This is a media analysis, sort of? Or a media critique, or something. (I'm the next Brian Stelter, right here!!)
I will admit that at first, it took me a few seconds to remember the correct spelling of "odyssey." Initially, I wanted to spell it as "odessey."
I briefly mentioned this website in a previous blog post; I believe it was the one where I went on about the idea of a Stephen Glass costume (remember to ask people, "Are you mad at me?"). The website has recently become of slight relevance to me, so I thought I'd go a little more in depth with a full post on it.
A certain person (who shall remain unnamed) that I know/work with happens to write for this website, I've been informed. Which made me come back to thinking about it, and subsequently, researching it quite a bit.
Along the lines of Thought Catalog or Buzzfeed, it comes across as a slightly more academic version of those websites. Regardless, I would not consider it to be a particularly prestigious website to write for; it's really just a glorified mega-blog with spades of fairly inane and unoriginal content.
My blog, in contrast, I'd like to think does have a decent amount of original ideas/content, even if some people may consider the topics to be irrelevant (to them, maybe, but not to me -- who wouldn't want to read endless posts about Stephen Glass/etc??). But I think my posts here are definitely unique, even if there's only a small audience for them.
Anyways, onto the research. Come to think of it, I think I'm fairly good at that part, among other things. See for yourself:
Start off with this article from Wired, which sums up the website pretty well. According to this, there's supposedly an editing process, but if you take a look at some of the things that have been published on the website, I'd say that whoever's been editing them isn't very good at their job.
A number of student newspapers have published opinion articles about this website and they're pretty spot on. My little piece here is just on my blog, but it's in the same vein. These are all worth reading in full (I did, and so can you!), rather than just the particular quotes I've chosen to highlight here.
The Odyssey cheapens writing, cheats students: "The Odyssey’s low editorial standards raise serious concerns about how millennials consume journalism." I certainly wouldn't call the things that get published on that website "journalism." Writing, yes (not even particularly good writing, necessarily), but not journalism
The Odyssey dilutes journalism: "But websites such as the Odyssey — with more than 30 million monthly visitors, according to the website — only popularize the trend of blog-style entertainment news that adds little to the industry’s integrity."
"No reporting, no research, just shameless clickbaiting." Again, it's not journalism! Maybe some people consider it to be, but it's not. Writing/media, sure, but not journalism.
"Just because someone wants to write, doesn’t mean he or she has the chops to do it." Oh, definitely.
Exodus from the Odyssey: from three people who used to write for the website; their reasons behind resigning (imagine that!) "What mattered to my manager wasn’t quality, it was simply quantity, and that was that."
"I never felt like my writing improved, or that I was maturing as a writer. For a platform that advertises its writers as its most important resource, there was little work being done to refine or improve them. At the end of the day, the life of a content-aggregation writer follows a familiar formula: optimism, cynicism, and burnout."
Here's a snarky little thing from the Daily Pennsylvanian. "It seems as though any college student, no matter how terrible their writing or uninteresting their opinion, can use the Odyssey as a soapbox. The sheer lack of quality control and editorial presence begs the question, 'do they let just anyone write for this damn thing?'"
An open letter to the Odyssey Online: "My largest issue with The Odyssey is that many people don’t see it for what it is — it’s a big blog written by many different writers.
It’s a hub for blog writing — not journalism. Journalism is not taking your life and opinions and stating them without any outside evidence or interaction with others."
Mass-Produced Online Content Hubs: Exploitative, Not Just Annoying: This one focuses a little more on the fact that the writers are poorly (if at all) paid for their writing, which is sort of an issue, but at the same time, my take on it is that if you're writing for that website, you're probably not writing anything that's worth getting paid for.
The Odyssey need to rethink its approach to online journalism: "I’m convinced there’s absolutely no editing process, at least judging from the amount of laugh-worthy grammatical errors I’ve stumbled upon. I’m sorry, but if you can’t tell the difference between "then" and "than" or "their" and "there," THEN you shouldn’t consider yourself a published journalist. It’s gotten to the point where my roommate and I have a competition to see who can find the worst Odyssey article, which results in a lot of laughs and lost faith."
For the heck of it, song of the day: (take your pick!) Psycho Killer (Talking Heads), or Fury (Muse)
P.S.: I need to finish writing my chalk editorial (among other things!!!) instead of blog stuff like this. Also, in the process of looking up Brian Stelter since I mentioned him at the beginning of this post, I came across this New Republic profile of him that's pretty interesting!
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Happy pre-Halloween -- newspaper nails
There's a TL;DR down there somewhere (CTRL + F) if someone has happened to stumble on this post and just wants to know about how I actually did the manicure without all the personal rambling/background information...
I've somewhat neglected this blog, no doubt about it. I guess it just means I had other areas to put effort into writing for/about (and also that I've been busy with other life related things). Anyways, here's a little pre-Halloween post.
A week or so ago, I became aware of this costume, which I personally think is pretty amusing. Apparently some people don't like it, but it's certainly less offensive than some costumes. Anyways, I thought that it would be an interesting costume for me to ironically wear, but I don't think it's worth $55. Maybe half that price, and in which case, I would prefer just regular real news which is more applicable for everyday life/wear. Update: when I went to go look up the link to add here, it looks like the price has now risen to $59 and the costume is also out of stock...
Two weeks ago, I got motivated/inspired/compelled to finally paint my nails for once, even though the last time I painted them was probably at least a year ago, if not even longer. In the past, I used to paint my nails more often but then I just stopped, even though I've accumulated a ton of nail polish. My favorite brands are essie and OPI, which are fairly commonly available. Butter London is an expensive polish brand that I tried once and I think it's very overrated.
By yesterday, (two weeks since I had painted my nails previously), they were looking sort of less than fresh, so I decided to do a new manicure. At first I wasn't sure that I had polish remover on hand, but thankfully I found some. I knew that I should have it somewhere, but I just wasn't sure where. I also thought that maybe it was expired since I don't remember the last time I used it, but it worked fine.
BecauseI'm starved for attention I thought it would be interesting, I decided to do a technique that I must have read about a few years ago or something but never actually tried out until now. It involves using newspaper to transfer the print onto your nails, leaving a design of whatever words were on the piece of paper you used. The technique is pretty much like how you would apply a temporary tattoo.
Most of the things I read online said that you need to use alcohol (of some/any kind - I saw rubbing alcohol, vodka, perfume, etc, all mentioned) to transfer the print. Since I couldn't find any rubbing alcohol and didn't feel like wasting perfume (or rather, cologne) in what would undoubtedly result in a fairly strong smell, I decided to give it a go just using plain water, which only one thing I read mentioned. TL;DR, it worked.
I'm not sure how exactly alcohol is supposed to work better; I think I got decent results just using water. As for the how-to:
Materials: small dish/bowl, water, light colored nail polish, top coat, paper towel, scissors, newspaper
1) Paint nails in a light color of your choice (it might even work with something that isn't quite pastel, but still not too dark, like essie's tart deco color)
2) Cut up 10 (or more, if you think you're going to mess up) pieces of newspaper that will fit on your nails. For average size/length nails, this might be around the size of a postage stamp. Maybe do this part before you paint your nails so you don't mess up the polish while it's still wet/drying.
3) Lay one of the newspaper pieces in the dish of water and let it absorb for a few seconds.
4) Lift it out and place it over a dry, painted fingernail.
5) Fold up the paper towel a couple times and use it to firmly press (like a temporary tattoo) the newspaper onto the nail. I waited about 30 seconds.
6) Carefully peel the newspaper off; the print should have transferred.
7) Apply topcoat to seal; try to be careful so the print doesn't smear.
8) Repeat on the other 9 nails.
9) [optional - in my case] Enjoy the hopefully good results; hope to impress people you're going to see the next day with your manicure
If you want to make it sort of... more fitting for Halloween, you can do this and also turn your manicure into a pun of sorts... They sell shirts (and magnets and pins and other items, I think) with this saying at the Newseum: if it bleeds, it leads. It means basically that stories involving violence tend to get good ratings. I came up with this idea after scratching myself, which resulted in a little blood getting on my manicured fingernail, and had a lightbulb moment. I don't know if actual blood (of your own) would work as nail polish, so it's probably better to use a blood colored actual nail polish and add some dripping blood splatters over the newsprint pattern. Although maybe I should try it with my own blood!
Also, I think maybe nail polish should be more popular among men. There's no reason why they can't have interesting manicures too, even though it's not commonly considered masculine for men to paint their nails.
I've somewhat neglected this blog, no doubt about it. I guess it just means I had other areas to put effort into writing for/about (and also that I've been busy with other life related things). Anyways, here's a little pre-Halloween post.
A week or so ago, I became aware of this costume, which I personally think is pretty amusing. Apparently some people don't like it, but it's certainly less offensive than some costumes. Anyways, I thought that it would be an interesting costume for me to ironically wear, but I don't think it's worth $55. Maybe half that price, and in which case, I would prefer just regular real news which is more applicable for everyday life/wear. Update: when I went to go look up the link to add here, it looks like the price has now risen to $59 and the costume is also out of stock...
Two weeks ago, I got motivated/inspired/compelled to finally paint my nails for once, even though the last time I painted them was probably at least a year ago, if not even longer. In the past, I used to paint my nails more often but then I just stopped, even though I've accumulated a ton of nail polish. My favorite brands are essie and OPI, which are fairly commonly available. Butter London is an expensive polish brand that I tried once and I think it's very overrated.
By yesterday, (two weeks since I had painted my nails previously), they were looking sort of less than fresh, so I decided to do a new manicure. At first I wasn't sure that I had polish remover on hand, but thankfully I found some. I knew that I should have it somewhere, but I just wasn't sure where. I also thought that maybe it was expired since I don't remember the last time I used it, but it worked fine.
Because
Most of the things I read online said that you need to use alcohol (of some/any kind - I saw rubbing alcohol, vodka, perfume, etc, all mentioned) to transfer the print. Since I couldn't find any rubbing alcohol and didn't feel like wasting perfume (or rather, cologne) in what would undoubtedly result in a fairly strong smell, I decided to give it a go just using plain water, which only one thing I read mentioned. TL;DR, it worked.
I'm not sure how exactly alcohol is supposed to work better; I think I got decent results just using water. As for the how-to:
Materials: small dish/bowl, water, light colored nail polish, top coat, paper towel, scissors, newspaper
1) Paint nails in a light color of your choice (it might even work with something that isn't quite pastel, but still not too dark, like essie's tart deco color)
2) Cut up 10 (or more, if you think you're going to mess up) pieces of newspaper that will fit on your nails. For average size/length nails, this might be around the size of a postage stamp. Maybe do this part before you paint your nails so you don't mess up the polish while it's still wet/drying.
3) Lay one of the newspaper pieces in the dish of water and let it absorb for a few seconds.
4) Lift it out and place it over a dry, painted fingernail.
5) Fold up the paper towel a couple times and use it to firmly press (like a temporary tattoo) the newspaper onto the nail. I waited about 30 seconds.
6) Carefully peel the newspaper off; the print should have transferred.
7) Apply topcoat to seal; try to be careful so the print doesn't smear.
8) Repeat on the other 9 nails.
9) [optional - in my case] Enjoy the hopefully good results; hope to impress people you're going to see the next day with your manicure
If you want to make it sort of... more fitting for Halloween, you can do this and also turn your manicure into a pun of sorts... They sell shirts (and magnets and pins and other items, I think) with this saying at the Newseum: if it bleeds, it leads. It means basically that stories involving violence tend to get good ratings. I came up with this idea after scratching myself, which resulted in a little blood getting on my manicured fingernail, and had a lightbulb moment. I don't know if actual blood (of your own) would work as nail polish, so it's probably better to use a blood colored actual nail polish and add some dripping blood splatters over the newsprint pattern. Although maybe I should try it with my own blood!
Also, I think maybe nail polish should be more popular among men. There's no reason why they can't have interesting manicures too, even though it's not commonly considered masculine for men to paint their nails.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
(Shh...)
This is my blog, so if I would like to use it to air my personal vendettas, then that's what I'm going to do. Since it's just my blog and I'm not writing in any sort of official capacity, anything goes. T____ convinced me that I shouldn't write something about this for the newspaper, which is fair enough, so I'm writing it here.
Over the course of... a bit over a week, conditions have deteriorated between myself and my not-boss who thinks he's my boss and that's brought me to the conclusion that I should at least try to get him replaced - I'd be happier if that were to happen. Otherwise, I think that I would be inclined to resign. I shouldn't have to work with someone like that and I think I deserve better. I've just had it with him, I really have. And who would blame me??
Anyways, there are a number of points I'd like to make...
a) If I want to meet with other people and ask for/take their advice, I'm perfectly free to do that. I'm my own person and M____ isn't my boss/in control of me.
b) Unsavory, negative comments like the ones M____ made about me are not very conducive to a positive working environment - who would want to work with someone who's said things like that about you??? I certainly wouldn't.
c) In the 21st century, it helps to be hip with new technology related things.
d) Personality goes a long way.
e) People skills count.
f) Things would run more smoothly if M___ didn't try to be in charge, which he's not supposed to be. I'm supposed to be in charge.
Anyways, there are some things that I wanted to get out and which probably best belong on my blog here instead of somewhere else. Shh...
In other matters, I'm sort of considering doing online dating yet again.. I don't really know why I keep trying, but I do! I think the key is, go into it with low expectations and use it more as a source of amusement/entertainment than anything else.
Over the course of... a bit over a week, conditions have deteriorated between myself and my not-boss who thinks he's my boss and that's brought me to the conclusion that I should at least try to get him replaced - I'd be happier if that were to happen. Otherwise, I think that I would be inclined to resign. I shouldn't have to work with someone like that and I think I deserve better. I've just had it with him, I really have. And who would blame me??
Anyways, there are a number of points I'd like to make...
a) If I want to meet with other people and ask for/take their advice, I'm perfectly free to do that. I'm my own person and M____ isn't my boss/in control of me.
b) Unsavory, negative comments like the ones M____ made about me are not very conducive to a positive working environment - who would want to work with someone who's said things like that about you??? I certainly wouldn't.
c) In the 21st century, it helps to be hip with new technology related things.
d) Personality goes a long way.
e) People skills count.
f) Things would run more smoothly if M___ didn't try to be in charge, which he's not supposed to be. I'm supposed to be in charge.
Anyways, there are some things that I wanted to get out and which probably best belong on my blog here instead of somewhere else. Shh...
In other matters, I'm sort of considering doing online dating yet again.. I don't really know why I keep trying, but I do! I think the key is, go into it with low expectations and use it more as a source of amusement/entertainment than anything else.
Friday, October 6, 2017
An open letter of potential resignation
To Anderson (Cooper), T (names abbreviated for discretion) and M.
As you may know, at the beginning of the fall semester this year I became the editor in chief of my college's student newspaper. I was pleased about this because I thought that it would be a good experience for me and I would be able to make some steps towards becoming a real actual journalist.
Unfortunately, some events have transpired that leave me in what I consider to be a rather untenable situation. In my view, the solutions to this are: my resignation, or M___'s replacement. I don't believe that I will be able to work productively and in a positive environment if I continue to have to deal with M___. Therefore, I'm considering resigning to escape what has become a negative work environment.
Anderson, even though you won't read this, I want to say that this situation (my potential resignation) pains me because I very much wanted to work on the student newspaper and get some journalism experience. It was you who got me interested in journalism in the first place, and I admire you considerably as a journalist and as a person, so it's disappointing that it doesn't seem like I'll be able to pursue that career in the current circumstances.
Hence, I am considering resigning my position as editor in chief of the student newspaper. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy the reporting and journalism side of things, it's just the dealing with M___ part of things that has pushed me to want to resign. I would be perfectly happy if I didn't have to work with M___ and instead had a supportive and non-overbearing/micromanaging adviser.
T____, thank you so much for all of your incredibly helpful and supportive advice over the past few weeks. I appreciate it immensely. You're a great professor and mentor, in ways that M___ just isn't. Nevertheless, the current state of affairs between M___ and I (which you are also involved in) has made me somewhat inclined to resign as editor. I would be resigning due to the situation with M____, not because I've been turned off of journalism as a career. I still would like to be involved with journalism and try to get some experience in that field, but I just don't think that the way things are right now is the best environment to do so.
M___, I'm sorry, but I just don't really think that things will work out. Just so you're aware, I consider it to have been your attitude that has driven me away. I don't think that I can continue to work with someone who has said such snide things about me and is unwilling to allow me to run the newspaper as I see fit and as I should be able to, being the editor in chief.
- Rachel, (potentially former) editor in chief.
As you may know, at the beginning of the fall semester this year I became the editor in chief of my college's student newspaper. I was pleased about this because I thought that it would be a good experience for me and I would be able to make some steps towards becoming a real actual journalist.
Unfortunately, some events have transpired that leave me in what I consider to be a rather untenable situation. In my view, the solutions to this are: my resignation, or M___'s replacement. I don't believe that I will be able to work productively and in a positive environment if I continue to have to deal with M___. Therefore, I'm considering resigning to escape what has become a negative work environment.
Anderson, even though you won't read this, I want to say that this situation (my potential resignation) pains me because I very much wanted to work on the student newspaper and get some journalism experience. It was you who got me interested in journalism in the first place, and I admire you considerably as a journalist and as a person, so it's disappointing that it doesn't seem like I'll be able to pursue that career in the current circumstances.
Hence, I am considering resigning my position as editor in chief of the student newspaper. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy the reporting and journalism side of things, it's just the dealing with M___ part of things that has pushed me to want to resign. I would be perfectly happy if I didn't have to work with M___ and instead had a supportive and non-overbearing/micromanaging adviser.
T____, thank you so much for all of your incredibly helpful and supportive advice over the past few weeks. I appreciate it immensely. You're a great professor and mentor, in ways that M___ just isn't. Nevertheless, the current state of affairs between M___ and I (which you are also involved in) has made me somewhat inclined to resign as editor. I would be resigning due to the situation with M____, not because I've been turned off of journalism as a career. I still would like to be involved with journalism and try to get some experience in that field, but I just don't think that the way things are right now is the best environment to do so.
M___, I'm sorry, but I just don't really think that things will work out. Just so you're aware, I consider it to have been your attitude that has driven me away. I don't think that I can continue to work with someone who has said such snide things about me and is unwilling to allow me to run the newspaper as I see fit and as I should be able to, being the editor in chief.
- Rachel, (potentially former) editor in chief.
Monday, October 2, 2017
Commentary, personal update, Stephen Glass costume
Apologies for the lack of Postsecret reviews; I've been busy with being the editor in chief of the student newspaper. I'm pleased about having that position even though there is a bit of an issue that will need to be resolved/dealt with (although it's not that I did anything wrong on my part). It seems like it would be best to not splash the details of that all over this publicly available (although probably minimally read) blog at this time, so I'll refrain. (If you can imagine a cross between the personality [more or less] of Jon Stewart and the appearance of Glenn Thrush, that is one of the characters involved in this drama, if you will.)
Anyways, here is a little more commentary and pondering on something. I came across this one website, which is sort of maybe like a bit more intellectual version of Buzzfeed or Thought Catalog, and it's a repository of writing by college students. I looked into it a bit more to see if it would be worthwhile to get involved in, but then I found some things that made me reticent. Some people that formerly wrote for the website said that the website exploited their writers and only cared about quantity, not quality of the things the writers were expected to write and it became an unpleasant experience. I think it's more impressive to be editor in chief of the student newspaper anyways, rather than just "I write for this online website that people probably haven't heard of"..
PS: I have been trying to convince someone I know to wear a Stephen Glass costume for Halloween. It would consist of clothing like this (remember to take your shoes off indoors and walk around in your socks, and of course don't forget to go around asking people "Are you mad at me?"):
Anyways, here is a little more commentary and pondering on something. I came across this one website, which is sort of maybe like a bit more intellectual version of Buzzfeed or Thought Catalog, and it's a repository of writing by college students. I looked into it a bit more to see if it would be worthwhile to get involved in, but then I found some things that made me reticent. Some people that formerly wrote for the website said that the website exploited their writers and only cared about quantity, not quality of the things the writers were expected to write and it became an unpleasant experience. I think it's more impressive to be editor in chief of the student newspaper anyways, rather than just "I write for this online website that people probably haven't heard of"..
PS: I have been trying to convince someone I know to wear a Stephen Glass costume for Halloween. It would consist of clothing like this (remember to take your shoes off indoors and walk around in your socks, and of course don't forget to go around asking people "Are you mad at me?"):
Interestingly enough, about 16 years later (I assume the previous picture was taken around 1998), here is Stephen Glass in a very similar outfit (old habits die hard, I guess. Although hopefully he did manage to kill his fabrication habit):
And here we have Hayden Christensen (such a fun name!) in the perennial Stephen Glass blue shirt from the movie Shattered Glass (which I should rewatch!):
While looking for pictures for this last part, I came across this review of Shattered Glass from 2003 in Slate. I actually don't think I read this one in the past (which sort of surprised me, since I have read so, so much about everything Stephen Glass).
I found this other picture of him as portrayed in the movie Shattered Glass, and I noticed a little something about the costume design. The (mostly blue colored) shirts that Stephen wears in the movie have a fairly billowy fit to them (and I do realize that was the style in the back then, compared to nowadays). But, if you look closely, they also are too big for him in the shoulders. I think that was a nice touch by the costume department people, to convey his youth and insecurity, among other things.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Media commentary
I'm not sure if this can be called media analysis, but at the very least it's just my opinions on something I happened to read/see earlier today. I was going to write a post about it then, but I was tired so I took a nap instead. Now I'm awake again and will get to this. Skip to paragraph 7 if you want to get to the point of what I had originally planned to make this post about. Read paragraph 6 for some intro to that.
This isn't the main topic of this post, but I was reading about the Atlantic magazine since that's a magazine I think is interesting even though I don't read it as often as some other publications. On the Wikipedia page it shows a list of editors and one of them was Michael Kelly, which I sort of knew but hadn't really thought about. He was the former editor of the New Republic when Stephen Glass was there, but it was Kelly's successor who uncovered the fabrications. So, after leaving TNR, Kelly goes to the Atlantic, but in 2003 he got killed covering the Iraq War. Wikipedia also mentions that criticism of him focuses on his support of the Iraq War, which I didn't really know about, and how he supported Stephen Glass even though Glass later turned out to be a serial fabricator.
I'm not quite sure what to think about that, in that it's unfortunate that he got killed, and I recognize the value of covering such things, but at the same time, that whole war was a mistake and had it not happened, he wouldn't have gotten killed covering it. Although at the time I was too young to really know about and have an in-depth opinion about the war, in retrospect, my opinion is that it was bad and a mistake. Although on the other hand, George Bush was less awful at presidenting than Donald Trump is, so...
At the Newseum, which I've been to in the past, they have an exhibit about journalists who were killed, which I remember seeing, but the last time I went there I wasn't really aware of specific journalists who had been killed. But I guess Michael Kelly's name would be there.
Also, I was looking at the website for the Weekly Standard magazine, which is a conservative publication. Other conservative news websites are the Daily Caller, which eyelashes guy previously wrote for, and the Federalist. TNR in comparison is a liberal magazine. Anyways, the Weekly Standard had an advertisement that offered a free American flag lapel pin to people who subscribed.. typical conservative thing to do, it seems. TNR had a table at some book festival recently and gave away TNR tote bags. That would be a nice thing to have. And more useful than a lapel pin.
So, on to the main topic which I had intended to write this post about. Talk about burying the lead. (I think I'll try not to get too jargon-y here. Does it come off as pretentious? I really shouldn't be worrying if that comes off as pretentious considering how I've gloated about being the editor in chief of the student newspaper...) Regardless, since it's just my blog and I get to decide what I want to write and how I want to write it, I don't really care too much. This blog is for my thoughts and that's what I'm going to write about, even if they are less than ideally organized.
Anyways, Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold, who has a cool last name among other things (which I've mentioned before), retweeted this tweet today:
Ms. Harkness [for the record, I say that semi-sarcastically, rather than imitating the NYT's style of referring to people] turns out to be a reporter for some small-ish (in that I'd never heard of it before) conservative news organization, the Daily Signal. A clever reply to this tweet was: "You know, cause all sorts of things can be reported on at the same time. Don't need all stories to be the same," to which Kelsey Harkness said (sanctimoniously) "I think it's sad that someone like me at a tiny news org has to uncover these things. They're being overlooked by MSM." regarding some story she did about a failed program in Kentucky that was attempting to create new technology jobs.
Her report on said story was a 7 minute video (which, if you're going to watch, set it to 2x speed so you waste less of your time; it's subtitled so you can just mute the sound and read the subtitles at a more efficient pace) which I watched in the name of being open minded, although afterwards, decided that it was sort of a waste of my time (sorry, lady. I think reading eyelashes guy's columns is enough conservative open-mindedness for me). The video is basically a criticism of the program's failure to create the 200 jobs it was supposed to. It's worth noting here that perhaps I'm approaching this with some inherent bias (in that I view the video report negatively) of my own due to the fact that the source of the video was not a reputable news organization of the likes of WP/etc.
I think a major point that wasn't even touched on in the video was the whole why the program failed. Instead, the video just criticized the program for having been a failure. Which, in my opinion, makes the video report a bit of a failure itself because it only approached the issue on a superficial level: the program was a failure. Okay, and...? The why (ie: reason[s]) seems like it's kind of a pretty big part here. The only hint of thinking about why the program failed actually came in a sort of offhand comment from one of the people interviewed for it, rather than the reporter.
It... is sobering to think that I can figure something like that out but this lady has a freaking job and didn't even touch on that in her video. I think that's partly a failure on her editor's part: if I were an editor (and actually, I am!! [albeit on a small scale]) and I got an article from one of my staff that I thought wasn't thoroughly reported, I'd tell them to go back and fill in the missing information. Some real journalism basics here, people: who, what, when, where, why. Even though that seems pretty much like common sense (you would think), at least to me, a little thank you to my journalism professor last year who has a great personality, for one thing, and also made sure to cover that in his class. Come to think of it, I could use this video as a teaching tool for when I (or at least I plan to) give my presentation/lesson about some basic journalism skills to the people who will work on the student newspaper with (but also subordinate to) me. I could show it to them and say, how could this report have been improved? What is it missing? Maybe I'm sort of cut out to become a teacher, possibly. I'm not too bad at the whole writing thing though, if I do say so myself.
Back to the tweets, there were (a lot of) others that I'll highlight here:
"I just wish there was a way we could report more than one story at once. But I guess that's just the way it is" In reply to that, there's a tweet from Harkness asking what the national significance of Trump's private businesses losing clients is. Well, he's president, for one thing. I think that's pretty nationally significant. Another bit of journalism basics here: what makes something news. The fact that this relates to Trump, who is the president, makes it news. Because he's the president. From Wikipedia: "News stories also contain at least one of the following important characteristics relative to the intended audience: proximity, prominence, timeliness, human interest, oddity, or consequence." I know I have a summary of these things in my notes somewhere.
"yes, just as there are no other reporters besides david, kelsey."
(a series of tweets) "Hey Kelsey! What's your next big story on?
Her last big scoop was how Obamas program on encouraging coding in coal states didn't work out. Lol.
And she's throwing shade at a dude whose last big scoop...won the goddamn @PulitzerPrize"
"It figures that @heritage [the organization behind the Daily Signal] isn't bothered that a (sometimes) conservative POTUS is using his office to enrich his personal business."
"Now you're telling real journalists what to report on. That's funny 😹"
"You know, cause if the #GrifterInChief does enough big stuff, the smaller stuff should get a free pass. For the record, I'm still reeling from typing "cause," but i didn't want to throw off Kelsey with... you know, grammar and stuff."
"We all know the federalist isn't about to check in on conflicts of interest with Trump's presidency."
"You know, the man won a Pulitzer this year for his reporting. Seems capable of finding and reporting a story without your help or criticism."
"Everyone has their niche. His is exposing Trump. Yours seems to be nonsense."
"Ever notice it's the hacks that get upset over people doing actual journalism?"
"Is there a shortage of reporters to cover other stories?"
"Until Trump is more transparent regarding his money and businesses, yes, this is valuable quantitative data that is worth reporting."
"Spoken like someone who voted for this grifter but doesn't want to be reminded!" (I like this one)
"You know, cause the @washingtonpost is ONLY reporting on this, nothing else..."
"For a reporter, you don't seem to understand how this whole journalism thing works." I can agree with that!
"It must be hard to be a reporter if you think there can only be one story. Good luck with that."
"You know, there is more than one reporter in the world. That way, many different stories can be covered."
"I forget--who got a Pulitzer??"
"are you his assignment editor?"
"I subscribed to WPO because of @Fahrenthold ! And I'm Canadian. Yeah Dave! Trump is a con man and should be exposed by every reporter."
"TFW you criticize a journo for not covering a significant topic when his last significant story won him a Pulitzer."
"yes, and clearly David is the only reporter in the world..."
"Says the lady who writes for The Daily Signal, and The Federalist. What a joke."
"Didn't David win a Pulitzer?"
"Interesting to see reporter of dubious news organization questioning editorial judgment of one of the print medias great institutions"
"Yeah, I mean he's only gotten a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on this stuff. What a pointless exercise."
As you can tell, I found the tweets pretty amusing.
To end this, here is a little something that lacks flavor but is about journalists who fabricated (and who I've mentioned in the past, profusely) that came up when I googled "unethical journalism." I think that my writings on this blog about this subject matter are, at the very least, more interesting/entertaining than this article here because I have included my thoughts and speculation and opinions as opposed to a dry and unsympathetic summary of the topic. I think that what Stephen Glass did about 20 years ago was bad and journalistically unethical, but it's less nefarious than the proliferation of fake news that pervades the country today. Did Stephen Glass' stories influence an election and give the presidency to a [insert various negative descriptions of Trump. I couldn't decide on just one]? I think not.
I wish I could get paid for all (or rather, some - not sure people would really care about the whole Peter Sarsgaard thing, but I feel like there might be something there with the media analysis of sorts) this (gestures to blog), you know. I feel like at least some of it is, or could be, sort of worthwhile for other general people to read (albeit perhaps with some editing/polishing, which I would probably do/have done if I knew I were going to publish something in an outlet other than my blog). I mean, hey, look at certain people who are writing about entertainment for Buzzfeed or other websites of the like.. they've got jobs and they're getting paid. Maybe I'll make a new, more professionally oriented blog where I can post some polished up (and with the more irrelevant [ie, about Peter Sarsgaard or whatnot] portions removed, if applicable, because sometimes I do mention multiple things in one post) versions of some of the things I've written about here.. I think I really hit it out of the park with this post, minus the stuff at the beginning which wasn't the main point. I think I made some good points.
As far as journalism goes, shorter paragraphs are better, which I've sort of been trying to practice re: my blog posts, but I'm not too serious about it. Me and short paragraphs in blog posts aren't really friends. Although in actual articles I do try to keep things more succinct and with fewer random thoughts and tangents. This paragraph actually turned out to be fairly short compared to some.
This isn't the main topic of this post, but I was reading about the Atlantic magazine since that's a magazine I think is interesting even though I don't read it as often as some other publications. On the Wikipedia page it shows a list of editors and one of them was Michael Kelly, which I sort of knew but hadn't really thought about. He was the former editor of the New Republic when Stephen Glass was there, but it was Kelly's successor who uncovered the fabrications. So, after leaving TNR, Kelly goes to the Atlantic, but in 2003 he got killed covering the Iraq War. Wikipedia also mentions that criticism of him focuses on his support of the Iraq War, which I didn't really know about, and how he supported Stephen Glass even though Glass later turned out to be a serial fabricator.
I'm not quite sure what to think about that, in that it's unfortunate that he got killed, and I recognize the value of covering such things, but at the same time, that whole war was a mistake and had it not happened, he wouldn't have gotten killed covering it. Although at the time I was too young to really know about and have an in-depth opinion about the war, in retrospect, my opinion is that it was bad and a mistake. Although on the other hand, George Bush was less awful at presidenting than Donald Trump is, so...
At the Newseum, which I've been to in the past, they have an exhibit about journalists who were killed, which I remember seeing, but the last time I went there I wasn't really aware of specific journalists who had been killed. But I guess Michael Kelly's name would be there.
Also, I was looking at the website for the Weekly Standard magazine, which is a conservative publication. Other conservative news websites are the Daily Caller, which eyelashes guy previously wrote for, and the Federalist. TNR in comparison is a liberal magazine. Anyways, the Weekly Standard had an advertisement that offered a free American flag lapel pin to people who subscribed.. typical conservative thing to do, it seems. TNR had a table at some book festival recently and gave away TNR tote bags. That would be a nice thing to have. And more useful than a lapel pin.
So, on to the main topic which I had intended to write this post about. Talk about burying the lead. (I think I'll try not to get too jargon-y here. Does it come off as pretentious? I really shouldn't be worrying if that comes off as pretentious considering how I've gloated about being the editor in chief of the student newspaper...) Regardless, since it's just my blog and I get to decide what I want to write and how I want to write it, I don't really care too much. This blog is for my thoughts and that's what I'm going to write about, even if they are less than ideally organized.
Anyways, Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold, who has a cool last name among other things (which I've mentioned before), retweeted this tweet today:
"@kelseyjharkness:You know, cause there's nothing else going on in this world that's worth reporting about. [with a retweet of Fahrenthold's tweet about an article clients that Donald Trump has lost, meaning organizations who aren't holding events at Trump properties anymore]"
Ms. Harkness [for the record, I say that semi-sarcastically, rather than imitating the NYT's style of referring to people] turns out to be a reporter for some small-ish (in that I'd never heard of it before) conservative news organization, the Daily Signal. A clever reply to this tweet was: "You know, cause all sorts of things can be reported on at the same time. Don't need all stories to be the same," to which Kelsey Harkness said (sanctimoniously) "I think it's sad that someone like me at a tiny news org has to uncover these things. They're being overlooked by MSM." regarding some story she did about a failed program in Kentucky that was attempting to create new technology jobs.
Her report on said story was a 7 minute video (which, if you're going to watch, set it to 2x speed so you waste less of your time; it's subtitled so you can just mute the sound and read the subtitles at a more efficient pace) which I watched in the name of being open minded, although afterwards, decided that it was sort of a waste of my time (sorry, lady. I think reading eyelashes guy's columns is enough conservative open-mindedness for me). The video is basically a criticism of the program's failure to create the 200 jobs it was supposed to. It's worth noting here that perhaps I'm approaching this with some inherent bias (in that I view the video report negatively) of my own due to the fact that the source of the video was not a reputable news organization of the likes of WP/etc.
I think a major point that wasn't even touched on in the video was the whole why the program failed. Instead, the video just criticized the program for having been a failure. Which, in my opinion, makes the video report a bit of a failure itself because it only approached the issue on a superficial level: the program was a failure. Okay, and...? The why (ie: reason[s]) seems like it's kind of a pretty big part here. The only hint of thinking about why the program failed actually came in a sort of offhand comment from one of the people interviewed for it, rather than the reporter.
It... is sobering to think that I can figure something like that out but this lady has a freaking job and didn't even touch on that in her video. I think that's partly a failure on her editor's part: if I were an editor (and actually, I am!! [albeit on a small scale]) and I got an article from one of my staff that I thought wasn't thoroughly reported, I'd tell them to go back and fill in the missing information. Some real journalism basics here, people: who, what, when, where, why. Even though that seems pretty much like common sense (you would think), at least to me, a little thank you to my journalism professor last year who has a great personality, for one thing, and also made sure to cover that in his class. Come to think of it, I could use this video as a teaching tool for when I (or at least I plan to) give my presentation/lesson about some basic journalism skills to the people who will work on the student newspaper with (but also subordinate to) me. I could show it to them and say, how could this report have been improved? What is it missing? Maybe I'm sort of cut out to become a teacher, possibly. I'm not too bad at the whole writing thing though, if I do say so myself.
Back to the tweets, there were (a lot of) others that I'll highlight here:
"I just wish there was a way we could report more than one story at once. But I guess that's just the way it is" In reply to that, there's a tweet from Harkness asking what the national significance of Trump's private businesses losing clients is. Well, he's president, for one thing. I think that's pretty nationally significant. Another bit of journalism basics here: what makes something news. The fact that this relates to Trump, who is the president, makes it news. Because he's the president. From Wikipedia: "News stories also contain at least one of the following important characteristics relative to the intended audience: proximity, prominence, timeliness, human interest, oddity, or consequence." I know I have a summary of these things in my notes somewhere.
"yes, just as there are no other reporters besides david, kelsey."
(a series of tweets) "Hey Kelsey! What's your next big story on?
Her last big scoop was how Obamas program on encouraging coding in coal states didn't work out. Lol.
And she's throwing shade at a dude whose last big scoop...won the goddamn @PulitzerPrize"
"It figures that @heritage [the organization behind the Daily Signal] isn't bothered that a (sometimes) conservative POTUS is using his office to enrich his personal business."
"Now you're telling real journalists what to report on. That's funny 😹"
"You know, cause if the #GrifterInChief does enough big stuff, the smaller stuff should get a free pass. For the record, I'm still reeling from typing "cause," but i didn't want to throw off Kelsey with... you know, grammar and stuff."
"We all know the federalist isn't about to check in on conflicts of interest with Trump's presidency."
"You know, the man won a Pulitzer this year for his reporting. Seems capable of finding and reporting a story without your help or criticism."
"Everyone has their niche. His is exposing Trump. Yours seems to be nonsense."
"Ever notice it's the hacks that get upset over people doing actual journalism?"
"Is there a shortage of reporters to cover other stories?"
"Until Trump is more transparent regarding his money and businesses, yes, this is valuable quantitative data that is worth reporting."
"Spoken like someone who voted for this grifter but doesn't want to be reminded!" (I like this one)
"You know, cause the @washingtonpost is ONLY reporting on this, nothing else..."
"For a reporter, you don't seem to understand how this whole journalism thing works." I can agree with that!
"It must be hard to be a reporter if you think there can only be one story. Good luck with that."
"You know, there is more than one reporter in the world. That way, many different stories can be covered."
"I forget--who got a Pulitzer??"
"are you his assignment editor?"
"I subscribed to WPO because of @Fahrenthold ! And I'm Canadian. Yeah Dave! Trump is a con man and should be exposed by every reporter."
"TFW you criticize a journo for not covering a significant topic when his last significant story won him a Pulitzer."
"yes, and clearly David is the only reporter in the world..."
"Says the lady who writes for The Daily Signal, and The Federalist. What a joke."
"Didn't David win a Pulitzer?"
"Interesting to see reporter of dubious news organization questioning editorial judgment of one of the print medias great institutions"
"Yeah, I mean he's only gotten a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on this stuff. What a pointless exercise."
As you can tell, I found the tweets pretty amusing.
To end this, here is a little something that lacks flavor but is about journalists who fabricated (and who I've mentioned in the past, profusely) that came up when I googled "unethical journalism." I think that my writings on this blog about this subject matter are, at the very least, more interesting/entertaining than this article here because I have included my thoughts and speculation and opinions as opposed to a dry and unsympathetic summary of the topic. I think that what Stephen Glass did about 20 years ago was bad and journalistically unethical, but it's less nefarious than the proliferation of fake news that pervades the country today. Did Stephen Glass' stories influence an election and give the presidency to a [insert various negative descriptions of Trump. I couldn't decide on just one]? I think not.
I wish I could get paid for all (or rather, some - not sure people would really care about the whole Peter Sarsgaard thing, but I feel like there might be something there with the media analysis of sorts) this (gestures to blog), you know. I feel like at least some of it is, or could be, sort of worthwhile for other general people to read (albeit perhaps with some editing/polishing, which I would probably do/have done if I knew I were going to publish something in an outlet other than my blog). I mean, hey, look at certain people who are writing about entertainment for Buzzfeed or other websites of the like.. they've got jobs and they're getting paid. Maybe I'll make a new, more professionally oriented blog where I can post some polished up (and with the more irrelevant [ie, about Peter Sarsgaard or whatnot] portions removed, if applicable, because sometimes I do mention multiple things in one post) versions of some of the things I've written about here.. I think I really hit it out of the park with this post, minus the stuff at the beginning which wasn't the main point. I think I made some good points.
As far as journalism goes, shorter paragraphs are better, which I've sort of been trying to practice re: my blog posts, but I'm not too serious about it. Me and short paragraphs in blog posts aren't really friends. Although in actual articles I do try to keep things more succinct and with fewer random thoughts and tangents. This paragraph actually turned out to be fairly short compared to some.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Postsecret review 14
Yikes! I almost ran out of time to get to this one! Anyways, here it is.
"My roommate is a drug dealer. I steal weed all the time and don't feel guilty because he always eats my cheese." I can... understand being irritated by a roommate eating your food. Me personally, I wouldn't get back at them by stealing their weed to smoke for myself, since I'm not interested in that, but maybe I'd sell it and keep the money.
"What on earth are we even here for? I have no faith." That's a really pessimistic outlook on life. Just because this secret writer apparently feels that their life has no purpose doesn't mean that everyone's life has no purpose. For example, I got this one particular email that made me happy and feel better about my life in general, in a way, while also causing me to be annoyed about something else related to the subject matter of the email.
"I have been married for years, yet often dream about a man I have never seen or met. I am convinced he is my soulmate and wonder if The universe will ever bring us together." I can't speak to the content of other people's dreams, but the only people who have repeatedly showed up in my dreams are people I know/am aware of and think about.
"Whenever I'm nervous my mother tells me "it's always worse than you think!," just to make me laugh." That doesn't seem like it would be a very reassuring thing to hear. Maybe that's just me.
"I've finally realized that sometimes you lose the good things in life to make room for the great things." with a picture of a person sitting down in front of a rock formation that I think is somewhere in Utah. So that leads me to speculate what kind of good thing could've been lost and what great thing replaced it:
"I GAINED 20 POUNDS THIS YEAR I tell all my friends I'm trying to lose it, but really... I LIKE MY NEW CURVES" I feel like gaining 20 pounds would just make me feel fat, not 'curvy.' Maybe this person is taller than I am and so 20 pounds wouldn't look quite so fattening. And/or maybe they were really skinny beforehand and it's more of a difference compared to their former body type.
"Hollie - your job does not entail reading POST SECRETS All DAY! Go Back to work!" Ooh, I like this one. I wonder how awkward this situation was like for 'Hollie' and whoever wrote and sent in this secret.
"When I go backpacking, & I pass people on the trail, I judge them based on the gear that they have." This seems sort of like something I could see myself doing.. I think there's no harm as long as you aren't saying your judgmental opinions to the people's faces. Maybe it makes you sort of shallow and judgmental, but that's your problem, not anyone else's, and if they don't like it, they can associate with other people.
"I was in a relationship
With another man
Until he told
The preachers
Of my church
Which got me kicked out"
Maybe this one was an attempt at poetry? I wonder if this guy was a Mormon or if it was some other religion that he got kicked out of.
"I have my MBA. I make minimum wage as a bookseller. I am Above & Beyond happy." I don't think I would be happy in this situation of making minimum wage since I don't think that would be enough money to live comfortably unless I lived in some cheap rednecky place and even then, the minimum wage would possibly be lower than it is here, so it still probably wouldn't be so good. Unless I were married to some rich person who could support me financially. Although I'm not sure I would like that kind of dynamic in a relationship.
"It hurts too much to watch you guys while sober" over a collage of Steelers related pictures. That's an interesting sentiment. I've never been interested in sports enough to feel like that about any team.
"I don't like a lot of the women in my sorority." Then why did you join?? I wouldn't join a sorority if I didn't like a lot of the women in it.
That's it for this week. The secrets were alright but I think they could've been better. Regardless, I'm glad I got to it in time even though I was really late. I'll chalk it up to being preoccupied about an ongoing situation in my life that has been annoying me.
"My roommate is a drug dealer. I steal weed all the time and don't feel guilty because he always eats my cheese." I can... understand being irritated by a roommate eating your food. Me personally, I wouldn't get back at them by stealing their weed to smoke for myself, since I'm not interested in that, but maybe I'd sell it and keep the money.
"What on earth are we even here for? I have no faith." That's a really pessimistic outlook on life. Just because this secret writer apparently feels that their life has no purpose doesn't mean that everyone's life has no purpose. For example, I got this one particular email that made me happy and feel better about my life in general, in a way, while also causing me to be annoyed about something else related to the subject matter of the email.
"I have been married for years, yet often dream about a man I have never seen or met. I am convinced he is my soulmate and wonder if The universe will ever bring us together." I can't speak to the content of other people's dreams, but the only people who have repeatedly showed up in my dreams are people I know/am aware of and think about.
"Whenever I'm nervous my mother tells me "it's always worse than you think!," just to make me laugh." That doesn't seem like it would be a very reassuring thing to hear. Maybe that's just me.
"I've finally realized that sometimes you lose the good things in life to make room for the great things." with a picture of a person sitting down in front of a rock formation that I think is somewhere in Utah. So that leads me to speculate what kind of good thing could've been lost and what great thing replaced it:
"I GAINED 20 POUNDS THIS YEAR I tell all my friends I'm trying to lose it, but really... I LIKE MY NEW CURVES" I feel like gaining 20 pounds would just make me feel fat, not 'curvy.' Maybe this person is taller than I am and so 20 pounds wouldn't look quite so fattening. And/or maybe they were really skinny beforehand and it's more of a difference compared to their former body type.
"Hollie - your job does not entail reading POST SECRETS All DAY! Go Back to work!" Ooh, I like this one. I wonder how awkward this situation was like for 'Hollie' and whoever wrote and sent in this secret.
"When I go backpacking, & I pass people on the trail, I judge them based on the gear that they have." This seems sort of like something I could see myself doing.. I think there's no harm as long as you aren't saying your judgmental opinions to the people's faces. Maybe it makes you sort of shallow and judgmental, but that's your problem, not anyone else's, and if they don't like it, they can associate with other people.
"I was in a relationship
With another man
Until he told
The preachers
Of my church
Which got me kicked out"
Maybe this one was an attempt at poetry? I wonder if this guy was a Mormon or if it was some other religion that he got kicked out of.
"I have my MBA. I make minimum wage as a bookseller. I am Above & Beyond happy." I don't think I would be happy in this situation of making minimum wage since I don't think that would be enough money to live comfortably unless I lived in some cheap rednecky place and even then, the minimum wage would possibly be lower than it is here, so it still probably wouldn't be so good. Unless I were married to some rich person who could support me financially. Although I'm not sure I would like that kind of dynamic in a relationship.
"It hurts too much to watch you guys while sober" over a collage of Steelers related pictures. That's an interesting sentiment. I've never been interested in sports enough to feel like that about any team.
"I don't like a lot of the women in my sorority." Then why did you join?? I wouldn't join a sorority if I didn't like a lot of the women in it.
That's it for this week. The secrets were alright but I think they could've been better. Regardless, I'm glad I got to it in time even though I was really late. I'll chalk it up to being preoccupied about an ongoing situation in my life that has been annoying me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)