’s election. Barack Obama’s speech was not only given in front of 80,000 people at Invesco Field in Denver, Colorado, but was also viewed by 38 million people from home. This number nearly doubles the number of viewers John Kerry, who had 24.4 million in the 2004 election. With these numbers, will there be more voters than usual? Can McCain match these numbers in his upcoming speech in Minnesota in the next few days?

Furthermore, there were over 15,000 reporters present at the Democratic Convention, each hoping to bring home an original story about where the U.S. was headed and if Obama would become a part of history. Before reading this article, I felt the number of stories produced by this number of journalists may be a bit much. Does America really need 15,000 views of this story? But with the obvious interest in the convention and election, maybe this is necessary. Various writers have mentioned job cuts within the journalism market, including Fairfax, who just laid off 550 Journalists. As long as Americans are demanding stories and information on the election and the candidates, Journalists may still have work.

I hope that as information is given to the American public about the election, Americans decide to participate in the election and vote. I’ve heard quite a few Simpson students talking about their views and I hope to see that they’ll take part in the elections. After all, news is supposed to inform its viewers. Will it?

Read more...

To hike... or not to hike? by Sarah Keller

This summer, I read the book "three cups of tea", it was about a man named Greg Mortenson who loved to hike, but after his failed attempt to climb K2, a mountain in Pakistan. he came upon a village named Karakoram and decided to build them a school, after that he built many schools across Pakistan primarily for girls, and made a great impact on their society, all while going through many struggles. All of this came about because of Mortenson’s love for hiking. Which made me wonder what is it about hiking that attracts so many people? In a few instances such as Mortenson good can come out of a hike, but in many cases things can come out bad, even deadly. So I would like to know is it worth the risks?

ABC wrote a story about a five year old prodigy girl named Yunona Bukasov who loves to hike. She has been to 21 national parks in the last 13 months, and has summated some of the highest peaks such as California's Mount Whitney, the tallest peak in the continental United States. Bukasov’s father said that they keep her very safe and do not put her in harms way while hiking, but I can not help but wonder how one can be truly prepared for any obstacle that might come about on a hike.

Yesterday ABC reported Wednesday August 27, Gibson called 911 and told them that he and his girlfriend were trapped at Dana Glacier and had lost part of their equipment, it was not until yesterday August 29 that they were saved. The paramedics believe that the couple will be ok after they receive medical attention.

In the end everything turned out fine for the couple, but that is not always the case for hikers. I do not know if I would be able to put myself in harms way to hike dangerous mountains, that is just me personally. I am however thankful for people such as Greg Mortenson who had the courage to hike because if it were not for him he would not have accidently come upon a small village, promised to build them a school and make a real impact in Pakistan for the women, if it were not for him none of the girls there would be receiving an education.

-the scaredy cat

Read more...