Fortune magazine editor-at-large, Alan Sloan, spoke yesterday to journalism students at SMU in part, regarding business journalism. He also made references to journalism in its entirety and offered his thoughts on its future.
Sloan, a 63-year-old former reporter from Brooklyn, New York, described his early years as a journalist. He started writing about business in the late 60s in Charlotte, North Carolina before there was any demand for it and said that, “there has never been more of a need to understand the world of business than now.”
He went on to explain that because of the Internet, there is no end of information, as records, stories, speeches, and court cases may all be found through on-line research.
He predicted that the need for good journalism will never perish, saying that, “as long as there is a demand for a sane and rational voice, there is hope.”
His only criticism is that the business of journalism needs to be altered in order to be more profitable without cutting back on employees. He scorned the saying, “doing more with less.”
“You end up doing less with less,” Sloan said. “It will cause the business to have bigger problems.”
His advice to students, that I found simple in theory, yet so profound, is that our job should be to find information, distill it, and write it in english that normal people can grasp.
Sloan said, “because you’re writing stuff people can understand, you can change what’s going on in the world and determine events.”
It does sound quite simple but it certainly is a complex and elaborate task.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
By Far the Most Mind-numbingly Amazing Presidential Election Season Ever!
As if it were not merely exciting enough having a non-caucasian man and a woman, married to a former U.S. president, head to head for the Democratic nomination, the New York Times scandalously alluded to Republican front-runner, John McCain, having had an affair with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. The article created an uproar after being published on Thursday, releasing a wave of television, radio, and blogger commentary and debate.
Gawker.com offered a very sarcastic angle to the story, in essence, down-playing all of the commotion caused by it.
"John McCain may or may not have bonked a lobbyist, is definitely a liar, but most importantly to McCain camp, the Times is a liberal no-good paper."
They were obviously making a jab at McCain but not defending the media either, so their stance maintained neutrality.
A significant amount of bloggers exuded their distaste for the New York Times within their entries this weekend.
A blog titled Live Breathe and Die, represents one extreme end of the spectrum, asserting that the media's bias is unmistakably present in every portrayal of the presidential candidates. The writer also concludes that the Times story was completely false, saying it was "part of a larger strategy and The Times knew that it was worth taking a little heat in the process."
The New York Post referred to it as a "drive-by shooting masquerading as a newspaper story," in an editorial piece on their Web site. The author claims that the Times story was primarily based on speculation and lacked the essential structure. "This piece has no legs on which to stand."
Yet another criticism of the publication came from Washingtonhotlist.com. Centering his focus on the content of the story, the blogger states that he was in shock when he "realized that one of the world's most respected newspapers published a front-page piece that lacks the foundation one would expect to find in a high school research paper." He explained, however, that he was not in shock to find the blatant liberal bias of the paper.
On a more political note, a blog titled Wake Up America explored the idea that the story only helped McCain's campaign.
"A big part of the defense of McCain has to come from the fact that this article appears to be inaccurate and totally false."
The author attributes his lack of support for McCain to his politically conservative views and says that many people with views similar to his were not in favor of McCain either. However, since the Times story, support has begun to shift in his favor.
"Conservatives in general may also jump to his side to defend him based on the fact that they are tired of bias of the media."
My own opinion of this is meager, floating into the abyss of old news with all the others, but I think this is all political nonsense, inherent of election season. I don't think the Times piece was written well or with warrant. It does not make an accusation of an affair boldly, but just sort of throws it out there, leaving the readers unsure of whether or not it is true. The media often digs for dark secrets among candidates, and Bill Clinton is sheer proof that no side is safe from endless scrutiny. I think, ultimately, it will all be a distant memory in no time because McCain does not seem to be too distressed from all of this, as he adamantly denies having an affair with Iseman. If anyone's reputation is suffering, it's the New York Times... but they'll be okay too.
Gawker.com offered a very sarcastic angle to the story, in essence, down-playing all of the commotion caused by it.
"John McCain may or may not have bonked a lobbyist, is definitely a liar, but most importantly to McCain camp, the Times is a liberal no-good paper."
They were obviously making a jab at McCain but not defending the media either, so their stance maintained neutrality.
A significant amount of bloggers exuded their distaste for the New York Times within their entries this weekend.
A blog titled Live Breathe and Die, represents one extreme end of the spectrum, asserting that the media's bias is unmistakably present in every portrayal of the presidential candidates. The writer also concludes that the Times story was completely false, saying it was "part of a larger strategy and The Times knew that it was worth taking a little heat in the process."
The New York Post referred to it as a "drive-by shooting masquerading as a newspaper story," in an editorial piece on their Web site. The author claims that the Times story was primarily based on speculation and lacked the essential structure. "This piece has no legs on which to stand."
Yet another criticism of the publication came from Washingtonhotlist.com. Centering his focus on the content of the story, the blogger states that he was in shock when he "realized that one of the world's most respected newspapers published a front-page piece that lacks the foundation one would expect to find in a high school research paper." He explained, however, that he was not in shock to find the blatant liberal bias of the paper.
On a more political note, a blog titled Wake Up America explored the idea that the story only helped McCain's campaign.
"A big part of the defense of McCain has to come from the fact that this article appears to be inaccurate and totally false."
The author attributes his lack of support for McCain to his politically conservative views and says that many people with views similar to his were not in favor of McCain either. However, since the Times story, support has begun to shift in his favor.
"Conservatives in general may also jump to his side to defend him based on the fact that they are tired of bias of the media."
My own opinion of this is meager, floating into the abyss of old news with all the others, but I think this is all political nonsense, inherent of election season. I don't think the Times piece was written well or with warrant. It does not make an accusation of an affair boldly, but just sort of throws it out there, leaving the readers unsure of whether or not it is true. The media often digs for dark secrets among candidates, and Bill Clinton is sheer proof that no side is safe from endless scrutiny. I think, ultimately, it will all be a distant memory in no time because McCain does not seem to be too distressed from all of this, as he adamantly denies having an affair with Iseman. If anyone's reputation is suffering, it's the New York Times... but they'll be okay too.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
More talk of blogs and blogging
According to the introduction of Blog! by Dan Burnstein, entitled “From Cave Painting to Wonkettes: A Short History of Blogging,” the modern marvel of blogging is merely a reincarnation of past trends of the common man’s need to express opinion, explain and defend it. This need applies to both trivial but also profound matters. Reflection and therefore greater understanding of the “big picture” can be achieved on some level through such expression, accounting for why it is done to such a vast degree.
Burnstein goes into historical detail, discussing cavemen, da Vinci, and Revolutionary War pamphleteers, which all solidify his point. He is taking a broad concept and attempting to analyze it through clear perspective.
In terms of the general points he makes, I agree with his assertions that blogging is neither trendy nor fleeting, but will endure and continue to expand. It is obviously a rapidly growing entity and more people will begin to take advantage of the powers they can plausibly obtain through the action of blogging.
In the section titled, “I Blog, Therefore I Am,” by David Kline, I found the statistics about newspapers particularly unsurprising.
“54 percent of American households read a newspaper, down from 80 percent in 1964… Gallop poll of teenagers, only 28 percent said they had read a newspaper the previous day.”
People below a certain age simply would not choose to sit down and explore a newspaper. As a journalism major, genuinely interested in current events, I shamefully admit that I force myself to read one about once a week. To me, they are far too large and flimsy and I get frustrated when I can’t get them to crease back to a neat state.
I gather the majority of my news throughout the day online, but also on TV and occasionally on the radio. I certainly would never rely on a blog to inform me of breaking news, but as more of an entertaining commentary or analytical banter.
Being a member of the small percentage of my age group that does ingest news and somewhat valuable information, I think this is a revealing sign of the inevitably gradual decrease in the number of newspapers that will be sold and the surge in competitiveness among news blogs and Web sites.
I concur with the section’s assessment that magazines will prevail for many years to come as it says, “more than 352 million magazines were sold in the United States last year.” Magazines appeal to readers on a special interest level and take an analytical approach to a specific aspect of society, culture, business, etc.
In regards to the “proper” media and its future life span, I believe that it is safe to assume that there will continue to be a clear distinction between journalists who do extensive research, interviews, and narrow down bulk for the intent of clarity and the broad and all encompassing blogosphere, which contains some valid opinions and perspective but doesn’t hold the same level of merit.
Burnstein goes into historical detail, discussing cavemen, da Vinci, and Revolutionary War pamphleteers, which all solidify his point. He is taking a broad concept and attempting to analyze it through clear perspective.
In terms of the general points he makes, I agree with his assertions that blogging is neither trendy nor fleeting, but will endure and continue to expand. It is obviously a rapidly growing entity and more people will begin to take advantage of the powers they can plausibly obtain through the action of blogging.
In the section titled, “I Blog, Therefore I Am,” by David Kline, I found the statistics about newspapers particularly unsurprising.
“54 percent of American households read a newspaper, down from 80 percent in 1964… Gallop poll of teenagers, only 28 percent said they had read a newspaper the previous day.”
People below a certain age simply would not choose to sit down and explore a newspaper. As a journalism major, genuinely interested in current events, I shamefully admit that I force myself to read one about once a week. To me, they are far too large and flimsy and I get frustrated when I can’t get them to crease back to a neat state.
I gather the majority of my news throughout the day online, but also on TV and occasionally on the radio. I certainly would never rely on a blog to inform me of breaking news, but as more of an entertaining commentary or analytical banter.
Being a member of the small percentage of my age group that does ingest news and somewhat valuable information, I think this is a revealing sign of the inevitably gradual decrease in the number of newspapers that will be sold and the surge in competitiveness among news blogs and Web sites.
I concur with the section’s assessment that magazines will prevail for many years to come as it says, “more than 352 million magazines were sold in the United States last year.” Magazines appeal to readers on a special interest level and take an analytical approach to a specific aspect of society, culture, business, etc.
In regards to the “proper” media and its future life span, I believe that it is safe to assume that there will continue to be a clear distinction between journalists who do extensive research, interviews, and narrow down bulk for the intent of clarity and the broad and all encompassing blogosphere, which contains some valid opinions and perspective but doesn’t hold the same level of merit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)