I almost managed to avoid making a pun.
So this weeks little adventure has really hit home with probably the core point of journalism of all branches. You need to stand out.
So Tuesday we had a trip to the Lincolnshire Echo and had a talk from the editor Jon Grubb a man obsessed with crisps and news (my kind of man if he had love for Milky bars), a journalist who has no formal journalism training and learnt everything whilst on the job. The key points he put down were as follows:
1. No brownie points for superb writing skills, it's just a given it's the story that makes exceptional (and the odd well placed piece of grammar)
2. Theirs a difference between a journalist and reporter. A reporter writes up the story and life's the nine to five life. A journalist is always on and constantly looking for a story and maybe getting a little emotionally connected. So maybe then they can administer some social justice. Jon had a good example of this. Jon successfully had two wrongly accused men freed from prison after being wrongly imprisoned for murder after five years of campaign.
3. Stand out from the CV. Jon explained his pet peeves and jeeves about CV's. Saying you watch films and listen to music is more generic then a US teen drama. Saying stuff like (true story) Miss Piggy's your inspiration will at least up your chances of getting a job.
4. Stories are everywhere, from on old trick Jon showed us which included flicking through the TV guide selecting a station and getting at least two stories out of each programme will tune us to our spidey..sorry story senses.
So what I thought of the new room was simple, it wasn't only the people that were alive. Screens were plastered in either half typed copy or a journalist following a lead. Some seemed so busy that they were multi tasking in maybe one of slickest of ways. Typing whilst talking into possibly some of the coolest real life headsets i've seen. That's little nerd who only got an Ipod a few months ago has serious leaf green tree envy.
Even though it was bordering on 4pm still dedicated workers sat their doing their various journalist jobs.
Department breakdown:
1. Advertising department- This is the team which literally get affected when things money wise takes a tumble, the housing market takes a nose dive and these guys could quickly get the chop. They're is to sell ad space and make the paper money.
2. News- These are the guys who fill out the paper with news, overall the team was a number of 58 in 2008 and is now 26, the recession has hit hard. Jon mentioned their was heavy reliance on freelancers.
3. Editorial- The blinking head of the paper- Their job is to make the tough choices and get the paper ready for print.
4. Photography- A paper without pictures is like a body with a heart, it's got no connection to anyone (oooh ice cold for me) these guys get the stunning pictures to back up or compliment the stories.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Ranting choice: Obligations and growing up
So from the title you probably think this will be a pointless moany post ?
Wrong good ladies,sirs and cyborgs. We had tutorials this week, so my mind was exploded in another lecture. In our New media theory lecture our lecturer introduced us to a theory from a book called Willing Slaves: How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives. According to our lecturer the book presented one major idea. This was the idea that today's goals for most people in the modern world is simple:
Go through education (school, possibly further education like college or university) --->Get a good job -->Get a house--> Pay house off--> Get house paid off--> Get moved to a nursing home and have house and everything sold off to pay for it because your to old to be alone. = A willing slave to a modern day system. This little sum scares me more then a zombie with a rocket launcher
It maybe be my age but I barely think two months ahead, ask me now I have no idea what I'll be doing in ten years let alone ten days. Has my life been summed up for me before I even enter the real real world ?
No of course not. It's simple it's a text book theory which doesn't factor in all life experience. Look at people like the Hilton sisters they don't have jobs (probably not a good thing) who totally defy the theory, what about the disabled who are unable to work ? They don't need this theory to life their lives in a good way. Clearly this system isn't mandatory, you could skip a step like not a good education like Duncan Bannatyne but still has a decent job. What about the children of millionaires who receive great education and don't work ?
Enough rhetorical questions. This theory misses out the human element like love and social/recreational lives and doing journalism opens a wide array of choices for me, the constricted job and getting a house mentality is shot if I go freelance and manage to make a living out of traveling around the world. If I'm honest the reason I'm breaking this down like a dance move is I hate to think what's waiting for me after I graduate is 9-5 desk job in which I wear stiff suit and a build a mentality the outside world is below me.
Overall I see this theory as being a simple framework in which you build upon and add,subtract elements to match your experiences. This could be positively like getting a job but never needing a permanent home or not getting a good education or job and just living off the state.
Wrong good ladies,sirs and cyborgs. We had tutorials this week, so my mind was exploded in another lecture. In our New media theory lecture our lecturer introduced us to a theory from a book called Willing Slaves: How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives. According to our lecturer the book presented one major idea. This was the idea that today's goals for most people in the modern world is simple:
Go through education (school, possibly further education like college or university) --->Get a good job -->Get a house--> Pay house off--> Get house paid off--> Get moved to a nursing home and have house and everything sold off to pay for it because your to old to be alone. = A willing slave to a modern day system. This little sum scares me more then a zombie with a rocket launcher
It maybe be my age but I barely think two months ahead, ask me now I have no idea what I'll be doing in ten years let alone ten days. Has my life been summed up for me before I even enter the real real world ?
No of course not. It's simple it's a text book theory which doesn't factor in all life experience. Look at people like the Hilton sisters they don't have jobs (probably not a good thing) who totally defy the theory, what about the disabled who are unable to work ? They don't need this theory to life their lives in a good way. Clearly this system isn't mandatory, you could skip a step like not a good education like Duncan Bannatyne but still has a decent job. What about the children of millionaires who receive great education and don't work ?
Enough rhetorical questions. This theory misses out the human element like love and social/recreational lives and doing journalism opens a wide array of choices for me, the constricted job and getting a house mentality is shot if I go freelance and manage to make a living out of traveling around the world. If I'm honest the reason I'm breaking this down like a dance move is I hate to think what's waiting for me after I graduate is 9-5 desk job in which I wear stiff suit and a build a mentality the outside world is below me.
Overall I see this theory as being a simple framework in which you build upon and add,subtract elements to match your experiences. This could be positively like getting a job but never needing a permanent home or not getting a good education or job and just living off the state.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
The reflective differences of one subject.
So this week I'm going to have a crack of comparing the coverage of one news event by two different media outlets.
The subject: The Egypt protests
Outlet 1 (TV): the Aljazeera Western network
Outlet 2 (Online): The Guardian website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/feb/03/egypt-protests-live-updates
This visual differences: the core difference is how close they got to the actual protests. When I watched the English Aljazeera stream the camera was solely focused on the fire-lit sky with a journalist describing in a limited fashion what was below. He was simply to far away from the action to keep mine and any other viewers attention.
The Guardian coverage how ever has managed to life up to it's reputation of being known as Gruadian (I meant to make the spelling mistake), this means that the Guardian tend to be more focused on obtaining some great photos as they've proved below:
- Taken from the Guardian website.
Okay they're certain limits of course. A video camera used by a new station would be a lot heavier and harder to move around. Meaning it would struggle in the hetic nature of the incident, this was even mentioned when the cameraman informed the journalist on Aljazeera he couldn't pivot the camera, this could be linked to financial backing of the station and their equipment being outdated. So comparing all these drawbacks the photographer for the Guardian would be able to move around quicker.
Though for both their is one key drawback which if of course the fragile chaotic nature of the protests and being to close to could have put them in danger.
Who's quicker ?: we all know news is only interesting to the masses when it's hot and fresh. The Guardian have a dedicated page for the story which is constantly updated and also links to a Twitter feed (more upon birds tweeting later), meanwhile Aljazeera seemed to suffer from the same syndrome that any 24 hour news station has. Which any new information it has is constantly churned every two minutes.So it becomes quite stale and rotten. I over heard a second year comment on the quality of Aljazeera's Western and basically called it 'pants'.
Who's got more friends ?: The Guardian takes this round, Aljazeera was relying heavily on old stock footage and bias official sources. For example it was mainly the countries Government and the arrival of the UN ambassador. The Guardian seemed to have a small army of embedded journalists and photographers on the ground. This is displayed by (yes now I'll mention it) by the Guardian posting links to Twitters of various journalists who were in Egypt. This lead to the Guardian having a wider and richer range of stories, they also borrowed a slide show from the New York Times.
Who's been told to keep quiet ?: never if I'm honest but presented fine ethically correct coverage of the events and kept it all fair and clean (well from the bits I've seen).
Outdated formats ?: since I started this blog post I've come to a little conclusion, with a story as big as this as new network which is a big screen medium and limited interface for a consumer like Aljazeera is going to have limited coverage. The Guardians website is alive with information and has even tackled the moving image by adding Youtube videos relevant to the story.
Who would I shamefully endorse: if I'm honest if this was any Western news channel who was little better at life coverage they would have probably taken the day. However this time I'll have to say I feel more enriched and more informed by the coverage of the Guardian, any various stories on the subject.
The subject: The Egypt protests
Outlet 1 (TV): the Aljazeera Western network
Outlet 2 (Online): The Guardian website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/feb/03/egypt-protests-live-updates
This visual differences: the core difference is how close they got to the actual protests. When I watched the English Aljazeera stream the camera was solely focused on the fire-lit sky with a journalist describing in a limited fashion what was below. He was simply to far away from the action to keep mine and any other viewers attention.
The Guardian coverage how ever has managed to life up to it's reputation of being known as Gruadian (I meant to make the spelling mistake), this means that the Guardian tend to be more focused on obtaining some great photos as they've proved below:
- Taken from the Guardian website.Okay they're certain limits of course. A video camera used by a new station would be a lot heavier and harder to move around. Meaning it would struggle in the hetic nature of the incident, this was even mentioned when the cameraman informed the journalist on Aljazeera he couldn't pivot the camera, this could be linked to financial backing of the station and their equipment being outdated. So comparing all these drawbacks the photographer for the Guardian would be able to move around quicker.
Though for both their is one key drawback which if of course the fragile chaotic nature of the protests and being to close to could have put them in danger.
Who's quicker ?: we all know news is only interesting to the masses when it's hot and fresh. The Guardian have a dedicated page for the story which is constantly updated and also links to a Twitter feed (more upon birds tweeting later), meanwhile Aljazeera seemed to suffer from the same syndrome that any 24 hour news station has. Which any new information it has is constantly churned every two minutes.So it becomes quite stale and rotten. I over heard a second year comment on the quality of Aljazeera's Western and basically called it 'pants'.
Who's got more friends ?: The Guardian takes this round, Aljazeera was relying heavily on old stock footage and bias official sources. For example it was mainly the countries Government and the arrival of the UN ambassador. The Guardian seemed to have a small army of embedded journalists and photographers on the ground. This is displayed by (yes now I'll mention it) by the Guardian posting links to Twitters of various journalists who were in Egypt. This lead to the Guardian having a wider and richer range of stories, they also borrowed a slide show from the New York Times.
Who's been told to keep quiet ?: never if I'm honest but presented fine ethically correct coverage of the events and kept it all fair and clean (well from the bits I've seen).
Outdated formats ?: since I started this blog post I've come to a little conclusion, with a story as big as this as new network which is a big screen medium and limited interface for a consumer like Aljazeera is going to have limited coverage. The Guardians website is alive with information and has even tackled the moving image by adding Youtube videos relevant to the story.
Who would I shamefully endorse: if I'm honest if this was any Western news channel who was little better at life coverage they would have probably taken the day. However this time I'll have to say I feel more enriched and more informed by the coverage of the Guardian, any various stories on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)