Final Blog :)

The time has come at last to write my final blog for j420!  It really has been a quick semester and it is hard to believe I am ending my junior year.

When I registered way back when, I really didn't have a positive or negative opinion of this class.I found quickly that 420 was a nice break from the stressful 415 reporting class I took with Prof. Dash last semester.  It was a nice to change to be learning rules to apply to my writing, instead of writing all the time and worrying about constant deadlines and interviews.  

I think the reason I enjoyed this class so much was the fact that I learned things I truly think will stay with me.  I learned skills to improve my writing and better my understanding of a newsroom and rules of reporting.

I also felt challenged many times throughout the semester.  There was more than one occasion where my ethics as a journalist were tested and I was forced to think like an editor and decide what I would do in that position.  In terms of which photos to publish and issues like that, I learned a great deal because I have never dealt with decisions like that before.  I was also reminded for a week straight just how much I really DO hate math and why journalism is the career I want to pursue.  I think I learned a lot about myself this semester, especially as a journalist.

I am not going to lie, I am glad this is my last blog.  I really won't miss this part of the class TOO much. :)

Adiosssss junior year!

Quick Fix

This week's readings was more articles about how the newspaper industry is suffering greatly and many people are losing their jobs and blah blah blah.  It really gets old to have  this information shoved in my face week after week.  I mean, I know it is happening but I don't want to keep hearing about it as I approach my senior year of college.  Let' put it this way...It is not very motivating to hear day in and day out.

It's no secret that newspapers across the country are making various cuts in order to save time and money.  Lately, one popular practice newspapers are testing is outsourcing their editing to foreign countries.  In theory, it sounds like a great idea.  However, in my opinion it is just a quick fix to a bigger problem.

Sending copy to places like India to be edited it obviously ALOT cheaper then paying someone to do it in the United States.  However, when you send copy to a far away place there is no way they will catch all the mistakes and errors someone locally would.  People in India will correct punctuation and spelling I'm sure and that is great.  But what about things like misspelling of local people and places, street directions being incorrect and other things like that.  These are mistakes that someone local would more than likely catch compared to someone overseas who has never even been to where the paper is being distributed.

Some may argue that this doesn't matter and the most important thing is keeping costs down at a time like this.  I disagree.

When a newspaper continually makes little errors, they add up and people are very bothered by it.  People who read the newspaper have this strange sense of possession and often refer to a newspaper as "my paper."  People don't like to see errors in "their' paper, especially careless ons that could be avoided.  If all copy was outsourced was edited in foreign countries, I strongly believe the credibility and respect of newspapers would decline.  I don't think saving a few extra dollars is more important then the cost of losing respect, readership and credibility. 

Kissing Editing Goodbye

 The main point of this article was that editors are being significantly let go from many papers we are all familiar with.  The newspaper industry is suffering and faced with having to make cuts.  Many papers are choosing to make those cuts by decreasing the numbers of editors in the newsroom, resulting in stories being published without a second read.

This change is putting more responsibility on the reporters than ever before.  While I am a firm believer in a reporter doing their job, I also think editing is very important.  With fewer editors, the chances of mistakes getting published are much more likely.  As I wrote in my research paper, this will harm the respect and trustworthiness of a paper by its readers.  When a newspaper isn't accurate, their audience looses trust.  The article says it best when it says, " Editors are guardians of credibility, and without credibility we really haven't got a leg to stand on."  Editors are there for more than jsut adding a missing comma or conjunction.

The article stated that saving the reporting jobs has become a priority at the cost of editing jobs.  I don't think it can just be decided that reporters are more important than editors.

Reporters work under tight deadlines and time constraints.  I find that after working into the late hours of the night, I get tired and make mistakes.  I depend on peer editing to help make my story better and catch mistakes my eyes just didn't see.

Sometimes I find that I read a sentence over and over and over and still don't find a mistake that is staring right at me.  I automatically correct something in my head as I read it because I know what it is supposed to say.

No one can be exactly sure where the future of copy editing is headed.  The article offered a couple suggestions, but nothing is known for sure.  We will just have to wait and see.

Math. Gross.

"I chose journalism because I absolutely HATE math!!"

Sound familiar? haha

I must admit that I am one of these people.  Studying numbers and doing math problems this past week made my brain hurt and I am not looking forward to the quiz on Wednesday.  Even though I would love to write a blog bashing math and complaining about it, i really have realized more this year how important numbers are--especially in terms of editing.

Numbers are all around us-in tax stories, police stories and much more.  One of the main problems I think is that most journalists (of course not all) don't like math and are a little rusty.

"If you don't know the difference between a noun and a verb, you could never get a job as a reporter or editor. But newsrooms are full of people who don't know how to calculate a percentage," said Roger Simons, who was an award winning columnist for both the Sun-Times and Baltimore Sun, in an article I found on poynter's Web site.

I have really become to understand that without decent math skills, one cannot be an effective journalist.  There are numbers all around us essential to so many stories and we need to be able to deal with them.

We review the Daily Illini every class period and SO often the numbers are wrong and don't make sense.  How embarrassing! It makes me wonder just how often this happens in big newspapers.

It also brings up the issue of both why aren't the editors catching errors in numbers and also why the reporters are being so careless.

If anything, this past week has taught me that I need to refresh myself before this week's quiz.  And also, just how important math really is, even though I hate to admit it.

Wish me luck on the quiz Wednesday.  Hopefully we can use our calculators.

<3>

The Seven Deadly Sins of Copy Editing

Once again, we were not assigned a topic for this week's blog.  I really don't like that! Haha.  I find it hard to be creative about copy editing topics to blog about every week.  Ok enough venting.

One of the readings for lecture this week was an article on the ponyter Web site called, "The Seven Deadly Copy Editing Sins."  They are as follows:

1. Arrogance

2. Assumptions

3. Sloppiness

4. Indifference

5. Ignorance 

6. Laziness

7.  Inflexibility

At first, I thought arrogance was kind of a stretch.  But then I reread it and now it makes more sense and definitely deserves to be on this list.  The article compared this sin to selfishness.  The editor should ALWAYS have the interest of the reader in mind.  

Assumptions is another important one.  The saying "if your mother says she loves you, check it out" fits this category perfectly.  It is up to the editor to make sure things are spelled correctly, information is true, numbers makes sense, etc.  It is obviously the reporter's responsibility to get these things right also, but the editor is the final check to catch mistakes before the audience sees  the finished project.

Sloppiness is important, but I think it resembles laziness and assumptions quite a bit.  I think they all could possibly go in the same category.  Nevertheless, I think sloppiness is more about the little things than the "big picture."  It's not whether a source is made up or information is false, but rather that all page numbers are accounted for and the date on the paper is correct.  Things like this constitute sloppiness rather than another one of the deadly sins.

Indifference is important.  Editors should know what is a front page news story and what isn't.  It also means things should be more creative instead of bland.  Readers want things to be creative and new instead of the same old thing they are used to.

I do not think that ignorance needs to be its own sin, but poynter made it one.  It is important to make sure that names are correct and match photos, etc. but I think that if one is ignorant it could also mean they are lazy.  I do not see much of a difference between those two words.

I think laziness is by far the deadliest sin.  An editor's job is specifically to NOT be lazy and fix the mistakes others have made.  If he or she is going to be lazy, they are failing at their job..BIG TIME.  It takes a patient and precise person to be an editor.  It also takes a person who is committed to finding errors and is not going to be lazy and let them slide.  This cold result in the respect of the publication decreasing.

The last sin is inflexibility.  Editors need to have knowledge in a wide variety  of areas.  They need to know guidelines for sports and regular writing.  They need to be willing to work late hours in order for a publication to be produced  on time with all accurate information.  They need to be willing to ask for help if need be and make sacrifices, such as staying later.

All of these sins could be incredibly deadly to an editor's job, reputation and respect from co-workers.  Until next week,

-sar 

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeep*

Let me just start off by saying that I really like when we have a certain topic to blog on for the week.  I'm sure many people like being able to chose to blog about WHATEVER they want but I find it a lot harder and prefer some guidance.  With that being said, I was kind of at a loss for this week so decided to blog on the reading for lecture.  I know, I know..real creative.

 All of this week's readings for lecture dealt with profanity and obscenities and the debate over whether or not they should be printed.  According to AP Style, they should not be used in stories unless they are part of a direct quote and have a compelling reason to be included.  Writers are supposed to try and find a way to convey the message without actually using the "curse word."  If it MUST be used, the story needs to be flagged at the top so that readers are warned before the read the story.

Personally, I think that the use of obscenities is vulgar and unnecessary.  These such words are considered inappropriate and disrespectful by the public.  Therefore, there is really no need to print them.  I feel it is just setting yourself up for comments.  People are going to be offended; that is a no brainer.  That could be avoided by just not printing such words at all.  If a word was completely necessary and the quote would not have the full effect without it, then I think it should be printed with a *, such as sh*t or dashes or something along those lines.  I do not think that the actual word needs to be printed in order to convey the message to the audience.  People are smart and they will get the idea.  It will make sense to them.

My opinion also applies  to broadcast media.  I think that a "bleep" or such sound should be inserted to censor certain words that may have been said.  People might argue that this is infringing on the freedom of speech and cashes with the First Amendment, but i just do not think profanity is necessary. 

Pictures

The whole debate of which photos to run and why is really a struggle.  In the first scenario, I thin I would run either number 1 or 2.  I know I wouldn't run 3 because it is a bit too graphic and my audience might be offended or disturbed.  I also would not pick number 3 out of respect for his family.  To me, number 4 is confusing and unless you have seen the previous pictures you don't really know what is going on first two pictures get the idea across to the point where the reader knows what is going to happen without actually seeing it. Either photo 1 or 2 including the words "seconds before Dwyer committed suicide" or something like that would explain and show the audience what happened in a tasteful and respectful manner in my opinion. 

I cant really decide about the first picture.  I think I would run it because it conveys to the audience just how MUCH the boy is grieving for his dog and how much he cares.  I also feel it is a different situation because an animal died versus a human.  However, if the event happened locally, which I am sure it did, I don't know if I would want to run it since the boy probably lives there and it young.

The next photo of the family mourning after their boy has drowned I think I would also run, much for the same reason as above.  However, if the boys face was more visible I think i would decide against running it.  The last two are too graphic to be printed in a publication I think, although they are great photos, especially the one of the boy and the fence.  It is hard to make decisions though because I personally feel like you don't always get the full effect of a certain even without a good photo.  For example,  the boy and the fence:  It is one thing to read that a boy fell on a spike fence and to actually SEE it.  It helps show the severity of the event and just how serious and newsworthy it was.

The photo of the man in the newsroom I would definitely show run.  I think it is tasteful and it just doesn't really do much for me.  I know thats not really a good reason, but it's the truth.  The photo is not needed to understand the event and I think it would be unnecessary to run the photo.

I think the picture that I struggled with most was the last one that depicted the Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle.  I agree that the face should definitely have been obscured to protect the woman's identity.  I almost feel that I would show it because I would want the audience to see firsthand what happened and the disrespect shown to this woman and her body.  However, I struggled with all of the photos.  It is hard to decide what is crossing the "line" and what is appropriate.  It is much easier to decide when the photo has been altered to not run it, but when it is the actual photo it is a lot tougher for me to decide what to do.