He Said, She Said

The media loves gossip. Especially when it comes to the 2008 presidential campaign. Well, it may not be the media that loves gossip, more like the readers and viewers who love hearing the candidates battle it out. Either way, the coverage of the 2008 campaign has been a muddy fight.

All I had to do was type in “Obama said Clinton” into Google news and hundreds of links to stories reporting what the two said to each other pops up. Recently Clinton’s aide, Billy Shaheen, said something about Obama’s drug use in his younger days. This dirty little secret was splattered all over the news. I guess Clinton realized that this tactic was not very appealing to potential voters so she formally apologized. It wasn’t until December 15th that Obama talked to the press about the whole incident. What’s the deal with all of this bashing? Well, when the going gets tough then the tough gets going.

Abc new’s political blog had this comment of Obama’s about the issue: “On the Clintons' tactics: More broadly Obama was asked if Bill, Hillary and Shaheen’s comments were intended to make him angry or feel demeaned. Obama said, “When I was 20 points down, they all thought I was a wonderful guy. Obviously, things have changed here in Iowa and the rest of the country, and that's the kind of politics we've become accustomed to.”

If your leading the race, and we all know that the media has been treating the 2008 campaign as a horse race, then there is going to be much more attention on you. The New York Times online has a nice interactive chart that shows all of the candidates and who has talked about them. Interesting, but does the public really need to analyze the mudslinging of the candidates? What about the issues? As a potential voter I really could care less about what each of the candidates are saying about each other. I want to know what the candidates are saying about the issues. The future president should not be voted for because they know how to throw it down like a middle school recess fight.

The Dirty P Word and How to Stalk a Political Candidate

Oh that P word. I think it was back in 9th grade, when you first start to write research papers, that I first heard the word plagiarism. There was a whole class period devoted to what plagiarism. But then when I got to college I was surprised that my journalism professor had to discuss plagiarism. I just assumed that if you were going to be a good credible journalist you would not steal other people's work. I guess I was naive. This week's reading discusses whether taking quotes from other articles without citing the source is really plagiarism. In my mind it is. If you did not get the quote yourself then you should cite the source. However, I believe that if you didn't not get the quote yourself then you really shouldn't put it in your article because it was already printed. I know that sometimes it is hard to come up with quotes and live up to the expectations of your editor but there is a real danger with using already printed quotes.
First of all, what if that quote is not true. Sure you are citing the newspaper that originally printed the quote but you are also reprinting it, reaffirming the quote's truth. Requoting can spread lies very quickly.
Secondly, it can really ruin your credibility as a journalist, and the credibility of the paper you are writing for. Readers what the facts and honest work.
The issue with John Merrill and the cancellation of his column is a debatable issue. He did plagiarize but was it necessary to pretty much ruin his career by canceling his column and tainting his name forever? I think that the editor of the Missourian should have made Merrill apologize for not citing the author of the quotes but not cancelled his column. However, I do understand that the editor probably felt that it was his obligation to set standards for the school and allowing the column to still be print would have gone against those standards. I think the moral of the p word story is to not plagiarize because that p word just brings trouble where ever it goes.

The other reading dealt with tips for journalists who are writing about politics. Now, my friends are always very surprised with my ability to find people and information about people. I just tell them I learned it in journalism class. Journalists have stalker-like techniques and that what makes them so crafty. Basically the other reading was an article with hundreds of links to find dirt on political candidates. When I was looking at all the different types of information you can find on a candidate, remind you they are human beings, I started to feel a bit weary of whether it was "politically" correct to print. But then again, political candidates are people that may be in charge of a country some day, and in that case the public should know everything about them and their intentions. The public just has the right to know. So then, I bookmarked the article.

New Age Journalism

This week's reading was an article on soundslides and an interview with it's creator, Joe Weiss
The first thing that Weiss said was that he feels that 10 slides with audio makes much more of an impact that a minute of video. I think the same thing. I feel like people are used to seeing video, and it just like viewing something right in front of you. A photo selects a certain moment in time that you would not usually notice in real life. Examining a photo for a couple of seconds really lets you look into the moment, the background, what is in focus and subtle postioning and expressions. It is a much more profound process then watching video footage.
Another thing that caught my eye was that audio slide shows has not been used to report hard news. I think that this is because the best slide shows use very good photos, not just ALL the photos taken at, say, one press conference. That would be boring. I think that audio slideshows work very well when it is a feature type of article, something that is more long term than an imediate news story.
The article was very helpful for someone who is going to be using soundslides soon....like me. Personally, I think that multimedia journalism is something I am very interested in. I like the idea of exploring all different types of journalism and combining them. I like to think that I am a creative person and multimedia journalism really lets you be creative and experimental.

Whats God Got to Do With It?

Mitt Romney is trying to play the faith card in his next speech entitled, "Faith in America." He is going to address his Mormonism in a speech at State College, Texas.
In the article in the New York Times it stated that according to a recent poll not many Americans would vote for a Mormon. Hmm.. I wonder if the popular HBO tv show Big Love has anything to do with that reasoning. In any case, Rommney is trying to play up his faith (brings me back Bush's campagin). What I find strange is that faith even comes into play at all during presidential elections. America is the land of freedom of religion. Not everyone in America is Christian....okay well the majority of Americans are Christians. That's exactly my point, the majority of Americans are Christians, but that means not EVERYONE.
I just think that faith should stay out of the government. Leading a country based on certain religious values is not going to serve everyone, and will especially not help relations with other non-Chrisitian countries (ahem....the Middle East).
I pulled this quote because it kind of made me laugh, "share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected.” Inform his presidency? So God is going to tell him how to run the United States? I guess Rommney is trying to bring back "In God We Trust."