1. Because I am studying a journalism course, and we have been told about the habits in which people read the newspaper, I try to make an effort to read as much of a newspaper's content as I can. Although, I must admit there are a few sections that are often not even touched. These sections would be:
1. The sports section - I am really not interested in sports, I'm sorry I know I should at least stay informed about large stories. This is something I could improve on.
2. The drive/car section - Yes, as typical a female as I am, the car section does not enthrall me. I have a car (if you can call it that) and until I need to purchase a new car, this section does not interest me.
3. The Life/Wellbeing section - These are mostly in weekend newspapers, and I must admit that I do sometimes scan these for interesting reads. I do not find the content to this section very interesting most probably because it is directed at a different demographic to me.
4. The TAB/Racing section - Do I need to explain this?
However, in terms of being more technical (for instance, the headline, first paragraph, photograph, etc.) and when I am consciously aware of it, I tend to think that I look at the photograph/image first. Following this I dart to the photograph's caption and the headline to establish a context for the image, and if this story sounds interesting, I read the following text.
This seems to be quite similar to the chapter's view of preferences of eye-tracking. These being; 1. a photograph, 2. the photograph's caption, 3. the biggest headline and 4. the intro of the story with the biggest headline.
2. As strange as it might sound, I don't watch that much television. It may be my working hours or it may just be my quality of reception at home, but I just don't find many television shows to be interesting. Nearly all of the few shows I tune into are on the ABC and are only in certain half-hour blocks. This is sounding quite pretentious. Although, I have been known to watch the odd Australian Idol performance night.
I try to read the newspaper as much as possible. I think this is because it is embedded in all the students how important it is to be up-to-date on current affairs, or from a technical/writing perspective.
I am not sure what would encourage me to spend more time reading my local paper, as I tend to buy both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Newcastle Herald as frequently as I can. Perhaps if these were offered as the University in a more "street press" style, such as being free and easily acquired, this would encourage me to read it more regularly. Although the newspapers are offered at the University to be read for free, most of my reading occurs at home.
3. I think that writing trick intros are not worth the hassle to get your reader simply to the second paragraph. A writer should never jeopardize their integrity or insult/annoy their readers. As it states in the chapter, "The intro should never promise more than it delivers" (Conley & Lamble, 2006). I know I have suffered this ploy many times and have felt suitably cheated. If you're story has not got a strong news value to being with, perhaps you should re-evaluate why you are writing it to begin with. If there is not choice, then you should simply do you're job instead of trying to be as attention grabbing as you can instead of reporting the facts in a clear way to your readers. You may not be remembered for this story but at least you wont be remembered as being a false advertiser.
4.I think this would be a situation faced by many journalists, and I can see it happening to me! This books restates throughout the importance of the introduction. The chapter states that when formulating the intro, you should look for "angels ... to become the raw product from which the intro will be delivered". If the writer is having trouble formulating an intro that wont gel, perhaps they could try the "over-the-fence technique" (Conley & Lamble, 2006). This is "when you think of how you might summaries the material if you were telling a neighbour about the story" (Conley & Lamble, 2006). However, this is probably extremely helpful in a newsroom/"hard-news" situation, but for a feature writer this may still be quite unhelpful. Perhaps then, you should think of the strongest part of the message that is in you piece, and consider questions such as "What is the big picture?", "What news angles do I have in mind?" or "What are the implications?".
Perhaps if these do not lead you to your great introduction, you should organise your information into "vital", "possibly important" and "useless" categories. This may change the scope of your introduction completely.
5. I think in a situation like this you should immediately contact your sub-editor. It is not worth it to not only ruin you article but to also offend your sources. Letting something like this happen will not only embarass you, but will also embarass your sub-editor. Therefore you're interests are allied. Then there is the point of offending you're sources. If these sources are quite important, or they are used regularly, then in offending them it is safe to say that you will be cutting major ties. Even if these sources are not regularly used, they are still members of the public who have an opinion and who will voice it to other members of the community. You should not tarnish your name or the name of others for a mistake that can be easily corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------
Agent says Simpson book to be published
Posted Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:00am AEST
In the book, OJ Simpson describes how he would have killed his ex-wife (file photo). (Reuters: Fred Prouser)
A New York publisher is to go ahead with the release of If I Did It, OJ Simpson's hypothetical account of the murders of his ex-wife and one of her friends.
A spokesman for literary agent Sharlene Martin did not identify the publishing house involved in the deal or specify when the book would come out, saying only that further details would be released on Tuesday.
Ms Martin's spokesman says that the book, in which former American football star Simpson describes how he would have killed ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman, was to be repackaged by the new publisher.
The publisher "pledged to leave Simpson's manuscript entirely intact, but they will also add key commentary," spokesman Michael Wright said in a statement, without elaborating on the commentary.
Plans by Simpson to release the book last year sparked a wave of outrage across the United States, prompting publisher HarperCollins to scrap the title and for Fox News to cancel an accompanying television interview.
Simpson, who always has vehemently denied the 1994 killings, was acquitted of killing his ex-wife and Mr Goldman after a racially charged trial in 1995. The verdict sparked outrage in much of America.
He was later found liable for the deaths in a 1997 civil suit and ordered to pay $US33.5 million ($39 million) in damages to Mr Goldman's family.
The case took a further twist when a US judge in March handed the rights of the book to the Goldman family as payment for the $US33.5 million damages award never paid by Simpson.
---------------------------------------------------
Discussion
American football player OJ Simpson should not have been allowed to release this book. And whoever, the publishing house is, they have very low morals.
OJ Simpson is clearly trying to capitalise on his story, even though all of his income should be going to the Goldman family, to whom he is indebted $33.5 million. However, he receives an American Football pension, and law protects pensions from these kinds of positions (even though the pension is $33,000 per month).
His trial is often noted as "the trial of the century", in a verdict of not guilty for the two murders (his wife and wife's friend). The verdict was seen live on TV by more than half of the U.S. population, making it one of the most watched events in American TV history. Immediate reaction to the verdict was noted for its division along racial lines.
Simpson was later found liable in a civil case.
This book is clearly going to sell a huge amount of copies. I really do hope the revenue goes towards the Goldman family, they deserve it much more than Simpson.
Link to CNN trial of OJ Simpson
CNN
No comments:
Post a Comment