Click on image above to enlarge it.Tuesday, February 24, 2009
4/15 - Jennifer Grogan Summary, Jesse Grab (Amanda Wisniowski)
Speaker: Jennifer Grogan
Notes by Jesse Grab
Discussion Leader: Amanda Wisnioski
The first point of discussion that Amanda brought up was whether or not the class thought the military beat should be assigned to somebody more experienced. Pat said that was not the case and that her freshness in the field gave an unbiased perspective. Emily agreed and added that Grogan’s enrollment at the prestigious Columbia University School of Journalism may have made her more able to tackle the tough assignments. Joe agreed that her inexperience may have made her more likely to take the assignments more seriously than a seasoned reporter.
Amanda then asked what students thought about Grogan being a woman on the military beat. Amy saw this as an advantage because people may be more compelled to divulge information to an unassuming woman. Christine said that in her bull paper research, she found that men in power tend to have a “good ole boy” connection and let their guard down to women sometimes.
Professor Dufresne then hinted that a good point to focus on with the final in mind would be on what allowed Grogan to be successful despite the elements working against her. Amy said that she gained credibility the best way, which is kicking ass. Katie agreed, saying that Grogan didn’t take no for an answer and challenged authority to get where she is. Erin said she was not lazy and hard work gave her the shot she had and Joe agreed. Emily pointed out how helpful the acknowledgments in the NBA book must have been to Grogan’s career. Another student was impressed that instead of saying she was patronized as a woman, Grogan manipulated the situation to be advantageous as a reporter. Amanda agreed that Grogan made a supposed negative into a positive. Professor Dufresne added that Grogan’s accurate reporting gained her credibility over time and that should not be overlooked.
Amanda finished by asking what people thought about the option of going to grad school instead of jumping right into the newsroom for experience. Two students agreed that unless they had money, grad school seemed unnecessary and that building experience in the field was more important. Another student added that though money is an issue, grad school is a good option if you can’t find a job. Britton then said that the name of Columbia helped Grogan and Amanda agreed that going somewhere people are paid to pick apart your writing as good as Columbia is a good option.
On takeaway cards, students focused on how Grogan has built and been able to maintain credibility in a gender-biased field. Students also brought up points about technology and ethics relating to the position of military reporting.
Shane Goodrich: You have to gain trust and credibility as a reporter working in an institution like the military that is normally very private.
Kim Romanello: Jennifer gave a great presentation and was very interesting. I would have never known being a military reporter could be so interesting.
Chase Carnot: As far as taking gifts from sources, the distinctions that come up in practice are important ones. I can’t believe women aren’t allowed on submarines at all.
Joe Callahan: Being a female was a challenge for her, felt the soldiers underestimated her. Don’t jump to conclusions. There is always more to the story.
Christine Gratton: I thought it was interesting that technology doesn’t seem to be a “threat” to her paper, Its importance didn’t seem to be as big a deal as with other speakers.
Kate Monohan: I thought that the discussion of whether or not to go to grad school was really helpful. I thin that it confirmed that I’m not going to do it, Her idea about print Thursday-Sunday and online Monday-Wednesday was also interesting.
D. Henry: It was interesting to see how she judged the political aspects of the military along with the more human aspects of the military.
Notes by Jesse Grab
Discussion Leader: Amanda Wisnioski
The first point of discussion that Amanda brought up was whether or not the class thought the military beat should be assigned to somebody more experienced. Pat said that was not the case and that her freshness in the field gave an unbiased perspective. Emily agreed and added that Grogan’s enrollment at the prestigious Columbia University School of Journalism may have made her more able to tackle the tough assignments. Joe agreed that her inexperience may have made her more likely to take the assignments more seriously than a seasoned reporter.
Amanda then asked what students thought about Grogan being a woman on the military beat. Amy saw this as an advantage because people may be more compelled to divulge information to an unassuming woman. Christine said that in her bull paper research, she found that men in power tend to have a “good ole boy” connection and let their guard down to women sometimes.
Professor Dufresne then hinted that a good point to focus on with the final in mind would be on what allowed Grogan to be successful despite the elements working against her. Amy said that she gained credibility the best way, which is kicking ass. Katie agreed, saying that Grogan didn’t take no for an answer and challenged authority to get where she is. Erin said she was not lazy and hard work gave her the shot she had and Joe agreed. Emily pointed out how helpful the acknowledgments in the NBA book must have been to Grogan’s career. Another student was impressed that instead of saying she was patronized as a woman, Grogan manipulated the situation to be advantageous as a reporter. Amanda agreed that Grogan made a supposed negative into a positive. Professor Dufresne added that Grogan’s accurate reporting gained her credibility over time and that should not be overlooked.
Amanda finished by asking what people thought about the option of going to grad school instead of jumping right into the newsroom for experience. Two students agreed that unless they had money, grad school seemed unnecessary and that building experience in the field was more important. Another student added that though money is an issue, grad school is a good option if you can’t find a job. Britton then said that the name of Columbia helped Grogan and Amanda agreed that going somewhere people are paid to pick apart your writing as good as Columbia is a good option.
On takeaway cards, students focused on how Grogan has built and been able to maintain credibility in a gender-biased field. Students also brought up points about technology and ethics relating to the position of military reporting.
Shane Goodrich: You have to gain trust and credibility as a reporter working in an institution like the military that is normally very private.
Kim Romanello: Jennifer gave a great presentation and was very interesting. I would have never known being a military reporter could be so interesting.
Chase Carnot: As far as taking gifts from sources, the distinctions that come up in practice are important ones. I can’t believe women aren’t allowed on submarines at all.
Joe Callahan: Being a female was a challenge for her, felt the soldiers underestimated her. Don’t jump to conclusions. There is always more to the story.
Christine Gratton: I thought it was interesting that technology doesn’t seem to be a “threat” to her paper, Its importance didn’t seem to be as big a deal as with other speakers.
Kate Monohan: I thought that the discussion of whether or not to go to grad school was really helpful. I thin that it confirmed that I’m not going to do it, Her idea about print Thursday-Sunday and online Monday-Wednesday was also interesting.
D. Henry: It was interesting to see how she judged the political aspects of the military along with the more human aspects of the military.
4/15 - Jennifer Grogan Summary, Scott Powell (Alexandra Sanders)
Speaker: Jennifer Grogan
Notes Scott Powell
Discussion Leader: Alexandra Sanders
After hearing Jen Grogan talk about her career as a military beat writer and her experiences overseas, Alexandra started her discussion by raising the question of how many people in the class would consider going into war reporting. Katie said she would be interested in this line of work. She mentioned that she loves the danger aspect of the assignment, and believed that military operations are not covered all the time and that should change.
Beren stepped into the discussion by pointing out that he was in the military, and he felt that war reporting does not focus on people involved. They (reporters) take party lines, and don’t always tell the truth.
Professor Dufresne jumped into the conversation by telling the class that there were two people in the class that were in the military and asked about personal experiences with war reporters. Scott mentioned that when he was in the army he was instructed on how to answer questions from reporters while on military assignments in the Middle East. He told the class that there were certain things that soldiers just couldn’t talk about with reporters.
Alex then asked if leaving information out would deter people from doing war reporting. One student said that it should not because there is a priority to reporting during a war. Alexandra also asked if there is a biased opinion with reporters on military assignments. Erin said that information would get omitted for certain reasons that protect the soldiers. Katie said that she found it weird that Jennifer Grogan did not have to omit a lot, and that maybe she was not in the heavier locations of the war.
A few students agreed with Katie’s comments. One student told the class that lack of access was hurting Jennifer’s stories. There was too much happiness in them, and did not think there were enough stories on the heavier things.
Alexandra then asked the class if Jennifer’s war coverage boosted readership. Professor Dufresne jumped into the conversation once again by saying that Jennifer’s stories did help readership, and that her stories had more coverage than any other local paper would do. Brendan thought that Jennifer depended on the military, and had to comply, therefore the stories were not really her own.
Alexandra went on to ask the class if there was a human element to her war reporting when she had to hide words such as “prison”. One student responded by saying that if she was overseas longer and reader’s looked at her blog that people would have more idea of what camp Bucca was really like. Beren and another student argued that Jennifer was not overseas to cover hard, war news stories. Professor Dufresne also mentioned that with Jennifer’s blogging, she used them as an informal notebook, and not for opinion based blogging. He also said that in Journalism, opinion blogging is over emphasized.
Alexandra then switched to a different topic. She asked the class how they would react to the ethical concerns that Jennifer faced in her reporting, with receiving or not receiving gifts. Jennifer mentioned in her speech that she was offered tickets to an inauguration but had to decline. She also said that while she was overseas, she sat in on a meal with Pakistan leaders and was told that she needed to accept a plate during the occasion, so that she did not offend anyone. One student felt that there was no issue with how Jennifer handled her ethical situations; it was good that she didn’t accept anything. Another student mentioned that it was ok for Jennifer to accept meals to fit in with the culture, and it helped her understand her subjects, which was a good way to know people. Alex agreed.
Alex went into the topic of newspapers going online. She raised the question to the class if that was a good thing for the future. Patrick responded by saying that he felt online newspapers were good for the industry. He mentioned that it is more interactive and accessible for people over the printed version of the newspaper.
Professor Dufresne said that if the paper goes online and replaces print, less people would subscribe. He said that newspapers have many needs and that should not be damaged. People would have to make a transition that they would not be in favor for to watching media online.
TAKE AWAY CARDS:
Jesse Grab: It was interesting that Jen’s calm demeanor kept up through her entire presentation including the more intense parts about war.
Beren Jones: Grad school can be used to learn about writing to reporting quickly in place of the time in a newsroom.
Amy Lockmiller: When asked about our occupation in Iraq, Grogan said, “My opinion doesn’t really matter. It’s not going to change anything.” That really stood out to me. As a part of the media she has the opportunity to be such a powerful voice, should she choose to speak her mind openly.
Alex Sanders: I thought it was very interesting hearing from a woman in the warzone. It was very enlightening.
Mike Northup: War reporting is in a different climate now that soldiers and officers can read the stories and confront the reporter as soon as the stories go up.
Eli Pearlstein: The ability of the military to censor coverage by media, reporters can definitely create challenging ethical decisions.
Scott Powell: Embedded reporters with the military overseas is a good idea for overall exposure of the activities going on during wartime, but a reporter will never get the true opinions in most subject matter from soldiers.
Alyssa Carroll: It’s great to see how far Jennifer has gone towards breaking into a predominantly male beat. However, it’s disheartening to hear of the numerous restrictions still placed on her as in the case of the submarine stay.
Emily Abbate: The biggest thing that I took away from Grogan’s talk was that I truly feel the graduate schooling paid off for her. Her writing style is very well developed and it seems like she was very successful at what she does.
Erin O’Toole: I thought Jennifer’s talk was very interesting reporting in Iraq was very impressive. I wondered how she kept her opinions out of the story after actually living through what the soldiers did.
Britton Taylor: I thought it was really interesting how Jennifer was able to stay in Iraq for three weeks and write such interesting stories.
Patrick Swindler: Her experiences and insight into the Iraq countryside was very interesting. I enjoyed reading her articles and listening to her stories about the camp.
Unknown: As someone who is interested in covering war zones, I thought she had a lot of good info.
Notes Scott Powell
Discussion Leader: Alexandra Sanders
After hearing Jen Grogan talk about her career as a military beat writer and her experiences overseas, Alexandra started her discussion by raising the question of how many people in the class would consider going into war reporting. Katie said she would be interested in this line of work. She mentioned that she loves the danger aspect of the assignment, and believed that military operations are not covered all the time and that should change.
Beren stepped into the discussion by pointing out that he was in the military, and he felt that war reporting does not focus on people involved. They (reporters) take party lines, and don’t always tell the truth.
Professor Dufresne jumped into the conversation by telling the class that there were two people in the class that were in the military and asked about personal experiences with war reporters. Scott mentioned that when he was in the army he was instructed on how to answer questions from reporters while on military assignments in the Middle East. He told the class that there were certain things that soldiers just couldn’t talk about with reporters.
Alex then asked if leaving information out would deter people from doing war reporting. One student said that it should not because there is a priority to reporting during a war. Alexandra also asked if there is a biased opinion with reporters on military assignments. Erin said that information would get omitted for certain reasons that protect the soldiers. Katie said that she found it weird that Jennifer Grogan did not have to omit a lot, and that maybe she was not in the heavier locations of the war.
A few students agreed with Katie’s comments. One student told the class that lack of access was hurting Jennifer’s stories. There was too much happiness in them, and did not think there were enough stories on the heavier things.
Alexandra then asked the class if Jennifer’s war coverage boosted readership. Professor Dufresne jumped into the conversation once again by saying that Jennifer’s stories did help readership, and that her stories had more coverage than any other local paper would do. Brendan thought that Jennifer depended on the military, and had to comply, therefore the stories were not really her own.
Alexandra went on to ask the class if there was a human element to her war reporting when she had to hide words such as “prison”. One student responded by saying that if she was overseas longer and reader’s looked at her blog that people would have more idea of what camp Bucca was really like. Beren and another student argued that Jennifer was not overseas to cover hard, war news stories. Professor Dufresne also mentioned that with Jennifer’s blogging, she used them as an informal notebook, and not for opinion based blogging. He also said that in Journalism, opinion blogging is over emphasized.
Alexandra then switched to a different topic. She asked the class how they would react to the ethical concerns that Jennifer faced in her reporting, with receiving or not receiving gifts. Jennifer mentioned in her speech that she was offered tickets to an inauguration but had to decline. She also said that while she was overseas, she sat in on a meal with Pakistan leaders and was told that she needed to accept a plate during the occasion, so that she did not offend anyone. One student felt that there was no issue with how Jennifer handled her ethical situations; it was good that she didn’t accept anything. Another student mentioned that it was ok for Jennifer to accept meals to fit in with the culture, and it helped her understand her subjects, which was a good way to know people. Alex agreed.
Alex went into the topic of newspapers going online. She raised the question to the class if that was a good thing for the future. Patrick responded by saying that he felt online newspapers were good for the industry. He mentioned that it is more interactive and accessible for people over the printed version of the newspaper.
Professor Dufresne said that if the paper goes online and replaces print, less people would subscribe. He said that newspapers have many needs and that should not be damaged. People would have to make a transition that they would not be in favor for to watching media online.
TAKE AWAY CARDS:
Jesse Grab: It was interesting that Jen’s calm demeanor kept up through her entire presentation including the more intense parts about war.
Beren Jones: Grad school can be used to learn about writing to reporting quickly in place of the time in a newsroom.
Amy Lockmiller: When asked about our occupation in Iraq, Grogan said, “My opinion doesn’t really matter. It’s not going to change anything.” That really stood out to me. As a part of the media she has the opportunity to be such a powerful voice, should she choose to speak her mind openly.
Alex Sanders: I thought it was very interesting hearing from a woman in the warzone. It was very enlightening.
Mike Northup: War reporting is in a different climate now that soldiers and officers can read the stories and confront the reporter as soon as the stories go up.
Eli Pearlstein: The ability of the military to censor coverage by media, reporters can definitely create challenging ethical decisions.
Scott Powell: Embedded reporters with the military overseas is a good idea for overall exposure of the activities going on during wartime, but a reporter will never get the true opinions in most subject matter from soldiers.
Alyssa Carroll: It’s great to see how far Jennifer has gone towards breaking into a predominantly male beat. However, it’s disheartening to hear of the numerous restrictions still placed on her as in the case of the submarine stay.
Emily Abbate: The biggest thing that I took away from Grogan’s talk was that I truly feel the graduate schooling paid off for her. Her writing style is very well developed and it seems like she was very successful at what she does.
Erin O’Toole: I thought Jennifer’s talk was very interesting reporting in Iraq was very impressive. I wondered how she kept her opinions out of the story after actually living through what the soldiers did.
Britton Taylor: I thought it was really interesting how Jennifer was able to stay in Iraq for three weeks and write such interesting stories.
Patrick Swindler: Her experiences and insight into the Iraq countryside was very interesting. I enjoyed reading her articles and listening to her stories about the camp.
Unknown: As someone who is interested in covering war zones, I thought she had a lot of good info.
4/22 - Matt Monks Summary, Britton Taylor (Patrick Swidler)
Speaker: Matt Monks
Notes by Britton Taylor
Discussion Leader: Patrick Swidler
To begin the discussion, Patrick posed the question with the field of
journalism, at first you have to put yourself through boot camp of sorts
by taking low paying jobs and working like a horse. He explained that
through the sacrifices he made, it made it possible to have more freedom.
He also touched upon the point that he learned to not be afraid to ask
someone for help and that Matt had to leave his comfort zone. One of the
main points was that you start out with nothing, making no money and you
work your way up. So Patrick asked how the class felt about this
philosophy.
Erin responded by saying that in this business you have to do that.
Jesse said that it would depend on where it brings me, play it day to day
and that having goals is what will keep me going through journalism.
Eli said that you can’t have too much pride in the beginning. He said you
will have to start at the bottom unless you have a great connection. It is
important to be flexible and try different things in order to figure out
what you want.
Pat responded again by saying that this is something interesting that we
might face, taking a job over another for less money (different reasons).
Christine the said that this went along with Matt’s ideology of doing what
will be good for you in the long run. American Banker has been around for
100 years, it has a good following, expensive subscription. And she said
that Matt was looking for the longevity.
Pat then responded that the market share day to day, you want to invest
yourself into a company that maybe is a little bit healthier and that
these skills you learn here do translate. Some skills he has gained and he
has applied them.
The one student said that the money was enticing, but I would choose the
job that is more interesting, at the end of the day “I am I doing what I
want to do and if not am I on the road towards that”.
Then someone said that it maybe would have been a better idea to take the
money, then pursue your dreams and make money while you can.
Professor Dufresne said that he feels that he is still young enough to
take the interesting jobs and that it is a personal decision.
Eli responded to this by saying he thought it was interesting because Matt
seemed young enough to want to still chase the money and then parlay that
into something he would eventually want to do. In the grand scheme of
things make money and settle down, but he still chose the less paying job.
Pat went on to say that overall Matt’s general idea overall is that there
will be jobs for us, something we should all take away from this
discussion is he never thinks of himself as having options to move
forward. This seperated him from the rest of the speakers. He was never
afraid.
Christine said that his positivity was good, he doesn’t get bogged down
after getting laid off and that this was refreshing that he still has hope
for journalism/print journalism.
Emily said that it was cool that he said he wants to be one of the last
print dinosaurs and that it was really refreshing.
Professor Dufresne said that people who say there are will not be jobs for
you are wrong, the skills you are learning now are great. In grad school,
the skills I had from reporting made it easier. The skills you are
getting, and not being afraid of rejection makes it easier for you to
succeed. In this market, if you have the skills and the determination, you
will go far.
Pat responded and said that the idea of being a journalist, if I were
interviewing a CEO, I personally have a problem of being nervous. Do you
enjoy going after the big fish?
Steve said that he didn’t completely agree. He said that he works for the
daily campus and talk to musicians, and that at some point we do want to
be on the cover of the mag, not the journalist.
Pat said that he was interested in business, “I would find it hard not to
say to hell with journalism and want to switch fields”.
Someone responded to this by saying that, “You have to look at journalism
as an art form. You have to be interested.”
Aaron said that you want to obviously be the star, but if you have the
abilities to crank out articles that no one else can, then you get
admired.
Christine responded to this by saying that journalists have the strength
to tell a story, and that means you have power over people.
Erin said that she felt that for broadcast journalism, “you get a two for
one deal, your face is out there, and you have a byline.”
Beren said that there was a whole other aspect to journalism that other
fields don’t have. “Your job changes day to day. You also have the
responsibility to understand things and then interpret it to the public.”
Professor Dufresne ended with saying that as a journalist, “a lot of
people I know are generalist, they like a lot of stuff.” He then went on
to tell the story of the Orchid thief. That ended the conversation.
Erin O’Toole said; Matt’s job seems interesting and I like what he had to
say about the city and not being afraid to be aggressive in the workforce.
Jesse Grab said: I think the most important thing to take away was the
definitive idea that we will get jobs in journalism if we want them bad
enough.
Joe Callahan said: Say in touch with fellow reporters, find mentors,
rejection is no big deal, focus on the basis of interviewing like a story.
Kate Monahan said: I thought his tips on getting jobs and the etiquette
were most helpful. I also was glad someone pointed out that lots of first
jobs are unpaid and fininacial support is necessary to survive in the
journalism world.
Emily Abbate said: He had a lot of interesting advice about graduating and
actually finding a job. He was a breath of fresh air.
Christing Gratton: Definitely stressed the binary nature of journalism
careers is the number one challenge and you have to be persistent.
Aaron Roy: He said that it was refreshing to finally have good news from
the journalism world. Gave us hope.
Amanda said that Matt’s tips about getting a job in journalism were very
informative and helpful.
Eli Pearlstein said that it is very useful the information that he gave us
in getting a journalism job.
Patrick Swidler said that Matt was hands down the most down to earth
presenter.
Beren said that I was surprised at Matt’s attitude towards professional
ethics, but also dually surprised that he still maintained what he thought
to be a fair attitude towards his sources.
Notes by Britton Taylor
Discussion Leader: Patrick Swidler
To begin the discussion, Patrick posed the question with the field of
journalism, at first you have to put yourself through boot camp of sorts
by taking low paying jobs and working like a horse. He explained that
through the sacrifices he made, it made it possible to have more freedom.
He also touched upon the point that he learned to not be afraid to ask
someone for help and that Matt had to leave his comfort zone. One of the
main points was that you start out with nothing, making no money and you
work your way up. So Patrick asked how the class felt about this
philosophy.
Erin responded by saying that in this business you have to do that.
Jesse said that it would depend on where it brings me, play it day to day
and that having goals is what will keep me going through journalism.
Eli said that you can’t have too much pride in the beginning. He said you
will have to start at the bottom unless you have a great connection. It is
important to be flexible and try different things in order to figure out
what you want.
Pat responded again by saying that this is something interesting that we
might face, taking a job over another for less money (different reasons).
Christine the said that this went along with Matt’s ideology of doing what
will be good for you in the long run. American Banker has been around for
100 years, it has a good following, expensive subscription. And she said
that Matt was looking for the longevity.
Pat then responded that the market share day to day, you want to invest
yourself into a company that maybe is a little bit healthier and that
these skills you learn here do translate. Some skills he has gained and he
has applied them.
The one student said that the money was enticing, but I would choose the
job that is more interesting, at the end of the day “I am I doing what I
want to do and if not am I on the road towards that”.
Then someone said that it maybe would have been a better idea to take the
money, then pursue your dreams and make money while you can.
Professor Dufresne said that he feels that he is still young enough to
take the interesting jobs and that it is a personal decision.
Eli responded to this by saying he thought it was interesting because Matt
seemed young enough to want to still chase the money and then parlay that
into something he would eventually want to do. In the grand scheme of
things make money and settle down, but he still chose the less paying job.
Pat went on to say that overall Matt’s general idea overall is that there
will be jobs for us, something we should all take away from this
discussion is he never thinks of himself as having options to move
forward. This seperated him from the rest of the speakers. He was never
afraid.
Christine said that his positivity was good, he doesn’t get bogged down
after getting laid off and that this was refreshing that he still has hope
for journalism/print journalism.
Emily said that it was cool that he said he wants to be one of the last
print dinosaurs and that it was really refreshing.
Professor Dufresne said that people who say there are will not be jobs for
you are wrong, the skills you are learning now are great. In grad school,
the skills I had from reporting made it easier. The skills you are
getting, and not being afraid of rejection makes it easier for you to
succeed. In this market, if you have the skills and the determination, you
will go far.
Pat responded and said that the idea of being a journalist, if I were
interviewing a CEO, I personally have a problem of being nervous. Do you
enjoy going after the big fish?
Steve said that he didn’t completely agree. He said that he works for the
daily campus and talk to musicians, and that at some point we do want to
be on the cover of the mag, not the journalist.
Pat said that he was interested in business, “I would find it hard not to
say to hell with journalism and want to switch fields”.
Someone responded to this by saying that, “You have to look at journalism
as an art form. You have to be interested.”
Aaron said that you want to obviously be the star, but if you have the
abilities to crank out articles that no one else can, then you get
admired.
Christine responded to this by saying that journalists have the strength
to tell a story, and that means you have power over people.
Erin said that she felt that for broadcast journalism, “you get a two for
one deal, your face is out there, and you have a byline.”
Beren said that there was a whole other aspect to journalism that other
fields don’t have. “Your job changes day to day. You also have the
responsibility to understand things and then interpret it to the public.”
Professor Dufresne ended with saying that as a journalist, “a lot of
people I know are generalist, they like a lot of stuff.” He then went on
to tell the story of the Orchid thief. That ended the conversation.
Erin O’Toole said; Matt’s job seems interesting and I like what he had to
say about the city and not being afraid to be aggressive in the workforce.
Jesse Grab said: I think the most important thing to take away was the
definitive idea that we will get jobs in journalism if we want them bad
enough.
Joe Callahan said: Say in touch with fellow reporters, find mentors,
rejection is no big deal, focus on the basis of interviewing like a story.
Kate Monahan said: I thought his tips on getting jobs and the etiquette
were most helpful. I also was glad someone pointed out that lots of first
jobs are unpaid and fininacial support is necessary to survive in the
journalism world.
Emily Abbate said: He had a lot of interesting advice about graduating and
actually finding a job. He was a breath of fresh air.
Christing Gratton: Definitely stressed the binary nature of journalism
careers is the number one challenge and you have to be persistent.
Aaron Roy: He said that it was refreshing to finally have good news from
the journalism world. Gave us hope.
Amanda said that Matt’s tips about getting a job in journalism were very
informative and helpful.
Eli Pearlstein said that it is very useful the information that he gave us
in getting a journalism job.
Patrick Swidler said that Matt was hands down the most down to earth
presenter.
Beren said that I was surprised at Matt’s attitude towards professional
ethics, but also dually surprised that he still maintained what he thought
to be a fair attitude towards his sources.
4/22 - Matt Monks Summary, Eli Pearlstein (Kimberly Romanello)
Speaker: Matt Monks
Notes by Eli Pearlstein
Discussion Leader: Kim Romanello
Matt Monks, a former University of Connecticut journalism student, focused his discussion on providing advice to the class about how to survive and thrive in the world of journalism.
Monks, who is currently employed as a writer for the trade newspaper ‘American Banker,’ presented tips and advice to the class by offering anecdotes about his own successes and follies in order to paint a realistic picture about the life of a journalist.
Monks made a point to emphasize the importance of acquiring as many skills as possible in order to make oneself a versatile candidate for a job. Monks himself became a business writer despite his lack of general business knowledge and this specific field has now become his passion.
Kim began her portion of the discussion by asking the class if they believed that journalism was, as Monks had asserted, a “privileged” profession and if additional financial backers (like a parent or significant other) are necessary when an aspiring journalist is first starting out.
One student strongly disagreed, as he believed that young journalists could pick up side jobs and still make ends meet. Professor Dufresne took the opportunity to inform the class about Monks’ own modest upbringing (coming from a single-parent household with multiple siblings). Dufresne added that “privilege” was essentially relative and if you come from a modest suburban home, that can seem privileged to someone coming from poverty.
Aaron agreed with Monks’ initial declaration, adding that he’d be far more inclined to pursue a job in journalism if it was more financially feasible. Aaron further believed that journalism might not be a viable option at this time because of a lack of financial support.
Erin discussed how one of her roommates is interested in going into journalism, but simply doesn’t have the finances to live off a measly paycheck. She further added that an aspiring journalist needs financial backing in case they “get stuck in a rut.”
Kim moved on to gauge the class’ opinion about how Monks’ self-proclaimed “harassment” tactics would work with the current state of journalism and the uncertainty in the economy.
Emily asserted that she didn’t believe it was realistic or likely that her or her peers would be knocking on the New York Times’ door. However, she did believe that consistently calling a prospective employer, as Monks had done with the New York Post, could be acceptable.
Shane added that anything a job seeker can do to make his/herself stick out in their chosen profession is good. He further identified this method as valuable because even if you didn’t get the job you were pining for, the prospective employer would be much more likely to remember you over other less “engaged” candidates in the future.
Another student concurred with Emily and Shane, adding that “persistence is key” and that to follow-up on jobs and to nag can be effective ways to make headway in a job search. He cited the fact that Monks’ concerted effort to land work with the New York Post eventually paid off as Monks was finally given freelance work.
Kim then probed the class about their opinions about whether they would go into a field of journalism that they weren’t previously familiar with, as Monks had done with business journalism.
Daniella, who prefaced her comment by claiming that she “wasn’t really a business person,” believed that it would be difficult without a previous understanding of the field.
Prof. Dufresne then interjected and talked about how one of the hardest things for reporters and young journalists to do is to admit that they don’t know something during an interview. Dufresne lamented the high volume of people who don’t subscribe to the philosophy that “it’s easier to ask a dumb question than to look like a fool in print.” He also cited comments made by a previous speaker, Eric Danton, that suggested that Monks, because of his lack of knowledge about business, was like a foreign correspondent.
Kim proceeded to shift her focus to the future of journalism. She asked the class if they believed that trade publications and niche journalism are the future of print journalism.
Erin theorized that the future of print is too uncertain to assume that it has a concrete future as of now. She relayed to the class that she believes it does have a future, but perhaps in a different form (like online).
Beren added that he believes demand will always exist for print journalism. He stated that trade publications were likely to stay how they wanted to stay, but newspapers are in the midst of a much more significant period of change.
Kim then shifted topics, asking the class if they would make as many sacrifices as Matt made in order to stay in a certain field (Monks had moved away from his girlfriend and family to take a low-paying job in a remote town in Virginia).
Emily asserted that if you’re doing what you love, the sacrifices don’t seem as great as they actually are. She stated that Monks was seeing the bigger picture of a better job in a better location in the future when he took the job in Martinsville.
Kim concluded her portion of the discussion by asking the class if Monks’ perceived lack of ethical concern worried anyone.
Jesse believes that the way in which Monks spoke of ethics made his practices seem worse than they were. He added that he thinks Monks really does concentrate on being an accurate reporter.
Scott pointed out the fact that Monks didn’t really mention many ethical decisions that he does actually run into. However, he added that Monks’ sometimes-used practice of ‘bluffing,’ or ‘ratcheting,’ as Prof. Dufresne referred to it, could be an ethical decision of some substance.
Prof. Dufresne then asked the class about their opinions about ratcheting (the practice of acting like you know something in order to gain additional info) and if they were troubled by it.
Aaron responded that he was in favor of ratcheting if it’s needed to gain more knowledge and break potentially important stories.
Another student added that in dealing with “tight lipped” people, Monks is simply playing a game in order to get the info he needs (the student had no problem with the practice).Another student asserted that you couldn’t use this practice all the time, but that if you use it for the right reasons, he would see no ethical dilemma in the matter.
The take-away cards were overwhelmingly complimentary of Monks’ advice for securing a job. They focused on Monks’ valuable advice about the need to be flexible when attempting to get a job in the world of journalism.
Many of the cards also voiced appreciation for Monks’ realistic and optimism-laden information about the likelihood of being able to secure a job in journalism despite the instability of both the economy and the field of journalism.
Take Away Cards
Chase Carnot: There’s an inherent contradiction in business reporting. Outlets like CNBC “report” news that invariably affects the market. Even the most objective stories can have an undue influence on markets. At CNBC, they cheerlead the bubble and the sell off.
Mike Northup: When going into an interview, anticipate questions and bring in extra resumes. Send a thank you note after each one.
Stephen Ortiz: His take on networking was eye opening.
Daniella Henry: I enjoyed his realistic advice on the mechanics of getting a job.
Kim Romanello: Matt had some great advice, but his lack of ethics bothered me.
Alex Sanders: The best advice he gave is to be flexible while you’re young and take what you can get.
Rowan McInnes: Matt Monks had a lot of good pointers and advice for us in terms of what to do after college. Even though a lot of it we had heard before, it was good reinforcement.
Beren Jones: There are still many opportunities for anyone who is willing to move and work in areas you weren’t expecting to.
Shane Goodrich: You can get a journalism job if you remain flexible and are okay with moving and have some sort of support system early on.
Alyssa Carroll: He was really helpful and insightful about the realities of job searching and starting a career.
(Card just says Matt Monk): I like how Matt treats the journalism industry like a business and art form. He’s competitive and knows how to adapt within his environment and adjust to stay afloat as a writer.
(No name): I thought that his advice on finding a job was very valuable.
Notes by Eli Pearlstein
Discussion Leader: Kim Romanello
Matt Monks, a former University of Connecticut journalism student, focused his discussion on providing advice to the class about how to survive and thrive in the world of journalism.
Monks, who is currently employed as a writer for the trade newspaper ‘American Banker,’ presented tips and advice to the class by offering anecdotes about his own successes and follies in order to paint a realistic picture about the life of a journalist.
Monks made a point to emphasize the importance of acquiring as many skills as possible in order to make oneself a versatile candidate for a job. Monks himself became a business writer despite his lack of general business knowledge and this specific field has now become his passion.
Kim began her portion of the discussion by asking the class if they believed that journalism was, as Monks had asserted, a “privileged” profession and if additional financial backers (like a parent or significant other) are necessary when an aspiring journalist is first starting out.
One student strongly disagreed, as he believed that young journalists could pick up side jobs and still make ends meet. Professor Dufresne took the opportunity to inform the class about Monks’ own modest upbringing (coming from a single-parent household with multiple siblings). Dufresne added that “privilege” was essentially relative and if you come from a modest suburban home, that can seem privileged to someone coming from poverty.
Aaron agreed with Monks’ initial declaration, adding that he’d be far more inclined to pursue a job in journalism if it was more financially feasible. Aaron further believed that journalism might not be a viable option at this time because of a lack of financial support.
Erin discussed how one of her roommates is interested in going into journalism, but simply doesn’t have the finances to live off a measly paycheck. She further added that an aspiring journalist needs financial backing in case they “get stuck in a rut.”
Kim moved on to gauge the class’ opinion about how Monks’ self-proclaimed “harassment” tactics would work with the current state of journalism and the uncertainty in the economy.
Emily asserted that she didn’t believe it was realistic or likely that her or her peers would be knocking on the New York Times’ door. However, she did believe that consistently calling a prospective employer, as Monks had done with the New York Post, could be acceptable.
Shane added that anything a job seeker can do to make his/herself stick out in their chosen profession is good. He further identified this method as valuable because even if you didn’t get the job you were pining for, the prospective employer would be much more likely to remember you over other less “engaged” candidates in the future.
Another student concurred with Emily and Shane, adding that “persistence is key” and that to follow-up on jobs and to nag can be effective ways to make headway in a job search. He cited the fact that Monks’ concerted effort to land work with the New York Post eventually paid off as Monks was finally given freelance work.
Kim then probed the class about their opinions about whether they would go into a field of journalism that they weren’t previously familiar with, as Monks had done with business journalism.
Daniella, who prefaced her comment by claiming that she “wasn’t really a business person,” believed that it would be difficult without a previous understanding of the field.
Prof. Dufresne then interjected and talked about how one of the hardest things for reporters and young journalists to do is to admit that they don’t know something during an interview. Dufresne lamented the high volume of people who don’t subscribe to the philosophy that “it’s easier to ask a dumb question than to look like a fool in print.” He also cited comments made by a previous speaker, Eric Danton, that suggested that Monks, because of his lack of knowledge about business, was like a foreign correspondent.
Kim proceeded to shift her focus to the future of journalism. She asked the class if they believed that trade publications and niche journalism are the future of print journalism.
Erin theorized that the future of print is too uncertain to assume that it has a concrete future as of now. She relayed to the class that she believes it does have a future, but perhaps in a different form (like online).
Beren added that he believes demand will always exist for print journalism. He stated that trade publications were likely to stay how they wanted to stay, but newspapers are in the midst of a much more significant period of change.
Kim then shifted topics, asking the class if they would make as many sacrifices as Matt made in order to stay in a certain field (Monks had moved away from his girlfriend and family to take a low-paying job in a remote town in Virginia).
Emily asserted that if you’re doing what you love, the sacrifices don’t seem as great as they actually are. She stated that Monks was seeing the bigger picture of a better job in a better location in the future when he took the job in Martinsville.
Kim concluded her portion of the discussion by asking the class if Monks’ perceived lack of ethical concern worried anyone.
Jesse believes that the way in which Monks spoke of ethics made his practices seem worse than they were. He added that he thinks Monks really does concentrate on being an accurate reporter.
Scott pointed out the fact that Monks didn’t really mention many ethical decisions that he does actually run into. However, he added that Monks’ sometimes-used practice of ‘bluffing,’ or ‘ratcheting,’ as Prof. Dufresne referred to it, could be an ethical decision of some substance.
Prof. Dufresne then asked the class about their opinions about ratcheting (the practice of acting like you know something in order to gain additional info) and if they were troubled by it.
Aaron responded that he was in favor of ratcheting if it’s needed to gain more knowledge and break potentially important stories.
Another student added that in dealing with “tight lipped” people, Monks is simply playing a game in order to get the info he needs (the student had no problem with the practice).Another student asserted that you couldn’t use this practice all the time, but that if you use it for the right reasons, he would see no ethical dilemma in the matter.
The take-away cards were overwhelmingly complimentary of Monks’ advice for securing a job. They focused on Monks’ valuable advice about the need to be flexible when attempting to get a job in the world of journalism.
Many of the cards also voiced appreciation for Monks’ realistic and optimism-laden information about the likelihood of being able to secure a job in journalism despite the instability of both the economy and the field of journalism.
Take Away Cards
Chase Carnot: There’s an inherent contradiction in business reporting. Outlets like CNBC “report” news that invariably affects the market. Even the most objective stories can have an undue influence on markets. At CNBC, they cheerlead the bubble and the sell off.
Mike Northup: When going into an interview, anticipate questions and bring in extra resumes. Send a thank you note after each one.
Stephen Ortiz: His take on networking was eye opening.
Daniella Henry: I enjoyed his realistic advice on the mechanics of getting a job.
Kim Romanello: Matt had some great advice, but his lack of ethics bothered me.
Alex Sanders: The best advice he gave is to be flexible while you’re young and take what you can get.
Rowan McInnes: Matt Monks had a lot of good pointers and advice for us in terms of what to do after college. Even though a lot of it we had heard before, it was good reinforcement.
Beren Jones: There are still many opportunities for anyone who is willing to move and work in areas you weren’t expecting to.
Shane Goodrich: You can get a journalism job if you remain flexible and are okay with moving and have some sort of support system early on.
Alyssa Carroll: He was really helpful and insightful about the realities of job searching and starting a career.
(Card just says Matt Monk): I like how Matt treats the journalism industry like a business and art form. He’s competitive and knows how to adapt within his environment and adjust to stay afloat as a writer.
(No name): I thought that his advice on finding a job was very valuable.
4/29- Chris Stone Summary, Aaron Roy (Michael Northup)
Discussion Leader: Michael Northrop
Speaker: Christopher Stone
Note taker: Aaron Roy
The first point Michael brought up for discussion was the fact that when Christopher Stone applied for the position at S.I. he thought he was one of 1600 applicants when in reality he was one of 16, Does this perception that large companies have a way larger number of applicants worry you or prevent you from pursuing opportunities?
Emily thought people do shy away from big names but in this worsening economy more people apply to more jobs regardless, while another student voiced that while people may shy from the big names, others apply anyways for “kicks and giggles” so to speak. They also added that applying a bigger named company with a larger pool of applicants could be helpful because possibly down the road they could remember your original application and give you an edge in a future attempt at employment.
Christine added that it was hard to understand the situation Stone faced when applying because we did not know all the facts but then Professor Dufresne intervened saying that connections at a larger place, the whole “who you know “ factor plays a part also in landing a spot at these big name companies. Besides luck also being a factor, the professor also added that Stone’s first job was a hiring by someone who knew his family, but then from there his own hard work landed him at S.I.
Michael then redirected the discussion by posing the question; would anyone consider going into investigative reporting?
A student began the discussion by saying yes, they would definitely consider a career in it as investigative reporters uncover what the general public is unable to find or see for themselves.
Aaron then said that although it was be interesting to do, the reality with this economy is that it’s hard to become an investigative reporter anymore as resources are scarce at companies.
Michael then again posed a question to the class; In 10 years will newspapers be able to field and finance stories like the A-Rod one put out in S.I.?
Pat said that yes, big papers will still provide quality investigative pieces, and that presently papers are facing some of their toughest times but they are still producing big stories.
Alyssa said that hopefully papers are still around, and that investigative reporting will still occur, but within a budget, big stories will have to be covered by bigger market papers, and smaller papers will miss some content as realistically they cannot afford to cover it.
Eli then responded that it depends on the individual reporter, if the reporter can afford to provide his personal time to pursuing these deeper pieces then yes they will still gain coverage.
Professor Dufresne then interjected with a question to the class; why do people not want to investigative report anymore?
Pat responded by saying that reporters, such as past speaker Deb Barry, have to use their own money to cover stories sometimes, and at places like S.I. where stone works its more affordable and easier to be a investigative reporter because it’s their business to cover these more demanding pieces.
Joe then said that it’s harder to become an investigative journalist in that you really have to know what you’re doing and be more aware of your surroundings. An investigative reporter faces more roadblocks, thus a more experienced journalist is necessary to be successful at uncovering these pieces. Joe then said that as journalists become more comfortable in the field, a switch to investigative reporter is a bit easier as a transition. He ended with saying people do not want to become investigative reporters at first because it’s difficult to just start there.
Professor Dufresne then added to the discussion by saying that the New England Center of Investigative Reporting contacted him about using students and media partner such as N.P.R. to establish a feeder program for journalistic training in investigative reporting skills. “Investigative reporting is like a cult,” said professor Dufresne. He then went on to add that it’s hard for people to do at first, but for those with a gut feeling for uncovering issues, it provides them with a chance to get involved.
Michael then directed the discussion towards the point; can anyone do investigative reporting or do you need intrinsic ability?
Alyssa responded that it depends on the personality and that you have to not mind nagging people and being confrontational. You need to be “slightly rude” and like any job investigative reporting is a question of how much effort you’re willing to put in.
Pat added that an investigative reporter cannot be shy and that they cannot lose sight of their story as the more important goal and has to be able to ignore whatever someone else might think of them.
Michael again took hold of the discussion and asked the class, is journalism becoming more conversational as feedback and interaction are now parts of multiple instances of media?
Amy replied that the feedback keeps reporters more accountable as people can reply and add their own takes on stories, but that there is also a downfall in that it makes reporters need tougher skin as people’s responses to your work could induce emotion and influence future writing.
Alyssa closed the discussion with the point that she enjoys providing positive feedback on journalists who are doing a good job, and also that negative feedback could possibly spur a poor performing journalist into putting more work into their craft.
The mains points from the take away cards focused on Christopher Stone’s optimistic approach to the future of journalism. His concept that news will be still be important but the way it’s delivered in the main thing that will change, was mentioned in multiple people’s cards. Another point that sparked peoples interest was Stone’s mention of sports reporters being well read in other subject matters, whether it is a subscription to Harper’s Weekly, or the New Yorker. The take away cards also mentioned that Stone’s discussion on confidential vs. anonymous sources was something of new topic to multiple students in the class.
Speaker: Christopher Stone
Note taker: Aaron Roy
The first point Michael brought up for discussion was the fact that when Christopher Stone applied for the position at S.I. he thought he was one of 1600 applicants when in reality he was one of 16, Does this perception that large companies have a way larger number of applicants worry you or prevent you from pursuing opportunities?
Emily thought people do shy away from big names but in this worsening economy more people apply to more jobs regardless, while another student voiced that while people may shy from the big names, others apply anyways for “kicks and giggles” so to speak. They also added that applying a bigger named company with a larger pool of applicants could be helpful because possibly down the road they could remember your original application and give you an edge in a future attempt at employment.
Christine added that it was hard to understand the situation Stone faced when applying because we did not know all the facts but then Professor Dufresne intervened saying that connections at a larger place, the whole “who you know “ factor plays a part also in landing a spot at these big name companies. Besides luck also being a factor, the professor also added that Stone’s first job was a hiring by someone who knew his family, but then from there his own hard work landed him at S.I.
Michael then redirected the discussion by posing the question; would anyone consider going into investigative reporting?
A student began the discussion by saying yes, they would definitely consider a career in it as investigative reporters uncover what the general public is unable to find or see for themselves.
Aaron then said that although it was be interesting to do, the reality with this economy is that it’s hard to become an investigative reporter anymore as resources are scarce at companies.
Michael then again posed a question to the class; In 10 years will newspapers be able to field and finance stories like the A-Rod one put out in S.I.?
Pat said that yes, big papers will still provide quality investigative pieces, and that presently papers are facing some of their toughest times but they are still producing big stories.
Alyssa said that hopefully papers are still around, and that investigative reporting will still occur, but within a budget, big stories will have to be covered by bigger market papers, and smaller papers will miss some content as realistically they cannot afford to cover it.
Eli then responded that it depends on the individual reporter, if the reporter can afford to provide his personal time to pursuing these deeper pieces then yes they will still gain coverage.
Professor Dufresne then interjected with a question to the class; why do people not want to investigative report anymore?
Pat responded by saying that reporters, such as past speaker Deb Barry, have to use their own money to cover stories sometimes, and at places like S.I. where stone works its more affordable and easier to be a investigative reporter because it’s their business to cover these more demanding pieces.
Joe then said that it’s harder to become an investigative journalist in that you really have to know what you’re doing and be more aware of your surroundings. An investigative reporter faces more roadblocks, thus a more experienced journalist is necessary to be successful at uncovering these pieces. Joe then said that as journalists become more comfortable in the field, a switch to investigative reporter is a bit easier as a transition. He ended with saying people do not want to become investigative reporters at first because it’s difficult to just start there.
Professor Dufresne then added to the discussion by saying that the New England Center of Investigative Reporting contacted him about using students and media partner such as N.P.R. to establish a feeder program for journalistic training in investigative reporting skills. “Investigative reporting is like a cult,” said professor Dufresne. He then went on to add that it’s hard for people to do at first, but for those with a gut feeling for uncovering issues, it provides them with a chance to get involved.
Michael then directed the discussion towards the point; can anyone do investigative reporting or do you need intrinsic ability?
Alyssa responded that it depends on the personality and that you have to not mind nagging people and being confrontational. You need to be “slightly rude” and like any job investigative reporting is a question of how much effort you’re willing to put in.
Pat added that an investigative reporter cannot be shy and that they cannot lose sight of their story as the more important goal and has to be able to ignore whatever someone else might think of them.
Michael again took hold of the discussion and asked the class, is journalism becoming more conversational as feedback and interaction are now parts of multiple instances of media?
Amy replied that the feedback keeps reporters more accountable as people can reply and add their own takes on stories, but that there is also a downfall in that it makes reporters need tougher skin as people’s responses to your work could induce emotion and influence future writing.
Alyssa closed the discussion with the point that she enjoys providing positive feedback on journalists who are doing a good job, and also that negative feedback could possibly spur a poor performing journalist into putting more work into their craft.
The mains points from the take away cards focused on Christopher Stone’s optimistic approach to the future of journalism. His concept that news will be still be important but the way it’s delivered in the main thing that will change, was mentioned in multiple people’s cards. Another point that sparked peoples interest was Stone’s mention of sports reporters being well read in other subject matters, whether it is a subscription to Harper’s Weekly, or the New Yorker. The take away cards also mentioned that Stone’s discussion on confidential vs. anonymous sources was something of new topic to multiple students in the class.
4/29 - Chris Stone Summary, Shane Goodrich (Rowan McInnes)
Speaker: Chris Stone
Notes by Shane Goodrich
Discussion Leader: Rowan McKinnes
Rowan began his discussion asking the class if the hunger for news is currently greater than it has been in the past. Pat said that the hunger for news has grown now that you don’t have to go out of your way to get it. He said news is always at your fingertips with the Internet, using an example of Boston.com, which he uses as his homepage so he can always tell what is going on in his area.
Alyssa agreed with Pat, saying that she uses Facebook to send her friends news pieces. Another student said that technology makes it a lot easier to be specific for what kind of news you are interested in, rather than searching through a newspaper.
Rowan’s next question was based on Chris Stone’s belief that news is not dying, but that its delivery is changing. He asked if the class agreed with this idea. Aaron agreed with Stone, saying news will always be apart of our lives. He said that news delivery is probably going to change a lot in the next five to ten years, but it will never disappear.
Rowan brought up Chris Stone’s story on Alex Rodriguez, questioning if the public tend to believe whatever celebrities say because they are famous. One student said that he believed A-Rod’s story when he said the woman who wrote the story on his steroid use was stalking him. He said that it’s common for a celebrity to try to discredit the journalist who is writing stories that demean his or her character. Jesse agreed that people often blindly agree with celebrities, but said it is the job of a good investigative reporter to check if the celebrity’s story is factual. Another student said that she does not always agree with putting public figures in the news, like the huge buzz over Michael Phelps smoking marijuana.
Rowan questioned if the athletes salaries are the reason for allegations, some of which have been false. One student said that it makes the public feel less sorry for athletes because of the money they make. Rowan said he felt bad for A-Rod in his press conference, pointing out that he is still a human being, despite his large salary. Another student pointed out that A-Rod was cheating and should be exposed. He said that A-Rod, Bryant, and Phelps’ situations are all different and should be reported on differently. He followed up, saying A-Rod deserved to be called out. Alyssa said that athletes often feel they are above the law and try to see how far they can push the limits. She said that crimes like Michael Vick’s should be exposed. Aaron pointed out that steroids were not illegal at the time A-Rod was using them. He said allegations from the past, mixed with today’s emotions, makes situations look worse than they are.
Rowan thought it was unfair that players from the list of 104 remain anonymous while A-Rod is the only player brought to the public eye. A student said that there is no player bigger than A-Rod in baseball currently. He pointed out that he will break most batting records and probably be accepted in the Hall of Fame, despite being remembered for taking steroids during the 2003 season. Erin said a monumental story, like Sports Illustrated’s A-Rod story, is like a journalist’s steroid. She said journalism is a business, and a story of that magnitude can up a journalist’s name.
Pat said that baseball has been tainted because of players using steroids, and that it is important to expose the players. Aaron argued that Sports Illustrated compromised their integrity when they chose to only release one name, but did no other research on the other 103 players listed. Professor DuFresne pointed out that the only tip they got from their sources was about A-Rod. Another student said that if the choice came down to either publishing just one major story, or forfeiting the big story because no other players were identified, she would choose the story.
To finish off the discussion Professor DuFresne mentioned that a common defense of investigative reporting is that there are other news organizations working on the story as well.
The take-away cards talked about Stone’s optimism and the advice he gave for writing stories. The cards showed student’s interest in the matter of using controversy in writing for news and investigative reporting.
Take-Away Cards:
Jesse: I think his point about aspiring writers reading any, and all good writing, is an important piece of advice.
Kate: I thought it was interesting that he said writing should be conversational and have voice, even in “objective,” straight news. It goes against the formula we are taught, but I agree it’s preferable.
Joe: Confidential sources will never be revealed. Keep your clips and notebooks, you will never know when you need them.
Britton: I was amazed at how much I enjoyed the lecture Even though he is a sports editor he was intelligent and well versed and had a lot of good advice.
Anonymous: I really enjoyed his investigative story stuff. It was really interesting how he got around anonymous sources.
Alex: I thought it was interesting that he said journalism was a young person’s career - it is uplifting.
Anonymous: I though he did a great job outlining his job.
Mike: The best writing comes from writers who make things sound controversial.
Beren: Defining the job you want to do rather than the job applied is more important, and taking a non-traditional approach.
Notes by Shane Goodrich
Discussion Leader: Rowan McKinnes
Rowan began his discussion asking the class if the hunger for news is currently greater than it has been in the past. Pat said that the hunger for news has grown now that you don’t have to go out of your way to get it. He said news is always at your fingertips with the Internet, using an example of Boston.com, which he uses as his homepage so he can always tell what is going on in his area.
Alyssa agreed with Pat, saying that she uses Facebook to send her friends news pieces. Another student said that technology makes it a lot easier to be specific for what kind of news you are interested in, rather than searching through a newspaper.
Rowan’s next question was based on Chris Stone’s belief that news is not dying, but that its delivery is changing. He asked if the class agreed with this idea. Aaron agreed with Stone, saying news will always be apart of our lives. He said that news delivery is probably going to change a lot in the next five to ten years, but it will never disappear.
Rowan brought up Chris Stone’s story on Alex Rodriguez, questioning if the public tend to believe whatever celebrities say because they are famous. One student said that he believed A-Rod’s story when he said the woman who wrote the story on his steroid use was stalking him. He said that it’s common for a celebrity to try to discredit the journalist who is writing stories that demean his or her character. Jesse agreed that people often blindly agree with celebrities, but said it is the job of a good investigative reporter to check if the celebrity’s story is factual. Another student said that she does not always agree with putting public figures in the news, like the huge buzz over Michael Phelps smoking marijuana.
Rowan questioned if the athletes salaries are the reason for allegations, some of which have been false. One student said that it makes the public feel less sorry for athletes because of the money they make. Rowan said he felt bad for A-Rod in his press conference, pointing out that he is still a human being, despite his large salary. Another student pointed out that A-Rod was cheating and should be exposed. He said that A-Rod, Bryant, and Phelps’ situations are all different and should be reported on differently. He followed up, saying A-Rod deserved to be called out. Alyssa said that athletes often feel they are above the law and try to see how far they can push the limits. She said that crimes like Michael Vick’s should be exposed. Aaron pointed out that steroids were not illegal at the time A-Rod was using them. He said allegations from the past, mixed with today’s emotions, makes situations look worse than they are.
Rowan thought it was unfair that players from the list of 104 remain anonymous while A-Rod is the only player brought to the public eye. A student said that there is no player bigger than A-Rod in baseball currently. He pointed out that he will break most batting records and probably be accepted in the Hall of Fame, despite being remembered for taking steroids during the 2003 season. Erin said a monumental story, like Sports Illustrated’s A-Rod story, is like a journalist’s steroid. She said journalism is a business, and a story of that magnitude can up a journalist’s name.
Pat said that baseball has been tainted because of players using steroids, and that it is important to expose the players. Aaron argued that Sports Illustrated compromised their integrity when they chose to only release one name, but did no other research on the other 103 players listed. Professor DuFresne pointed out that the only tip they got from their sources was about A-Rod. Another student said that if the choice came down to either publishing just one major story, or forfeiting the big story because no other players were identified, she would choose the story.
To finish off the discussion Professor DuFresne mentioned that a common defense of investigative reporting is that there are other news organizations working on the story as well.
The take-away cards talked about Stone’s optimism and the advice he gave for writing stories. The cards showed student’s interest in the matter of using controversy in writing for news and investigative reporting.
Take-Away Cards:
Jesse: I think his point about aspiring writers reading any, and all good writing, is an important piece of advice.
Kate: I thought it was interesting that he said writing should be conversational and have voice, even in “objective,” straight news. It goes against the formula we are taught, but I agree it’s preferable.
Joe: Confidential sources will never be revealed. Keep your clips and notebooks, you will never know when you need them.
Britton: I was amazed at how much I enjoyed the lecture Even though he is a sports editor he was intelligent and well versed and had a lot of good advice.
Anonymous: I really enjoyed his investigative story stuff. It was really interesting how he got around anonymous sources.
Alex: I thought it was interesting that he said journalism was a young person’s career - it is uplifting.
Anonymous: I though he did a great job outlining his job.
Mike: The best writing comes from writers who make things sound controversial.
Beren: Defining the job you want to do rather than the job applied is more important, and taking a non-traditional approach.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)