I just read an article on The Caucus, New York Time's political blog, about the four Republican candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain) that did not show up for a Republican presidential debate at Morgan State University.
What? Not showing up for a chance to campaign? The catch here is that Morgan State University in Maryland is a historically black college.
The relevance of the school to the political party did not surpass anyone. It is a fact that in the last election the majority of black voters voted democrat.
I liked the point that Kansas Senator Sam Brownback made- "I think it’s a disgrace for our country, I think it’s bad for our party and I don’t think it’s good for our future,” he said. “You grow political parties by expanding your base … what they’re doing is sending a message of narrowing the base.”
I feel like the republication party has really been narrowing their base. They know that Americans are not too happy with Bush, yet they are not making their stances on issues any more moderate. Then they dismiss an opportunity to attract more people to their party? It is almost like they are too over confident. Or they just over cramming their fund-raising and campaigning schedules?

The readings for this week were about news on the Internet. As a college student I try to buy a newspaper once a week, but then again, why do that when you can get free news from sites like Google. I can really understand why online news is a booming medium for journalism. It is quick, easy and free (for the most part).

The one reading talked about the power of blogging. I want to write for ImPrint, an online magazine for college students and at the meeting they talked about how important it is to be accurate when writing stories for them. What you write will stay online for who knows how long and will be forever associated with whoever said or did it. When something is printed in a newspaper there is the buzz around the newest headline but the next day there is an even newer headline and the news the day before is forgotten. In this new age of journalism it is easy to just type in someones name and find anything that was printed about them. It is easier to remember people's mistakes.

The other reading talked about multimedia in online news. I am a huge fan of multimedia because I am a "visual learner." Sure I can understand something when I read it but I understand it so much better if I see pictures, video or some type of interactive packet. I think as far as online news goes, multimedia is the most exciting feature because it is something print does not have and really can not do.

I recently saw an article in a past issue of Rolling Stone stated that Rudy Giuliani could be worse than Bush. This article didn't surprise me, because Rolling Stone is a very liberal publication. However, the article that did surprise me was on Google News today. It said that Giuliani is losing popularity among his party because of his social stance (he is pro-choice).
Basically he is just too conservative for the liberals and too liberal for the conservatives.

I personally did not know that Giuliani was pro-choice and when I went to investigate this I found out that he technically is NOT pro-choice. He has taken the stance that abortions should only be performed if the mother's health is at risk. This is really not the type of pro-choice stance that liberals are talking about and it seemed like a pretty conservative value to me. Then I remembered the past post I did on the polls of Americans and who they were likely to vote for. Many mentioned that Giuliani has multiple past wives. Are his lifestyle choices the "social stance" the Google news article were really talking about?

I think that when it comes to politicians, people should look at how they perform in their career, not what happens in their private life. But, I feel like this could never actually happen. Just like the tabloids cannot ignore the lives of famous actors and singers. Where should the line be drawn to distinguish private life from business?

:) ;^] :/

I think no matter what level course you are taking in writing there will ALWAYS be a review of punctuation. I am not against the review because I always need the refresher. When I write I tend to just spill it all out onto my computer. Although this technique (if you could even call it a technique) is effective for racking up the wordage, it tends to just end up being a long ramble without all the necessary punctuation for emphasis and understanding. That's where my editing time comes in, hopefully when I reread what I just wrote I can catch where I need to insert some directions for the reader. I think of punctuation as directions for readers because it tells them where to pause or to stop all together, or emphasizes certain parts of a sentence. I had one professor that referred to punctuation as road signs. This makes sense since road signs and punctuation do the same thing, provide a warning or directions how to navigate a path, whether it is on pavement or paper.

The other reading for this week was the three chapters of my news reporting text. Basically it was an introduction to journalism. Another review. The most important thing they mentioned was relevance. I know last year I learned that when you are writing for a newspaper you only have a certain number of words to get your message across. If you waste half of them on something that is not the news then you have only half to get your message across.

Watch Out Hillary, Oprah's in the Race

The big news on the Election 2008 candidates seems to be Oprah's incredibly expensive fund-raising party for Obama. Found on the Times Online.

The guests of the party had to pay $2,300 in order to even go and were required to wear flat shoes so that Oprah's lawn wouldn't be damaged. Guests were not even allowed in her $50 million mansion which she considered to be a spirtual, sacred and special. The party raised 3 million dollars for Obama.

Oprah is a very influential person, the 2nd most influential woman in the US. Ironicly, first is Hillary Clinton. Her power has possibilities to push Obama's popularity way up on the scale. However, could it overshadow him? I think it could.

The articles I read on the party did not confirm if Oprah would be supporting Obama with any other election events or appearances but I suspect this is not the end. She was quoted saying “My money isn’t going to make any difference. My support of him is probably worth more than any check that I could write." Come November 2008, her support for Obama could end up being a battle between the two most influential woman in the US.

The Future of the News Media

The readings from the textbook were a good review. Chapters seven and eight went over the inverted pyramid, which is what every journalist must know. Basically the inverted pyramid is an upside-down triangle, with all the important information at the top and the smaller, less important details towards the bottom. The lead is in first sentence of the story and must include information that is not only important but also eye-catching for the reader. A good news story will entice the reader to read the whole story, even to the last details at the end.

The other reading was from Journalism.org, The State of the News Media. In my Journalism Research class last semester we went over the future of the news and discussed the possibility of print news becoming non-existent. This report addressed the same issue. I think that is normal for print sales to go down when such a variety of news is available online in a much faster, concise form. However, I do not think that newspapers and magazines will disappear anytime soon. There are still people who cherish the tradition of sitting down to breakfast with a fresh newspaper (like my father).

One factor that was discussed in the print vs. online issue is that local news is seldom addressed in online news sites. People who live in a small town need to be informed about the news in their local community not just the city nearby. Local newspapers do not have the staff to create elaborate websites so for this reason; print will continue to be a staple for the news in the town. I know that in the town I come from the website for our local newspaper is actually a scanned front page from the newspaper that week. http://www.starandwave.com I think that could even be considered a protest to battle against online news.

No Moderates Allowed

As far as the 2008 election candidates go, both democrats and republicans can agree on one thing, the uncertainty of which candidate is best for their party. In Tuesday's New York Times and on the Times website citizens from each party were randomly polled. Overall, people seemed to agree that it is very early on to really favor one candidate over the others. Especially since Thompson hasn't even offically entered the race. However, the differences in preferences between the parties are drastic. I see this as meaning that there will be very voters caught in the middle. In the 2008 election you are either a republican or a democrat. There will be few moderate stances.
Many of the polled pro-democratic people seemed to hold more favor for Hilary Clinton, which I feel many republicans would never vote for. The republicans that were polled seemed to focus on their candidate’s personal lifestyle choices, such as Giuliani's past three wives. I find it hard to believe them wanting to vote for Clinton because of her history, and maybe even because she is a woman.
My impression from the people polled, both democrats and republicans, is that this upcoming race is going to get more intense as November 2008 gets closer. With such different candidates and opinions it is difficult to say which side is going to take the lead.