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.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
4/8 - Michelle Relerford Summary, Daniella Henry (Stephen Ortiz)
Speaker: Michelle Relerford
Notes by Daniella Henry
Discussion Leader: Stephen Ortiz
Stephen Ortiz’s discussion started off with serious concerns over whether
or not Boston's NBC affiliate anchor Michelle Relerford’s decision to
continue working during her pregnancy was a good one.
Emily Abbate thought it was weird that she was allowed to work because
she couldn’t recall seeing someone pregnant on camera. She also
questioned the station’s decision and wondered if the lack of pregnant
anchors or reporters on television had something to do with the
aesthetics that go along with broadcast.
Katie agreed and added that because people complained to the station, it
was weird that they would let her continue reporting instead of moving
her to a desk job. “What if she got hurt?” she said.
Another classmate said it was really odd that “she said she’d do it
again” in regards to reporting while pregnant.
Christine refuted and said she didn’t think it was a problem. As a
mother, Relerford wouldn’t put herself in danger and probably would have
drawn the line.
Some other students supported Christine’s prior statement by saying that
Relerford was still young and wanted to advance her career and that being
pregnant doesn’t mean that she’s incapacitated.
Alyssa wrote that it was nice that she had flexibility with her
pregnancy, but it was intimidating to hear how easily replaceable some
people may be.
Professor Dufresne mentioned that it was interesting that the male
students were defending Relerford’s choice while the female students had
issues with her decision.
Ortiz then asked if Relerford’s tough lifestyle was worth it.
Alyssa discussed how the hours she keeps ( 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.) were
interesting and the fact that she moves around a lot might not be
conducive to having a child. Professor Dufresne responded that her salary
allowed her to have an au pair.
One student commended her for providing a good life for her child with a
successful career instead of judging her career moves. Another student said that the most difficult part of her job was moving around but that it’s easier even desirable when you’re younger. Later on journalists can settle down and embrace job security. A classmate added that Relerford’s decision to move around seemed to have more to do with what jobs were available and not necessarily her desire to
travel.
The discussion shifted to the economy with a student saying that right now
in journalism you have to love your job and be really committed.
Finally, Ortiz asked if students going out into the workforce were more
cautious after this discussion.
Students responded that the difficulties in journalism were not new.
Starting part- time in low paying jobs even at places like the Hartford
Courant is a necessary evil in this business.
Professor Dufresne compared it to aspiring actors who unlike journalists
usually don’t have a base job to jump off from but did say that
entry-level jobs today are going to be more competitive.
The class notes consisted mostly of students interested in what Relerford
said about job placement and the fact that she moved around and the advice
that she provided for navigating a journalism career.
Take away cards summary:
Ortiz wrote that we never really talk about how poorly broadcast is doing.
B. Cox wrote that it was interesting to hear what work was like for
Relerford.
Amy Lockmiller wrote that she appreciated her insight into being pregnant and
being a mother while still pursuing a career because it’s definitely a
concern for any woman entering the workplace.
Emily Abbate thought it was interesting to see how secure Relerford was
with her job and wondered whether there was no chance she was getting laid
off or if she wasn’t aware of the possibility.
Kim Romanello thought Relerford gave a great presentation, although she
didn’t feel as though she learned anything new.
Eli Pearlstein wrote that the fact that this profession can wear
significantly on your personal life isn’t something that the other
speakers have addressed.
Christine Gratton wrote that her honesty about the toll the job takes on
your personal life was interesting and it seems like a long, hard road but
obviously worth it for her.
Scott Powell wrote that Relerford’s best advice was to be prepared to move
around in the broadcast business and to not be afraid to move to an area
for work because it could be a great opportunity not available anywhere
else.
Notes by Daniella Henry
Discussion Leader: Stephen Ortiz
Stephen Ortiz’s discussion started off with serious concerns over whether
or not Boston's NBC affiliate anchor Michelle Relerford’s decision to
continue working during her pregnancy was a good one.
Emily Abbate thought it was weird that she was allowed to work because
she couldn’t recall seeing someone pregnant on camera. She also
questioned the station’s decision and wondered if the lack of pregnant
anchors or reporters on television had something to do with the
aesthetics that go along with broadcast.
Katie agreed and added that because people complained to the station, it
was weird that they would let her continue reporting instead of moving
her to a desk job. “What if she got hurt?” she said.
Another classmate said it was really odd that “she said she’d do it
again” in regards to reporting while pregnant.
Christine refuted and said she didn’t think it was a problem. As a
mother, Relerford wouldn’t put herself in danger and probably would have
drawn the line.
Some other students supported Christine’s prior statement by saying that
Relerford was still young and wanted to advance her career and that being
pregnant doesn’t mean that she’s incapacitated.
Alyssa wrote that it was nice that she had flexibility with her
pregnancy, but it was intimidating to hear how easily replaceable some
people may be.
Professor Dufresne mentioned that it was interesting that the male
students were defending Relerford’s choice while the female students had
issues with her decision.
Ortiz then asked if Relerford’s tough lifestyle was worth it.
Alyssa discussed how the hours she keeps ( 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.) were
interesting and the fact that she moves around a lot might not be
conducive to having a child. Professor Dufresne responded that her salary
allowed her to have an au pair.
One student commended her for providing a good life for her child with a
successful career instead of judging her career moves. Another student said that the most difficult part of her job was moving around but that it’s easier even desirable when you’re younger. Later on journalists can settle down and embrace job security. A classmate added that Relerford’s decision to move around seemed to have more to do with what jobs were available and not necessarily her desire to
travel.
The discussion shifted to the economy with a student saying that right now
in journalism you have to love your job and be really committed.
Finally, Ortiz asked if students going out into the workforce were more
cautious after this discussion.
Students responded that the difficulties in journalism were not new.
Starting part- time in low paying jobs even at places like the Hartford
Courant is a necessary evil in this business.
Professor Dufresne compared it to aspiring actors who unlike journalists
usually don’t have a base job to jump off from but did say that
entry-level jobs today are going to be more competitive.
The class notes consisted mostly of students interested in what Relerford
said about job placement and the fact that she moved around and the advice
that she provided for navigating a journalism career.
Take away cards summary:
Ortiz wrote that we never really talk about how poorly broadcast is doing.
B. Cox wrote that it was interesting to hear what work was like for
Relerford.
Amy Lockmiller wrote that she appreciated her insight into being pregnant and
being a mother while still pursuing a career because it’s definitely a
concern for any woman entering the workplace.
Emily Abbate thought it was interesting to see how secure Relerford was
with her job and wondered whether there was no chance she was getting laid
off or if she wasn’t aware of the possibility.
Kim Romanello thought Relerford gave a great presentation, although she
didn’t feel as though she learned anything new.
Eli Pearlstein wrote that the fact that this profession can wear
significantly on your personal life isn’t something that the other
speakers have addressed.
Christine Gratton wrote that her honesty about the toll the job takes on
your personal life was interesting and it seems like a long, hard road but
obviously worth it for her.
Scott Powell wrote that Relerford’s best advice was to be prepared to move
around in the broadcast business and to not be afraid to move to an area
for work because it could be a great opportunity not available anywhere
else.
4/8 - Michelle Relerford Summary, Christine Gratton (Erin O'Toole)
Speaker: Michelle Relerford
Notes by Christine Gratton
Discussion Leader: Erin O'Toole
Departing greatly from the recent string of print-based speakers, Boston news anchor and University of Connecticut grad Michelle Releford casually and candidly shared her experience working in the broadcast-news business. Void of past speaker’s emphasis on heavy-hitting economic issues and questions of the future role of journalism digitally, Releford presented a realistic portrait of the personally taxing long road one needs to forge to reach success in broadcast.
Yet throughout her talk, some “alarming” realities in the TV news industry became increasingly apparent, especially when compared to traditional print journalism. Erin O’Toole based the first part of her discussion segment on this observation. She harped back to Releford’s comment that TV news stories really have no limits in content or delivery as long as they aren’t controversial enough to beckon a lawsuit (or as Releford put it, “If you don’t get sued, it’s OK”). Erin asked the class what their reactions were to this blunt statement.
Joe responded first, saying that he was “shocked” to hear that this is the only ethical standard that broadcasters like Releford need to abide by. He believed that by doing so, broadcasters are completely disregarding their journalistic duty to minimize harm. In the fight to get ratings, he said, it is appalling that this principle gets thrown out the window.
But Brendan played devil’s advocate, citing the fast-paced nature of TV news as the ultimate culprit. He said that at a station like Releford’s, where there are five or six newscasts everyday, there’s limited time to thoughtfully weigh any ethical dilemmas. As long as you’re being sensitive and not breaking the law, he said, the story should ethically suffice. The class seemed to agree with this.
Erin then moved to another ethical “red flag” in Releford’s talk—the fact that reporters become desensitized after witnessing and reporting on tragedy after horrific tragedy.
Emily said she thought it was strange that someone could be so numb to such harsh subject-matter.
Joe agreed, and added that he was even more disheartened to hear that reporters actually joke about real stories of death and destruction—that this “dark humor” really goes on in the newsroom.But another student countered, saying that joking like this wasn’t a reflection of the reporter as a person, but more a coping mechanism they use to get through the job.
Erin then interjected to ask if this desensitization was only true because of the visual nature of TV, or if print journalists fall victim to becoming numb, too.
One student said that “to survive in this industry, you must have a tough skin,” both in print and TV.
Beren noted that becoming numb is inevitable after a lot of exposure to gritty tragedies, and further pointed out that this is true of many occupations—people serving in the military, police officers, nurses, etc. Another student continued this thought, saying that it doesn’t exclude one’s sense of humanity to be humorous about a tragedy.
Others agreed that this defense mechanism of detaching oneself from the harsh and gruesome realities of reporting only in turn allows you to more effectively do the job everyday, and as long as you show compassion and sympathy to the people the tragedy affects, desensitization, and even humor, are ultimately OK.
Professor Dufresne then shared his own, similar experience at a newsroom he worked in whose staff morbidly joked by placing bets on when selected people would die. The “dead pool” was shocking to him at first, but ultimately he learned that removing oneself from reality is necessary to some degree, as constant exposure to doom and gloom eventually takes an emotional toll. But he warned us that it is important to ultimately come out of this stage with wisdom about human nature, and not remain completely jaded and callous forever.
Erin then directed the discussion towards the importance of appearance in broadcast. When asked during the talk if beauty equates to success in the world of TV news, Releford said that being well-put-together was all that mattered, not being beautiful. Erin then posed the same question to the class: how much does appearance really matter?
One student believed that Releford had downplayed its importance entirely, and gave an example that she has never seen an overweight female news anchor on TV. To her, appearance will always be an issue with women broadcasters.
Erin agreed, noting that contracts will even include a specific weight the broadcaster needs to keep, or a certain hair color she must maintain throughout.
Another student added that even in our broadcast journalism classes here at UConn, professors spend a significant amount of class time talking about TV reporters’ appearance, thus obviously verifying its importance in the industry.
More continued to agree, and Pat even noted that a TV anchor not looking presentable on-air is like a newspaper reporter using a crazy font in a story; neither will be taken seriously.
Someone then asked if it could be possible that a normal viewer wants to see a normal-looking anchor? But the class responded with a definitive “no;” people want to watch these “infobabes,” as Professor Dufresne dubbed them.
Attractiveness, Alyssa concluded, is associated with being smarter and more competent, so people naturally want to watch good-looking anchors.
Another topic touched on lightly in Erin’s discussion was the issue of Releford’s job stability in light of the current economic rollercoaster ride. Releford called the economic situation “very real” and “really bad,” Erin said, but she hasn’t seen any layoffs. Erin asked the class if they were concerned by this statement
.
Amy thought Releford’s statements didn’t add up, and were simply “bizarre,” and Emily agreed that Releford was definitely “missing something.” Emily continued to say that Releford’s station being owned by a private company provides a bubble from the current situation, but not reality (Releford’s station is an affiliate of NBC owned by a private company, Sunbeam Inc., and not NBC Universal Inc.).
Here, Professor Dufresne pointed out that Releford’s contract didn’t end until 2010, giving her at least temporary job security. The real question, he said, should have been if she was nervous for when it ended.
Jesse concluded that it’s reassuring to know that there’s more job safety in broadcast when your station is owned by a private company rather than by a major network. Everyone seemed to agree.
The take-away cards ranged from four major aspects of Releford’s talk: the aforementioned ethical concerns of desensitization and lax limitations on story content, the amount of travel necessary in broadcast, Releford’s clarification of different-sized market standards, and issues concerning her personal life, character and salary.
TAKE-AWAYS:
• Beren Jones: “If ya don’t get sued, it’s pretty much OK.” That seems markedly different than the previous speakers.
• Joe Callahan: It’s easy to become desensitized to negative news with constant exposure. When reporting, make it seem natural and that viewers are interested.
• Aaron Roy: The ability to travel around the country seems appealing.
• Amanda Wisniowsky: I was surprised about how much moving around Michelle did throughout her career.
• Britton Taylor: I think it was really interesting how Michelle talked about the different markets making reporters do more/less tasks.
• Patrick Swidler: After seeing her on Channel 7 in Boston, it was nice to see her and hear her speak in person. My favorite aspect of the presentation was her advice regarding the different markets and what it takes to make it in each respective market.
• No name: I thought she brought a fresh perspective on her job and working in broadcast.
• Jesse Grab: I thought that her most interesting comments were about how her job has affected her personal life and that this is a realistic concern.
• Alex Sanders: It is discouraging to hear stories of a $15,000 salary and not enough money to pay bills. The world of journalism does not look promising.
Notes by Christine Gratton
Discussion Leader: Erin O'Toole
Departing greatly from the recent string of print-based speakers, Boston news anchor and University of Connecticut grad Michelle Releford casually and candidly shared her experience working in the broadcast-news business. Void of past speaker’s emphasis on heavy-hitting economic issues and questions of the future role of journalism digitally, Releford presented a realistic portrait of the personally taxing long road one needs to forge to reach success in broadcast.
Yet throughout her talk, some “alarming” realities in the TV news industry became increasingly apparent, especially when compared to traditional print journalism. Erin O’Toole based the first part of her discussion segment on this observation. She harped back to Releford’s comment that TV news stories really have no limits in content or delivery as long as they aren’t controversial enough to beckon a lawsuit (or as Releford put it, “If you don’t get sued, it’s OK”). Erin asked the class what their reactions were to this blunt statement.
Joe responded first, saying that he was “shocked” to hear that this is the only ethical standard that broadcasters like Releford need to abide by. He believed that by doing so, broadcasters are completely disregarding their journalistic duty to minimize harm. In the fight to get ratings, he said, it is appalling that this principle gets thrown out the window.
But Brendan played devil’s advocate, citing the fast-paced nature of TV news as the ultimate culprit. He said that at a station like Releford’s, where there are five or six newscasts everyday, there’s limited time to thoughtfully weigh any ethical dilemmas. As long as you’re being sensitive and not breaking the law, he said, the story should ethically suffice. The class seemed to agree with this.
Erin then moved to another ethical “red flag” in Releford’s talk—the fact that reporters become desensitized after witnessing and reporting on tragedy after horrific tragedy.
Emily said she thought it was strange that someone could be so numb to such harsh subject-matter.
Joe agreed, and added that he was even more disheartened to hear that reporters actually joke about real stories of death and destruction—that this “dark humor” really goes on in the newsroom.But another student countered, saying that joking like this wasn’t a reflection of the reporter as a person, but more a coping mechanism they use to get through the job.
Erin then interjected to ask if this desensitization was only true because of the visual nature of TV, or if print journalists fall victim to becoming numb, too.
One student said that “to survive in this industry, you must have a tough skin,” both in print and TV.
Beren noted that becoming numb is inevitable after a lot of exposure to gritty tragedies, and further pointed out that this is true of many occupations—people serving in the military, police officers, nurses, etc. Another student continued this thought, saying that it doesn’t exclude one’s sense of humanity to be humorous about a tragedy.
Others agreed that this defense mechanism of detaching oneself from the harsh and gruesome realities of reporting only in turn allows you to more effectively do the job everyday, and as long as you show compassion and sympathy to the people the tragedy affects, desensitization, and even humor, are ultimately OK.
Professor Dufresne then shared his own, similar experience at a newsroom he worked in whose staff morbidly joked by placing bets on when selected people would die. The “dead pool” was shocking to him at first, but ultimately he learned that removing oneself from reality is necessary to some degree, as constant exposure to doom and gloom eventually takes an emotional toll. But he warned us that it is important to ultimately come out of this stage with wisdom about human nature, and not remain completely jaded and callous forever.
Erin then directed the discussion towards the importance of appearance in broadcast. When asked during the talk if beauty equates to success in the world of TV news, Releford said that being well-put-together was all that mattered, not being beautiful. Erin then posed the same question to the class: how much does appearance really matter?
One student believed that Releford had downplayed its importance entirely, and gave an example that she has never seen an overweight female news anchor on TV. To her, appearance will always be an issue with women broadcasters.
Erin agreed, noting that contracts will even include a specific weight the broadcaster needs to keep, or a certain hair color she must maintain throughout.
Another student added that even in our broadcast journalism classes here at UConn, professors spend a significant amount of class time talking about TV reporters’ appearance, thus obviously verifying its importance in the industry.
More continued to agree, and Pat even noted that a TV anchor not looking presentable on-air is like a newspaper reporter using a crazy font in a story; neither will be taken seriously.
Someone then asked if it could be possible that a normal viewer wants to see a normal-looking anchor? But the class responded with a definitive “no;” people want to watch these “infobabes,” as Professor Dufresne dubbed them.
Attractiveness, Alyssa concluded, is associated with being smarter and more competent, so people naturally want to watch good-looking anchors.
Another topic touched on lightly in Erin’s discussion was the issue of Releford’s job stability in light of the current economic rollercoaster ride. Releford called the economic situation “very real” and “really bad,” Erin said, but she hasn’t seen any layoffs. Erin asked the class if they were concerned by this statement
.
Amy thought Releford’s statements didn’t add up, and were simply “bizarre,” and Emily agreed that Releford was definitely “missing something.” Emily continued to say that Releford’s station being owned by a private company provides a bubble from the current situation, but not reality (Releford’s station is an affiliate of NBC owned by a private company, Sunbeam Inc., and not NBC Universal Inc.).
Here, Professor Dufresne pointed out that Releford’s contract didn’t end until 2010, giving her at least temporary job security. The real question, he said, should have been if she was nervous for when it ended.
Jesse concluded that it’s reassuring to know that there’s more job safety in broadcast when your station is owned by a private company rather than by a major network. Everyone seemed to agree.
The take-away cards ranged from four major aspects of Releford’s talk: the aforementioned ethical concerns of desensitization and lax limitations on story content, the amount of travel necessary in broadcast, Releford’s clarification of different-sized market standards, and issues concerning her personal life, character and salary.
TAKE-AWAYS:
• Beren Jones: “If ya don’t get sued, it’s pretty much OK.” That seems markedly different than the previous speakers.
• Joe Callahan: It’s easy to become desensitized to negative news with constant exposure. When reporting, make it seem natural and that viewers are interested.
• Aaron Roy: The ability to travel around the country seems appealing.
• Amanda Wisniowsky: I was surprised about how much moving around Michelle did throughout her career.
• Britton Taylor: I think it was really interesting how Michelle talked about the different markets making reporters do more/less tasks.
• Patrick Swidler: After seeing her on Channel 7 in Boston, it was nice to see her and hear her speak in person. My favorite aspect of the presentation was her advice regarding the different markets and what it takes to make it in each respective market.
• No name: I thought she brought a fresh perspective on her job and working in broadcast.
• Jesse Grab: I thought that her most interesting comments were about how her job has affected her personal life and that this is a realistic concern.
• Alex Sanders: It is discouraging to hear stories of a $15,000 salary and not enough money to pay bills. The world of journalism does not look promising.
3/25 - Deb Berry Summary, Joseph Callahan (Kate Monohan)
Speaker Deb Berry
Notes by Joe Callahan
Discussion Leader: Amy Lockmiller
Deb Berry provided the class with an overview of what it’s like to be a free lancing travel writer, with two kids and an inconsistent income. Deb talked about how Lake Winnipesaukee is different in the winter and the summer, how Kansas is an underrated tourist destination, and why travel writing can be a hassle sometimes. However the key points of her presentation were clear: free lancing is becoming more and difficult. Our discussion focused on the main challenges facing a free lancing writer, specifically a free lancing travel writer.
The first point of discussion Mary brought up was about trusting major corporations who own magazines. Can we trust that a major corporation, such as Disney, will print fair and accurate stories? The consensus among the class was that it depends. One student thought it would be up to the reader to make the decision to trust the publication or not. Another student said that readers would just blindly follow the publication, not questioning where the material came from. Major corporations and the pressure they put on writers was a common topic in the take-away cards, which are summarized in the final paragraphs.
Mary then asked the question: Would it damage Deb’s credibility if she wrote about the ‘behind the scenes’ of her travel reporting on her blog? This question seemed to have an obvious answer. Only two students answered, both thought it would damage her credibility and be a detriment to her career as a freelancer.
The third question dealt with whether it was ethical to promote the names of the lodges, hotels and spas that Deb stays in. Obviously, it is necessary to give the name of a hotel or spa if the reporter is writing a review. But is it necessary when Deb writes for the New Hampshire guidebook? Should she give the names of each restaurant she went to? Or should she just describe the type of activities available to tourists in the state?
One student brought up a great point about the main difference between the summer and winter Lake Winnipesaukee stories. He said the winter story was the better of the two because it did not name names; it simply described the activities and destinations in the area. A review can name names, but a publication such as a guidebook may just be free advertising for a local company.
The fourth question garnered the most responses. Mary asked whether it was acceptable for the magazine to dictate what Deb could and could not wear on television. The overwhelming consensus was that it is a very necessary part of the job. One student pointed out that image is everything when it comes to credibility. The magazine doesn’t want someone representing them to go on television and distort their image. Another student pointed out that it was important to note that Deb was on television representing the magazine, not Deb Berry the person.
Not only is the magazine’s credibility affected by Deb appearing on television, its business is affected as well. If Deb were to wear a black shirt and dark makeup, one student said, then it would negatively affect the magazine’s business. Readers would view the magazine in a negative light. And in the journalism business, credibility is vital to any publication’s relationship with readers.
The last two questions were similar, both focused on whether it was realistic to free lance during a time when newspapers are suffering financially. The first of the two questions dealt with whether it is realistic for Deb to continue to pay for her family during her trips if she didn’t have a spouse with a steady income. Because pay for free lancers is not good, one student said, Deb couldn’t pay for her kids on her inconsistent income alone. Free lancers need another source of income. A second job and a spouse’s income were two solutions brought up in our discussion.
The final question specifically dealt with the business-side of free lancers. Should newspapers and publications continue to pay free lancers for their stories? One student brought up a great point that free lancers will become “one man bands” and potentially could make more money that way. Two students brought up similar points that newspapers and magazines may turn to free lancers to save money. As reporting jobs continue to disappear, publications may decide it’s best to cut reporting jobs and increase the number of free lancer stories they publish.
One student brought up a point that may be the most realistic future for free lancers. Reporters and writers may stay away from free lancing because it demands a lot of time and travel. Also, it isn’t worth the little money free lancers earn per story, or per word. Free lancing may soon become extinct because newspapers and magazines simply can’t afford to continue to pay them.
The take-away cards covered a lot of topics from Deb’s presentation. There were three common points among the cards; conflict of interest, money/time and how they affect free lancing/travel writing, and the ethics of writing among corporate influence.
The most common of the three points dealt with conflict of interest. Steven said that it’s tough to remain objective after staying in a place that pampered you for the night. Chase also wrote about conflict of interest. He said there is a heightened potential for conflict of interest when television appearances serve as free advertising for the magazine and magazine articles serve as free promotion for the destinations. I wrote travel writers must be careful not to get caught up in all of the “freebies.” It could lead to biased reporting.
Alex and Mike both wrote about expenses and time and how they affect free lance writing, specifically travel writing. Mike said writers are forced to stay at places that will pay for their expenses because money is tight. Alex said if writers were given more time to write the articles and more money to travel, then more writers could break into the free lancing business.
There were two sides to the ethics topic; some students thought Deb handled her ethics well and some students thought she did not. One student wrote Deb maintained her ethics in an economy where thinking of your own personal gain is becoming more common. Scott wrote it is important to not obsess over the demands of a corporation. Amy thought Deb’s “it is what it is” attitude about corporate pressure was surprising. Amy wonders if this is a reality aspiring writers will have to face upon entering the business.
Free lance writing, specifically travel writing, is a popular “dream job” for many journalists. Deb said she receives many emails from people who “would love to go to Florida and write about the hotels and restaurants there.” However, a publication can’t afford to take the chance on a writer with no credentials. This fact alone paints a troubling picture for the future of free lance writing.
Mike Northup – In an ideal world, the publisher would pay for all travel expenses, but since most can’t even afford to repay for mileage, then you are forced, as a writer, to find places that will subsidize your expenses.
Alexandra Sanders- It seems like not many people who have families or no second job are able to travel write. Ideally, pay and time would be better so more writers have the opportunity to break into this aspect of the business.
Chase Carnot- Television appearances are free advertising for the magazine. And the magazine stories are free promotion for the destinations. And corporate pressure is added under the guise of synergy. There’s a lot of potential for conflict of interest.
Stephen Ortiz- Travel journalism is tough – you’re pressured into writing about a place that just pampered you for a night, but still remaining objective.
Scott Powell – I thought Deb’s advice on not getting obsessed about the demands of a corporation, was good. It is important to not take criticism personal, rather use it to make your writing better. But what does that say about the advice from the Freedman reading suggesting to take chances and stand up for what you believe in- Stand your ground.
No name- It’s nice to see a journalist doing her own thing in today’s economy/world, yet still maintaining her ethics.
Amy Lockmiller- I was surprised about her “it is what it is” attitude about corporate sponsorship and corporate pressure. Is this a reality that we are just going to have to deal with?
Joe Callahan- Show imitative as a free lancer, but be ready to compromise. And credibility is just as key in free lancing as it is in newspaper reporting.
Shane Goodrich- Freelance writing can be an exciting career allowing a journalist to write about a variety of topics but allows no steady pay-check. Connections are very important.
Alyssa Carroll- It’s nice to see the flexibility of freelance writing, and to see how it can adapt with your lifestyle.
Emily Abbate- I was very surprised to hear that her average freelance piece only runs at about 350 words tops. The pieces I write are generally 1600 words!!
Rowan McInnes- I think its cool how Ms. Berry can involve her own family in her work by taking them with her to all the different pieces she writes about.
Notes by Joe Callahan
Discussion Leader: Amy Lockmiller
Deb Berry provided the class with an overview of what it’s like to be a free lancing travel writer, with two kids and an inconsistent income. Deb talked about how Lake Winnipesaukee is different in the winter and the summer, how Kansas is an underrated tourist destination, and why travel writing can be a hassle sometimes. However the key points of her presentation were clear: free lancing is becoming more and difficult. Our discussion focused on the main challenges facing a free lancing writer, specifically a free lancing travel writer.
The first point of discussion Mary brought up was about trusting major corporations who own magazines. Can we trust that a major corporation, such as Disney, will print fair and accurate stories? The consensus among the class was that it depends. One student thought it would be up to the reader to make the decision to trust the publication or not. Another student said that readers would just blindly follow the publication, not questioning where the material came from. Major corporations and the pressure they put on writers was a common topic in the take-away cards, which are summarized in the final paragraphs.
Mary then asked the question: Would it damage Deb’s credibility if she wrote about the ‘behind the scenes’ of her travel reporting on her blog? This question seemed to have an obvious answer. Only two students answered, both thought it would damage her credibility and be a detriment to her career as a freelancer.
The third question dealt with whether it was ethical to promote the names of the lodges, hotels and spas that Deb stays in. Obviously, it is necessary to give the name of a hotel or spa if the reporter is writing a review. But is it necessary when Deb writes for the New Hampshire guidebook? Should she give the names of each restaurant she went to? Or should she just describe the type of activities available to tourists in the state?
One student brought up a great point about the main difference between the summer and winter Lake Winnipesaukee stories. He said the winter story was the better of the two because it did not name names; it simply described the activities and destinations in the area. A review can name names, but a publication such as a guidebook may just be free advertising for a local company.
The fourth question garnered the most responses. Mary asked whether it was acceptable for the magazine to dictate what Deb could and could not wear on television. The overwhelming consensus was that it is a very necessary part of the job. One student pointed out that image is everything when it comes to credibility. The magazine doesn’t want someone representing them to go on television and distort their image. Another student pointed out that it was important to note that Deb was on television representing the magazine, not Deb Berry the person.
Not only is the magazine’s credibility affected by Deb appearing on television, its business is affected as well. If Deb were to wear a black shirt and dark makeup, one student said, then it would negatively affect the magazine’s business. Readers would view the magazine in a negative light. And in the journalism business, credibility is vital to any publication’s relationship with readers.
The last two questions were similar, both focused on whether it was realistic to free lance during a time when newspapers are suffering financially. The first of the two questions dealt with whether it is realistic for Deb to continue to pay for her family during her trips if she didn’t have a spouse with a steady income. Because pay for free lancers is not good, one student said, Deb couldn’t pay for her kids on her inconsistent income alone. Free lancers need another source of income. A second job and a spouse’s income were two solutions brought up in our discussion.
The final question specifically dealt with the business-side of free lancers. Should newspapers and publications continue to pay free lancers for their stories? One student brought up a great point that free lancers will become “one man bands” and potentially could make more money that way. Two students brought up similar points that newspapers and magazines may turn to free lancers to save money. As reporting jobs continue to disappear, publications may decide it’s best to cut reporting jobs and increase the number of free lancer stories they publish.
One student brought up a point that may be the most realistic future for free lancers. Reporters and writers may stay away from free lancing because it demands a lot of time and travel. Also, it isn’t worth the little money free lancers earn per story, or per word. Free lancing may soon become extinct because newspapers and magazines simply can’t afford to continue to pay them.
The take-away cards covered a lot of topics from Deb’s presentation. There were three common points among the cards; conflict of interest, money/time and how they affect free lancing/travel writing, and the ethics of writing among corporate influence.
The most common of the three points dealt with conflict of interest. Steven said that it’s tough to remain objective after staying in a place that pampered you for the night. Chase also wrote about conflict of interest. He said there is a heightened potential for conflict of interest when television appearances serve as free advertising for the magazine and magazine articles serve as free promotion for the destinations. I wrote travel writers must be careful not to get caught up in all of the “freebies.” It could lead to biased reporting.
Alex and Mike both wrote about expenses and time and how they affect free lance writing, specifically travel writing. Mike said writers are forced to stay at places that will pay for their expenses because money is tight. Alex said if writers were given more time to write the articles and more money to travel, then more writers could break into the free lancing business.
There were two sides to the ethics topic; some students thought Deb handled her ethics well and some students thought she did not. One student wrote Deb maintained her ethics in an economy where thinking of your own personal gain is becoming more common. Scott wrote it is important to not obsess over the demands of a corporation. Amy thought Deb’s “it is what it is” attitude about corporate pressure was surprising. Amy wonders if this is a reality aspiring writers will have to face upon entering the business.
Free lance writing, specifically travel writing, is a popular “dream job” for many journalists. Deb said she receives many emails from people who “would love to go to Florida and write about the hotels and restaurants there.” However, a publication can’t afford to take the chance on a writer with no credentials. This fact alone paints a troubling picture for the future of free lance writing.
Mike Northup – In an ideal world, the publisher would pay for all travel expenses, but since most can’t even afford to repay for mileage, then you are forced, as a writer, to find places that will subsidize your expenses.
Alexandra Sanders- It seems like not many people who have families or no second job are able to travel write. Ideally, pay and time would be better so more writers have the opportunity to break into this aspect of the business.
Chase Carnot- Television appearances are free advertising for the magazine. And the magazine stories are free promotion for the destinations. And corporate pressure is added under the guise of synergy. There’s a lot of potential for conflict of interest.
Stephen Ortiz- Travel journalism is tough – you’re pressured into writing about a place that just pampered you for a night, but still remaining objective.
Scott Powell – I thought Deb’s advice on not getting obsessed about the demands of a corporation, was good. It is important to not take criticism personal, rather use it to make your writing better. But what does that say about the advice from the Freedman reading suggesting to take chances and stand up for what you believe in- Stand your ground.
No name- It’s nice to see a journalist doing her own thing in today’s economy/world, yet still maintaining her ethics.
Amy Lockmiller- I was surprised about her “it is what it is” attitude about corporate sponsorship and corporate pressure. Is this a reality that we are just going to have to deal with?
Joe Callahan- Show imitative as a free lancer, but be ready to compromise. And credibility is just as key in free lancing as it is in newspaper reporting.
Shane Goodrich- Freelance writing can be an exciting career allowing a journalist to write about a variety of topics but allows no steady pay-check. Connections are very important.
Alyssa Carroll- It’s nice to see the flexibility of freelance writing, and to see how it can adapt with your lifestyle.
Emily Abbate- I was very surprised to hear that her average freelance piece only runs at about 350 words tops. The pieces I write are generally 1600 words!!
Rowan McInnes- I think its cool how Ms. Berry can involve her own family in her work by taking them with her to all the different pieces she writes about.
3/25 - Deb Berry Summary, Emily Abbate (Amy Lockmiller)
Speaker Deb Berry
Notes by Emily Abbate
Discussion Leader: Amy Lockmiller
Amy was the first person to lead discussion after Deborah Geigis Berry, Freelance travel writer and TV features reporter specializing in travel and families. She opened up her discussion by asking the class about their perspectives on the online articles. Specifically, Lockmiller noted that there were not many negatives listed in her articles about the different travel locations. Lockmiller questioned “If this specific to magazine writing or is this also happening in news writing?” She challenged the class to speak their minds on this aspect of Berry’s job.
Christine Gratton felt that the audience Berry is trying to reach through her style of writing is much different than a news audience. Berry, according to Gratton, is trying to reach moms looking for good vacations for their families, and noted that all readers should take her style with a grain of salt.
Patrick Swidler made an important point and agreed with Gratton’s concepts; He reminded the class that Berry only has 300 words to convey the messages in her articles about the important aspects of each location. He said that it’s more important to tell the audience about the good aspects of each place.
Erin O’Toole combated Swidler’s point, saying that it is important to deliver the facts about the locations she’s reporting on. O’Toole said that there shouldn’t be a reason to bribe your children with candy to go to a certain location. If your kids are bored and complaining, then she thinks that the article needs to address this point, and not the nice bars and restaurants if they aren’t family friendly.
Lockmiller switched gears with her discussion working off of O’Toole’s point, asking the class if her type of journalism serves more of a public relations function than journalism.
Gratton replied that Berry’s family might be different than some others. She said that although her son may like trees, others might like apples. The class found comedy in her points.
Alyssa Carroll says there is a way to go about a freelancing job delivering the necessities of an article while remaining concise and to the point. She said that a helpful thing for Berry could have been to write that her daughter, who is older like a certain location but her younger son did not. This style of writing would give more information to the reader and lean away from the public relations side of travel journalism.
At this point in the conversation, Professor Dufresne pointed out that Berry wears a number of different hats in her line of work, depending on what publication she is writing for. He says that when writing a sponsored piece, she is paid to do it for a travel publication. Yet, when she did the lake story for the courant, it was more realistic. He concludes his interjection by noting that when she's writing for something that’s more journalistic than a "squeaky clean" publication, her travel pieces can be a bit more textured.
Lockmiller took over the discussion by asking what standards professional seminar students would hold travel writers to, with regard to ethics. Lockmiller believes that they are obviously different than other areas of journalism.
Swidler followed up Lockiller’s question by saying standards can be very different for freelancing and travel writing. He says that she's doing the job that they asked her to do. In her line of work, he says, she doesn't have to maintain an unbiased opinion; They just want a sugarcoated appearance of a family having a good time. In his scenario, he uses maple syrup farm as an example.
Lockmiller continues the conversation by asking about the use of the Society of Professional Journalist code of ethics and travel writing. She asked the class if it is necessary to use all of these standards in these pieces, and if it would hinder your writing style.
Swidler says that ultimately journalists might be limiting themselves if they adhere to these standards.
O’Toole agreed with this point, and advised for students to stay away from limiting themselves, as well as use the atmosphere your in to your advantage. She suggested showing pictures of families having fun and enjoying the travel destination.
Gratton chimed in, saying that Family Fun magazine is not on newsstands. She says its subscription based and the families that subscribe will be interested in her personal audience. Gratton continues by saying that normal people aren't flying anywhere for recreation anymore in this economy and understands that it is hard to make a living off of travel writing. Because of this, she thinks that bending the rules sometimes in Berry’s line of work in understandable.
Lockmiller then brought up another important point that initiated some new participants in class discussion. She asked about the concept of freebies in travel and freelance journalism, and accused the class of being desensitized to this ethical dilemma in journalism. Her most notable accusation was asking the class if they were living in a “box with their morals.”
Beren Jones was the first to respond. Jones commented that it depends on the venue, type of travel or food and music writing. “When you're reviewing something you have to go there,” said Jones. “If you don't have the money to do it and they can give it to you for free, then why not. If you're writing about a musician you don't have to pay for them then it makes it easier. I believe there's a different standard for different venues.”
Mike Northup expanded upon Jones’ point, by commenting on the business aspects of journalism. He said that newspapers, magazines and other places have a small amount of money to work with in this economy. He continued by saying that the stories themselves are going to dry up if it is on the reporter to fund it on themselves.
O’Toole commented that it sounds some people, because of the economy, are selling out sometimes. Berry is a freelance writer and needs to pay her bills just like the rest of America.
Lockmiller concluded the discussion by bringing in some of her personal experience. She comments on her family life, where her father is in the corporate world and within his occupation, he is only allowed to accept freebies up to $25. She noted that it was interesting to her that Berry can accept all of these different travel accommodations. Journalists are supposed to, Lockmiller says, hold themselves to such high ethical standards.
The majority of the take-away cards talked about living as a freelancer. Whereas some individuals thought the freelancing was an interesting and exciting way to make a living in the journalism field, others felt as if it was slightly questionable. Where Deb Berry had the opportunity to take different trips as a travel writer, one individual within our class felt it was odd that she was constantly writing pieces with advertising and marketing of different locations in mind. Within class discussion,
Take Away Cards
Amanda Wisuiowski: I was surprised about how freelancers are able to adapt their writing with their interests.
Daniella Henry: I found her information on query letters really helpful.
Kim Romanello: Deb was very energetic and informative about freelance writing. IT was very interesting to hear about how she got into her line of work.
Kate Monohan: Freelancing sounds really good, but the reality is it seems difficult without a spouse with a steady job.
Erin O’Toole: Deb Berry’s job seems very interesting but I do not agree with a lot of what she has to do to get a story. Especially with the New Hampshire story leaving out real life family details, it seems bias in a way.
Patrick Swidler: I thought her advice for networking and maintaining credibility was very helpful. She certainly holds a great perspective on her career and that attitude makes her presentation all the more interesting.
Britton Taylor: I think the most important part of this discussion was how almost every piece she does advertising or marketing in it.
Jesse Grab: The most important information for me was her advice on freelance writing, mostly because it comes from someone who’s seen success there.
Beren Jones: Surviving in the cut throat world of freelance work requires one to be constantly looking for new creative opportunities.
Christine Gratton: It really hit home how many avenues you have to “attack” as a freelancer to make a living - have to be an expert and use your core skills to market yourself.
Notes by Emily Abbate
Discussion Leader: Amy Lockmiller
Amy was the first person to lead discussion after Deborah Geigis Berry, Freelance travel writer and TV features reporter specializing in travel and families. She opened up her discussion by asking the class about their perspectives on the online articles. Specifically, Lockmiller noted that there were not many negatives listed in her articles about the different travel locations. Lockmiller questioned “If this specific to magazine writing or is this also happening in news writing?” She challenged the class to speak their minds on this aspect of Berry’s job.
Christine Gratton felt that the audience Berry is trying to reach through her style of writing is much different than a news audience. Berry, according to Gratton, is trying to reach moms looking for good vacations for their families, and noted that all readers should take her style with a grain of salt.
Patrick Swidler made an important point and agreed with Gratton’s concepts; He reminded the class that Berry only has 300 words to convey the messages in her articles about the important aspects of each location. He said that it’s more important to tell the audience about the good aspects of each place.
Erin O’Toole combated Swidler’s point, saying that it is important to deliver the facts about the locations she’s reporting on. O’Toole said that there shouldn’t be a reason to bribe your children with candy to go to a certain location. If your kids are bored and complaining, then she thinks that the article needs to address this point, and not the nice bars and restaurants if they aren’t family friendly.
Lockmiller switched gears with her discussion working off of O’Toole’s point, asking the class if her type of journalism serves more of a public relations function than journalism.
Gratton replied that Berry’s family might be different than some others. She said that although her son may like trees, others might like apples. The class found comedy in her points.
Alyssa Carroll says there is a way to go about a freelancing job delivering the necessities of an article while remaining concise and to the point. She said that a helpful thing for Berry could have been to write that her daughter, who is older like a certain location but her younger son did not. This style of writing would give more information to the reader and lean away from the public relations side of travel journalism.
At this point in the conversation, Professor Dufresne pointed out that Berry wears a number of different hats in her line of work, depending on what publication she is writing for. He says that when writing a sponsored piece, she is paid to do it for a travel publication. Yet, when she did the lake story for the courant, it was more realistic. He concludes his interjection by noting that when she's writing for something that’s more journalistic than a "squeaky clean" publication, her travel pieces can be a bit more textured.
Lockmiller took over the discussion by asking what standards professional seminar students would hold travel writers to, with regard to ethics. Lockmiller believes that they are obviously different than other areas of journalism.
Swidler followed up Lockiller’s question by saying standards can be very different for freelancing and travel writing. He says that she's doing the job that they asked her to do. In her line of work, he says, she doesn't have to maintain an unbiased opinion; They just want a sugarcoated appearance of a family having a good time. In his scenario, he uses maple syrup farm as an example.
Lockmiller continues the conversation by asking about the use of the Society of Professional Journalist code of ethics and travel writing. She asked the class if it is necessary to use all of these standards in these pieces, and if it would hinder your writing style.
Swidler says that ultimately journalists might be limiting themselves if they adhere to these standards.
O’Toole agreed with this point, and advised for students to stay away from limiting themselves, as well as use the atmosphere your in to your advantage. She suggested showing pictures of families having fun and enjoying the travel destination.
Gratton chimed in, saying that Family Fun magazine is not on newsstands. She says its subscription based and the families that subscribe will be interested in her personal audience. Gratton continues by saying that normal people aren't flying anywhere for recreation anymore in this economy and understands that it is hard to make a living off of travel writing. Because of this, she thinks that bending the rules sometimes in Berry’s line of work in understandable.
Lockmiller then brought up another important point that initiated some new participants in class discussion. She asked about the concept of freebies in travel and freelance journalism, and accused the class of being desensitized to this ethical dilemma in journalism. Her most notable accusation was asking the class if they were living in a “box with their morals.”
Beren Jones was the first to respond. Jones commented that it depends on the venue, type of travel or food and music writing. “When you're reviewing something you have to go there,” said Jones. “If you don't have the money to do it and they can give it to you for free, then why not. If you're writing about a musician you don't have to pay for them then it makes it easier. I believe there's a different standard for different venues.”
Mike Northup expanded upon Jones’ point, by commenting on the business aspects of journalism. He said that newspapers, magazines and other places have a small amount of money to work with in this economy. He continued by saying that the stories themselves are going to dry up if it is on the reporter to fund it on themselves.
O’Toole commented that it sounds some people, because of the economy, are selling out sometimes. Berry is a freelance writer and needs to pay her bills just like the rest of America.
Lockmiller concluded the discussion by bringing in some of her personal experience. She comments on her family life, where her father is in the corporate world and within his occupation, he is only allowed to accept freebies up to $25. She noted that it was interesting to her that Berry can accept all of these different travel accommodations. Journalists are supposed to, Lockmiller says, hold themselves to such high ethical standards.
The majority of the take-away cards talked about living as a freelancer. Whereas some individuals thought the freelancing was an interesting and exciting way to make a living in the journalism field, others felt as if it was slightly questionable. Where Deb Berry had the opportunity to take different trips as a travel writer, one individual within our class felt it was odd that she was constantly writing pieces with advertising and marketing of different locations in mind. Within class discussion,
Take Away Cards
Amanda Wisuiowski: I was surprised about how freelancers are able to adapt their writing with their interests.
Daniella Henry: I found her information on query letters really helpful.
Kim Romanello: Deb was very energetic and informative about freelance writing. IT was very interesting to hear about how she got into her line of work.
Kate Monohan: Freelancing sounds really good, but the reality is it seems difficult without a spouse with a steady job.
Erin O’Toole: Deb Berry’s job seems very interesting but I do not agree with a lot of what she has to do to get a story. Especially with the New Hampshire story leaving out real life family details, it seems bias in a way.
Patrick Swidler: I thought her advice for networking and maintaining credibility was very helpful. She certainly holds a great perspective on her career and that attitude makes her presentation all the more interesting.
Britton Taylor: I think the most important part of this discussion was how almost every piece she does advertising or marketing in it.
Jesse Grab: The most important information for me was her advice on freelance writing, mostly because it comes from someone who’s seen success there.
Beren Jones: Surviving in the cut throat world of freelance work requires one to be constantly looking for new creative opportunities.
Christine Gratton: It really hit home how many avenues you have to “attack” as a freelancer to make a living - have to be an expert and use your core skills to market yourself.
3/18 - FOI Panel Summary, Brendan Cox (Britton Taylor)
FOIA Panel Summary
Notetaker:Brendan Cox
Discussion Leader: Scott Powell
3/18/09
About half of the take-away cards I was responsible for were referential to the issues of access and timeliness. Alyssa wrote that the “grey areas” of the law could (and should) be “easily cleared up” and that this clarification would lead to a transparency that would benefit government and its perceived credibility. Scott wrote that timeliness seemed, to him, to be the “overriding issue,” and felt that the commission should be better equipped to handle appeals in a timely manner. This idea brings us to the inevitable question of databasing and internet access; however, Amy wrote that Rachel Rudnik is “crazy” if she thinks online dissemination will be made mandatory.
The other half of the students whose cards I was responsible for were most impressed by the power of FOIA laws in the hands of an informed and educated journalist. Amanda was surprised by the amount of information that is available to the public, and Aaron wrote that the FOIA is an “essential tool” for finding obscure or hidden stories. Shane was surprised that requesters of information are not required to provide an explanation for their request. Obviously this makes the tool that much more powerful. It also raises ethical concerns when it comes to the safety, privacy, and well-being of public officials. Suffice it to say that the general response, both in the take-away cards and in my portion of the discussion, was positive; most students seemed to find the panel an educational and stimulating experience.
Regarding the segment of the discussion that was mediated by Britton Taylor, two main issues were discussed. First, students debated John Lender’s description of the FOIA laws as being a “weapon,” and secondly, they discussed the applicability of an online system for FOIA processing.
Students seemed to agree, generally speaking, that it’s okay to view FOIA laws as being a weapon (“The law,” said Mitchell Pearlman, an attorney who teaches Law of Libel and Communications here, “can be used as both a sword and a shield.”). Students discussed the leverage provided by the FOIA, and tended to agree that since this “leverage” was legal in nature, it is okay (i.e., ethical) to view the law as a sword in this instance. As a matter of mindset, students seemed also to agree that this acceptance doesn’t mean that we need to maintain an aggressive or threatening posture and use the FOIA as justification; on the contrary, we should use the threat of a commission appeal as something of a last resort (e.g., when an official is utterly reluctant to reveal public information essential to a story). Even if we don’t see the FOIA as a weapon, one student said, it is still an essential tool that we should utilize in order to find more stories.
When it came to online FOIA processing and/or digital records databasing, one student pointed out that broader net access to records might streamline the FOIA commission’s operation, but would not entirely eliminate the need for it (it’s interesting to note that, which the exception of New York, Connecticut is the only U.S. state with a dedicated commission responsible for FOIA concerns). Another student pointed out that since newsrooms have been increasingly forced, due to financial restrictions, to scale back their reporting staff, online access might become more and more necessary.
Two problems were addressed regarding online record access. First of all, databasing hundreds of years worth of records would be an enormous, time-consuming, and expensive task requiring more resources than are now available to either the government or the FOIA commission. Secondly, one student pointed out the security and credibility risks inherent in using the net as a means of communication. One can never trust information on the web 100 percent, he said, and a notarized paper document would likely be regarded as a more credible source.
Finally, in the debate on internet records access, we discussed the impracticality of net access vis-à-vis lawmaker support. Why would politicians or government officials want to allocate precious resources to digital databasing efforts when it would only make them more vulnerable to public scrutiny? Of course this analysis works on the presumption that politicians are largely dishonest and don’t want to maintain transparency. This is obviously a matter of one’s opinion and personal politics and is up to his or her individual discretion.
Notetaker:Brendan Cox
Discussion Leader: Scott Powell
3/18/09
About half of the take-away cards I was responsible for were referential to the issues of access and timeliness. Alyssa wrote that the “grey areas” of the law could (and should) be “easily cleared up” and that this clarification would lead to a transparency that would benefit government and its perceived credibility. Scott wrote that timeliness seemed, to him, to be the “overriding issue,” and felt that the commission should be better equipped to handle appeals in a timely manner. This idea brings us to the inevitable question of databasing and internet access; however, Amy wrote that Rachel Rudnik is “crazy” if she thinks online dissemination will be made mandatory.
The other half of the students whose cards I was responsible for were most impressed by the power of FOIA laws in the hands of an informed and educated journalist. Amanda was surprised by the amount of information that is available to the public, and Aaron wrote that the FOIA is an “essential tool” for finding obscure or hidden stories. Shane was surprised that requesters of information are not required to provide an explanation for their request. Obviously this makes the tool that much more powerful. It also raises ethical concerns when it comes to the safety, privacy, and well-being of public officials. Suffice it to say that the general response, both in the take-away cards and in my portion of the discussion, was positive; most students seemed to find the panel an educational and stimulating experience.
Regarding the segment of the discussion that was mediated by Britton Taylor, two main issues were discussed. First, students debated John Lender’s description of the FOIA laws as being a “weapon,” and secondly, they discussed the applicability of an online system for FOIA processing.
Students seemed to agree, generally speaking, that it’s okay to view FOIA laws as being a weapon (“The law,” said Mitchell Pearlman, an attorney who teaches Law of Libel and Communications here, “can be used as both a sword and a shield.”). Students discussed the leverage provided by the FOIA, and tended to agree that since this “leverage” was legal in nature, it is okay (i.e., ethical) to view the law as a sword in this instance. As a matter of mindset, students seemed also to agree that this acceptance doesn’t mean that we need to maintain an aggressive or threatening posture and use the FOIA as justification; on the contrary, we should use the threat of a commission appeal as something of a last resort (e.g., when an official is utterly reluctant to reveal public information essential to a story). Even if we don’t see the FOIA as a weapon, one student said, it is still an essential tool that we should utilize in order to find more stories.
When it came to online FOIA processing and/or digital records databasing, one student pointed out that broader net access to records might streamline the FOIA commission’s operation, but would not entirely eliminate the need for it (it’s interesting to note that, which the exception of New York, Connecticut is the only U.S. state with a dedicated commission responsible for FOIA concerns). Another student pointed out that since newsrooms have been increasingly forced, due to financial restrictions, to scale back their reporting staff, online access might become more and more necessary.
Two problems were addressed regarding online record access. First of all, databasing hundreds of years worth of records would be an enormous, time-consuming, and expensive task requiring more resources than are now available to either the government or the FOIA commission. Secondly, one student pointed out the security and credibility risks inherent in using the net as a means of communication. One can never trust information on the web 100 percent, he said, and a notarized paper document would likely be regarded as a more credible source.
Finally, in the debate on internet records access, we discussed the impracticality of net access vis-à-vis lawmaker support. Why would politicians or government officials want to allocate precious resources to digital databasing efforts when it would only make them more vulnerable to public scrutiny? Of course this analysis works on the presumption that politicians are largely dishonest and don’t want to maintain transparency. This is obviously a matter of one’s opinion and personal politics and is up to his or her individual discretion.
3/18 - FOI Panel Summary, Beren Jones (Scott Powell)
FOIA Panel Summary
Notetaker: Beren Jones
Discussion Leader: Britton Taylor
3/18/09
The FOI panel allowed for a greater understanding not only of a complicated topic, but the ways in which the topic was viewed, and used, by parties on all sides of the issue. Though the panel focused mostly on the past (e.g. how and why the law was formed and how the law has been used and interpreted), Scott’s portion of the discussion focused mainly on the future of the law and how the law might be improved.
Scott started off the discussion by probing the class’ opinion about whether or not there should be a caveat within the FOI Act that grants citizens the right to speak at public meetings.
Pat responded by agreeing with the way the law is written as it is currently, stating that people should be granted access but shouldn’t be permitted to speak at the meetings, and that the public needs to obey the law in the manner in which it is written.
Professor Dufresne took the opportunity to interject and inform the class that at many public meetings, the public is permitted to speak via a segment of the meeting delineated as a public forum. He also stressed that this practice is optional for most meetings. Some matters, however, do require public discourse and input, and in those cases (e.g. changing zoning laws) a public hearing is required, and the public does have a right to speak at those venues.
Scott then moved on to question the current policy of allowing anonymity to members of the public requesting public records; he asked if it might be a good thing to not only know who is asking for the records, but to perform a background check on the person to attempt to prevent people from using the information for nefarious or harmful purposes.
The class was fairly unified in the response that while the concern is relevant, the practice of background checks was not something that they were willing to commit to for the marginal increase in safety the checks might provide.
Katie said that such a course of action would be a “slippery slope” and that the process needs to remain more objective than subjective as it could lead to a double-edged sword concerning the intent of the law.
Another student concurred, saying that they agreed with the concern shown for peoples’ safety by performing background checks, but that those checks would then kill the idea of having a public document in the first place. Chase agreed by pointing out that the sole requirement to look at a public document is to simply be a member of the public.
However, Professor Dufresne pointed out that some states have taken to posting the complete listings of gun ownership records online. While the states are within their rights to do so because the listings are matters of public record, their being posted online has raised a public outcry and made many people angry.
Scott then moved the discussion into how the commission might better aid journalists. He asked that because journalists are constantly on a deadline and make up a significant amount of the FOI requests, should the FOI commission step in sooner in favor of the journalist’s deadline when a request is made and the agency in question is dragging their feet to avoid getting the information to the journalist on time.
One student responded by agreeing that while maybe they should, the more relevant question is whether or not they are even able to, due to their limited resources and manpower.
Scott then asked if perhaps this could help rebound the economy by opening up jobs in the area. The student responded by emphasizing again that while it would be ideally beneficial, the FOI commission would still require more capital and other resources to do it. This prompted another student to suggest that the FOI commission pay for these new jobs with the money that it receives from fining the state agencies that violate the act.
Professor Dufresne then concluded the discussion by pointing out that the FOI commission has a backlog of approximately six to eight months and that timeliness is a problem currently and would be difficult to fix.
The take-away cards emphasized the complexity of the FOI laws and the vagueness of their wording, which, in turn, adds to their complexity and confusion. The cards talked about how that vagueness affects the timeliness of getting records released and how both sides use the law, and its wording, to their benefit and the others’ detriment.
Take-Away Cards:
Chase Carnot: The law definitely needs to be updated. I think the best thing to do if someone denies a request is just call the commission and put them on the phone.
Rowan McInnes: The panel discussion definitely cleared up a good deal of what goes on within the FOI commission, the process of requesting documents/information, etc. Before today it was all very confusing.
Mike Northup: A specific timeframe for releasing FOI records would be ideal, but because some records are less accessible or longer than others, people requesting the records must settle for getting them back “promptly”.
Stephen Ortiz: Officials will try to manipulate the system and prolong the time it takes to get you a record in effort to push it past deadline.
Katie Bushey: The various viewpoints on what a journalist’s “weapons” are was interesting.
Joe Callahan: - Meetings must be open to the public, have minutes available and must be notified to the public.
- Three E’s to the FOI Law: 1. Exemptions 2. Exceptions 3. Exclusions
Kate Monohan: I still don’t fully understand FOI, it seems vague in numerous areas and it seems like in many cases reporters can be manipulated when trying to obtain info.
Unnamed: It was clear among the panel of the friction between officials and journalists in interpreting the “openness” of records.
Notetaker: Beren Jones
Discussion Leader: Britton Taylor
3/18/09
The FOI panel allowed for a greater understanding not only of a complicated topic, but the ways in which the topic was viewed, and used, by parties on all sides of the issue. Though the panel focused mostly on the past (e.g. how and why the law was formed and how the law has been used and interpreted), Scott’s portion of the discussion focused mainly on the future of the law and how the law might be improved.
Scott started off the discussion by probing the class’ opinion about whether or not there should be a caveat within the FOI Act that grants citizens the right to speak at public meetings.
Pat responded by agreeing with the way the law is written as it is currently, stating that people should be granted access but shouldn’t be permitted to speak at the meetings, and that the public needs to obey the law in the manner in which it is written.
Professor Dufresne took the opportunity to interject and inform the class that at many public meetings, the public is permitted to speak via a segment of the meeting delineated as a public forum. He also stressed that this practice is optional for most meetings. Some matters, however, do require public discourse and input, and in those cases (e.g. changing zoning laws) a public hearing is required, and the public does have a right to speak at those venues.
Scott then moved on to question the current policy of allowing anonymity to members of the public requesting public records; he asked if it might be a good thing to not only know who is asking for the records, but to perform a background check on the person to attempt to prevent people from using the information for nefarious or harmful purposes.
The class was fairly unified in the response that while the concern is relevant, the practice of background checks was not something that they were willing to commit to for the marginal increase in safety the checks might provide.
Katie said that such a course of action would be a “slippery slope” and that the process needs to remain more objective than subjective as it could lead to a double-edged sword concerning the intent of the law.
Another student concurred, saying that they agreed with the concern shown for peoples’ safety by performing background checks, but that those checks would then kill the idea of having a public document in the first place. Chase agreed by pointing out that the sole requirement to look at a public document is to simply be a member of the public.
However, Professor Dufresne pointed out that some states have taken to posting the complete listings of gun ownership records online. While the states are within their rights to do so because the listings are matters of public record, their being posted online has raised a public outcry and made many people angry.
Scott then moved the discussion into how the commission might better aid journalists. He asked that because journalists are constantly on a deadline and make up a significant amount of the FOI requests, should the FOI commission step in sooner in favor of the journalist’s deadline when a request is made and the agency in question is dragging their feet to avoid getting the information to the journalist on time.
One student responded by agreeing that while maybe they should, the more relevant question is whether or not they are even able to, due to their limited resources and manpower.
Scott then asked if perhaps this could help rebound the economy by opening up jobs in the area. The student responded by emphasizing again that while it would be ideally beneficial, the FOI commission would still require more capital and other resources to do it. This prompted another student to suggest that the FOI commission pay for these new jobs with the money that it receives from fining the state agencies that violate the act.
Professor Dufresne then concluded the discussion by pointing out that the FOI commission has a backlog of approximately six to eight months and that timeliness is a problem currently and would be difficult to fix.
The take-away cards emphasized the complexity of the FOI laws and the vagueness of their wording, which, in turn, adds to their complexity and confusion. The cards talked about how that vagueness affects the timeliness of getting records released and how both sides use the law, and its wording, to their benefit and the others’ detriment.
Take-Away Cards:
Chase Carnot: The law definitely needs to be updated. I think the best thing to do if someone denies a request is just call the commission and put them on the phone.
Rowan McInnes: The panel discussion definitely cleared up a good deal of what goes on within the FOI commission, the process of requesting documents/information, etc. Before today it was all very confusing.
Mike Northup: A specific timeframe for releasing FOI records would be ideal, but because some records are less accessible or longer than others, people requesting the records must settle for getting them back “promptly”.
Stephen Ortiz: Officials will try to manipulate the system and prolong the time it takes to get you a record in effort to push it past deadline.
Katie Bushey: The various viewpoints on what a journalist’s “weapons” are was interesting.
Joe Callahan: - Meetings must be open to the public, have minutes available and must be notified to the public.
- Three E’s to the FOI Law: 1. Exemptions 2. Exceptions 3. Exclusions
Kate Monohan: I still don’t fully understand FOI, it seems vague in numerous areas and it seems like in many cases reporters can be manipulated when trying to obtain info.
Unnamed: It was clear among the panel of the friction between officials and journalists in interpreting the “openness” of records.
3/18 - FOI Panel Summary, Katie Bushey (Eli Pearlstein)
FOI Panel Summary
Notetaker : Katie Bushey
Discussion leader: Eli Pearlstein
Tom, Rachel and John all represented different aspects of the FOI act. For Tom, as the public education officer at the FOI office understood the grey areas of the law, but could not relate to them on the same level as Rachel, and especially as John. At times throughout the panel, John seemed at odds with Rachel and Tom; he was, after all, criticizing the process that Tom and Rachel advocated.
Tom focused on what exactly is open to the public. He explained what information is most often asked for, and who asks for it (journalists, surprisingly, were not at the top of that list.) His most important piece of information was the three E’s: exemptions, exceptions and exclusions. Although these three things did not specifically detail what is outside of the realm of public information, it nonetheless was helpful to keep in mind, considering the list of exceptions to information keeps growing. Finally, Tom outlined for the class how the council works, and what happens when complaints are made.
Rachel offered insight into the world of giving out information. As an employee at UConn, Rachel told the class that she tries hard to remind herself, and her coworkers, that everything they do is in the public eye. She explained the often-tedious task of locating records. She said that although some information, like a coach’s contract, is easy to recover, other records are not. She said that for a 100-year-old record, for instance, she might be required to travel to anyone of the regional campuses to locate it, even though her office is located at Storrs. She said that UConn receives about 150 requests for information a year, and they are usually from firms looking to do business with the university and want to look into why they lost a bid, or people interested in coach’s whose contracts are about to come up. She said that this year the university had already received an astounding 37 requests. Finally, she mentioned that she never asks personal information of a person making the request. There can be no discrimination to whom gets information, she said, so she does not ask anything of them. She also addressed the issue of “promptness,” and said in her office, a notification is sent within a day to let the requester know that she is looking for their record.
John, as a journalist, has personally requested many records. He told the class that the FOI act was a “hammer” that needed to be brought down at times, and recounted the complaints he has made recently against the ethics commission because they would not issue him records. He told us that union employees and clerks are often hard to get information about, but that any well-known public official was “fair game.” John told the class that although the law guarantees that you will have the information, it does not say when.
At this point, the discussion broke down into a three-way argument. John was adamant that the four-day grace period is often used to find a way to not give out information, while Rachel reminded him that often records are not that easy to locate. Tome stepped in periodically to remind them what the law actually was, but none of the three saw eye-to-eye. What was stressed by all three, however, was that the sooner you request records, the better. John told us not to hesitate in leveling a complaint; he said that often, it gets results better. All three also told us that after four days, you should have at least been notified that your request has been received. And although none of them could define “promptness,” they told us to use our heads: if you were requesting Jim Calhoun’s contract with UConn, you should be able to get that almost immediately. How long it takes to get your information, they said, depends on what you are asking for.
In the discussion after, Eli first asked the class whether or not we thought it necessary for John to write stories about agencies that delayed in giving out information. John said that he often did this as a way to show the public that the government is not actually working in their best interest. Aaron responded first to the question, saying that those agencies should receive a “scarlet letter” for failing to uphold their duty. Alyssa agreed, adding that our role as journalists is to question the status quo and remain guard dogs for society.
Eli asked if the class thought there was a central way to define “promptness.” Emily said that UConn seems to have their records spread out, and one way to resolve any delay would be to store all records together. Prof. Dufresne reminded us that there are many records, and many very old; a central depository, unfortunately is far off. Beren agreed, and added that this idea may work for new records, but never old ones.
Continuing on the idea of promptness, Eli asked if there should be timelines assigned based on the record itself. John had mentioned that he believed some agencies held information back so as not to have to give it out. Eli wondered if a defined timeline for certain records would at least resolve some of this issue. One student mentioned that Rachel constantly shot down the idea of creating a database of records, or being able to say before locating the record how long it would take. The same student added that there has to be some mathematical way of doing this, but had no solution. Joe also mentioned that Rachel liked the idea of everything having a timeline, but had said it was not feasible. Most of the class seemed to think that timelines would resolve some issues, but as to what records could be guaranteed when, no one had any ideas.
Eli also mentioned fining agencies that refused records. Dufresne cut in to tell us that some fines are levied, but that are for the most part ineffective. He also mentioned that fining is done very little.
Eli then asked about the information itself. He wondered if certain information that is brought to light should not be brought in front of a panel to discuss the appropriateness of it. Amy said in response that what information can be published has to depend on the publication itself; for instance, what may be inappropriate for Highlight’s would be suitable for Playboy.
Finally, Eli asked what should be done with information that is not entirely pertinent to the case. An example given by John was with the Chesire murders. Because the murders had been such big news, John had said, lots of information that maybe should not have been printed was. In response, one student said that newspapers should maintain some self-censorship, and definitely some prior restraint. They said that papers must make their own decisions on how to use the information they attain, and deal with the consequences of libeling someone
.
In conclusion, Prof. Dufresne asked if there was anything still unclear. Someone brought up the idea of exclusions: how can we trust the information that is withheld should be? He said that this was a matter of trust, and that trust is really what drives the laws.
There were three main ideas expressed in the takeaway cards. The first idea focused on was that of “promptness.” Most students agreed that the definition of promptness was vague, and needed to be resolved. The “grey areas” of the law were mentioned also; such as what information is available to the public and the time it takes to get information. The final idea that was stressed in the cards was the usefulness of these laws for journalists, and how they should be used. Some disagreed with Lender’s idea of the law being a “hammer” for journalists, while others liked this metaphor.
Definitely the ideas that we grappled with the most were promptness and exceptions. How to use these laws as a tool for journalists was also a large concern, but mostly our rights within the law was most questioned.
Eli Pearlstein: “The grey areas of “promptness” were definitely interesting and unresolved.
Patrick: The breathing room allowed under these laws is fascinating to the point that it gives both parties a great opportunity to manipulate the system. Truly exquisite.
Emily Abbate: I’ve learned a lot about the FOI act since being at UConn – it’s interesting to hear about these things from professionals. Ultimately, the whole concept of timelines with what means “prompt” sheds new light onto the regulations.
B. Cox: the most salient point discussed was the issue of “promptness” and the ambiguity inherent in the phrase “without undue delay.” Is it really too difficult to set a real limit based on different format, age, and /or size?
Britton Taylor: I find it interesting how John used the FOIs as a weapon of sorts, when he said “I hold a hammer over their heads.”
Jesse Grab: The most important topic that kept coming up was the future of FOI, specifically if there is a way to database this information.
Daniella Henry: Jon Lender was very helpful in learning what journalists can do when trying to get info.
Beren Jones: FOI laws provide a key part of the transparency needed to run an effective and fair government.
Anon: The presentation was very interesting because I never realized how hard it can be to attain information. I don’t like the “grey area” and I can see how many problems it could potentially cause, hopefully in the future this will be changed.
Notetaker : Katie Bushey
Discussion leader: Eli Pearlstein
Tom, Rachel and John all represented different aspects of the FOI act. For Tom, as the public education officer at the FOI office understood the grey areas of the law, but could not relate to them on the same level as Rachel, and especially as John. At times throughout the panel, John seemed at odds with Rachel and Tom; he was, after all, criticizing the process that Tom and Rachel advocated.
Tom focused on what exactly is open to the public. He explained what information is most often asked for, and who asks for it (journalists, surprisingly, were not at the top of that list.) His most important piece of information was the three E’s: exemptions, exceptions and exclusions. Although these three things did not specifically detail what is outside of the realm of public information, it nonetheless was helpful to keep in mind, considering the list of exceptions to information keeps growing. Finally, Tom outlined for the class how the council works, and what happens when complaints are made.
Rachel offered insight into the world of giving out information. As an employee at UConn, Rachel told the class that she tries hard to remind herself, and her coworkers, that everything they do is in the public eye. She explained the often-tedious task of locating records. She said that although some information, like a coach’s contract, is easy to recover, other records are not. She said that for a 100-year-old record, for instance, she might be required to travel to anyone of the regional campuses to locate it, even though her office is located at Storrs. She said that UConn receives about 150 requests for information a year, and they are usually from firms looking to do business with the university and want to look into why they lost a bid, or people interested in coach’s whose contracts are about to come up. She said that this year the university had already received an astounding 37 requests. Finally, she mentioned that she never asks personal information of a person making the request. There can be no discrimination to whom gets information, she said, so she does not ask anything of them. She also addressed the issue of “promptness,” and said in her office, a notification is sent within a day to let the requester know that she is looking for their record.
John, as a journalist, has personally requested many records. He told the class that the FOI act was a “hammer” that needed to be brought down at times, and recounted the complaints he has made recently against the ethics commission because they would not issue him records. He told us that union employees and clerks are often hard to get information about, but that any well-known public official was “fair game.” John told the class that although the law guarantees that you will have the information, it does not say when.
At this point, the discussion broke down into a three-way argument. John was adamant that the four-day grace period is often used to find a way to not give out information, while Rachel reminded him that often records are not that easy to locate. Tome stepped in periodically to remind them what the law actually was, but none of the three saw eye-to-eye. What was stressed by all three, however, was that the sooner you request records, the better. John told us not to hesitate in leveling a complaint; he said that often, it gets results better. All three also told us that after four days, you should have at least been notified that your request has been received. And although none of them could define “promptness,” they told us to use our heads: if you were requesting Jim Calhoun’s contract with UConn, you should be able to get that almost immediately. How long it takes to get your information, they said, depends on what you are asking for.
In the discussion after, Eli first asked the class whether or not we thought it necessary for John to write stories about agencies that delayed in giving out information. John said that he often did this as a way to show the public that the government is not actually working in their best interest. Aaron responded first to the question, saying that those agencies should receive a “scarlet letter” for failing to uphold their duty. Alyssa agreed, adding that our role as journalists is to question the status quo and remain guard dogs for society.
Eli asked if the class thought there was a central way to define “promptness.” Emily said that UConn seems to have their records spread out, and one way to resolve any delay would be to store all records together. Prof. Dufresne reminded us that there are many records, and many very old; a central depository, unfortunately is far off. Beren agreed, and added that this idea may work for new records, but never old ones.
Continuing on the idea of promptness, Eli asked if there should be timelines assigned based on the record itself. John had mentioned that he believed some agencies held information back so as not to have to give it out. Eli wondered if a defined timeline for certain records would at least resolve some of this issue. One student mentioned that Rachel constantly shot down the idea of creating a database of records, or being able to say before locating the record how long it would take. The same student added that there has to be some mathematical way of doing this, but had no solution. Joe also mentioned that Rachel liked the idea of everything having a timeline, but had said it was not feasible. Most of the class seemed to think that timelines would resolve some issues, but as to what records could be guaranteed when, no one had any ideas.
Eli also mentioned fining agencies that refused records. Dufresne cut in to tell us that some fines are levied, but that are for the most part ineffective. He also mentioned that fining is done very little.
Eli then asked about the information itself. He wondered if certain information that is brought to light should not be brought in front of a panel to discuss the appropriateness of it. Amy said in response that what information can be published has to depend on the publication itself; for instance, what may be inappropriate for Highlight’s would be suitable for Playboy.
Finally, Eli asked what should be done with information that is not entirely pertinent to the case. An example given by John was with the Chesire murders. Because the murders had been such big news, John had said, lots of information that maybe should not have been printed was. In response, one student said that newspapers should maintain some self-censorship, and definitely some prior restraint. They said that papers must make their own decisions on how to use the information they attain, and deal with the consequences of libeling someone
.
In conclusion, Prof. Dufresne asked if there was anything still unclear. Someone brought up the idea of exclusions: how can we trust the information that is withheld should be? He said that this was a matter of trust, and that trust is really what drives the laws.
There were three main ideas expressed in the takeaway cards. The first idea focused on was that of “promptness.” Most students agreed that the definition of promptness was vague, and needed to be resolved. The “grey areas” of the law were mentioned also; such as what information is available to the public and the time it takes to get information. The final idea that was stressed in the cards was the usefulness of these laws for journalists, and how they should be used. Some disagreed with Lender’s idea of the law being a “hammer” for journalists, while others liked this metaphor.
Definitely the ideas that we grappled with the most were promptness and exceptions. How to use these laws as a tool for journalists was also a large concern, but mostly our rights within the law was most questioned.
Eli Pearlstein: “The grey areas of “promptness” were definitely interesting and unresolved.
Patrick: The breathing room allowed under these laws is fascinating to the point that it gives both parties a great opportunity to manipulate the system. Truly exquisite.
Emily Abbate: I’ve learned a lot about the FOI act since being at UConn – it’s interesting to hear about these things from professionals. Ultimately, the whole concept of timelines with what means “prompt” sheds new light onto the regulations.
B. Cox: the most salient point discussed was the issue of “promptness” and the ambiguity inherent in the phrase “without undue delay.” Is it really too difficult to set a real limit based on different format, age, and /or size?
Britton Taylor: I find it interesting how John used the FOIs as a weapon of sorts, when he said “I hold a hammer over their heads.”
Jesse Grab: The most important topic that kept coming up was the future of FOI, specifically if there is a way to database this information.
Daniella Henry: Jon Lender was very helpful in learning what journalists can do when trying to get info.
Beren Jones: FOI laws provide a key part of the transparency needed to run an effective and fair government.
Anon: The presentation was very interesting because I never realized how hard it can be to attain information. I don’t like the “grey area” and I can see how many problems it could potentially cause, hopefully in the future this will be changed.
3/4 - Paul Parker Summary, Amanda Wisniowski (Brendan Cox)
Speaker Paul Parker
Notes by Amanda Wisniowski
Discussion Leader: Brendan COx
As the last person to go, Brendan’s discussion was affected greatly by time. However, his discussion was just as valuable. Brendan’s questions were geared toward the future of print journalism and problems within the industry itself.
His first question for the class was to give their thoughts about corporate ownership of newspapers. He wanted to know whether their need to amass greater profits contributed to the death of newspapers and/or their duty to the public.
One student responded that the corporations who own newspapers also own the online rights to those papers. These corporations are giving their readers options, according to the student.
Another student brought up Hartford Courant music writer, Eric Danton, and the fact that the company that owns the newspaper has him appear on television news segments regularly.
The discussion of this question reached a consensus when a third student discussed that corporations are indeed running the kinds of news that is out there. Their business is their main focus, and the student questioned their bias and their interests. Brendan added to this opinion by stating that family-owned newspapers might be more like watchdogs because they were able to devote more resources and effort.
Brendan’s next question concerned journalists and their technological know-how. He wondered if new additions like videos, Excel, and other software were overwhelming the industry at all.
The first student talked about how our generation is familiar with these programs and software since we were young. Professor Dufresne interjected with a clarification that knowing exactly how to use a video camera, how to analyze an Excel spreadsheet for data—these were different. His main point was being able to do things in a sound journalistic manner with such technologies.
The next student added that it was in fact overwhelming because of the loss of jobs. More individuals are spread thin, and have more duties than just reporting; they may have to post things on a blog for example.
Brendan then asked if our generation was at an advantage with the new software and programs.
Next, someone responded that these technological advances as a disadvantage because everyone in the business is using them as well. There is “no leg up.”
The last student agreed with the former student in that it was a disadvantage. The Providence Journal reporter Paul Parker, and those like him, were at an advantage because they know how to clean files, how to determine if a file is clean or dirty, etc.
The majority of the take-away cards thought that computer-assisted reporting was intriguing to say the least. One student said computer-assisted reporting used during the Station Fire series reminded him of CSI episodes. Many students in the cards thought the simulations of the Station Fire gave a wider perspective to the tragedy. Some did not realize how common it has become in the industry. On a different topic, another student believed that newspapers were dying because of corporate ownership than competition with online sources. Lastly, one classmate was unsure about the pertinence of the “What If” Station Fire simulations; she thought the other possible situations were not reality either.
Take Away Cards
Alyssa Carroll: The coverage by the Journal on the nightclub was very interesting. I’m confused about the relevance of the “What If” story, seeing as those other possible situations weren’t reality.
Christine Gratton: Interesting how computer-assisted reporting is taking an increasing role in investigative reporting. I didn’t realize its prevalence in explaining and digging into cases.
Britton Taylor: It was very interesting how the computer software is used in stories. I think it seemed useful for simulations for the Station fire, otherwise it seems un useful.
Jesse Grab: I found it eye-opening the way the escape simulation was able to provide answers that were much foggier before.
Eli Pearlstein: The Station nightclub fire materials were really interesting. The computer simulations provided a unique perspective regarding tragedy scenarios.
Beren Jones: Newspapers are struggling for survival and the struggle has been made worse more by corporate machinations rather than by competition with online sources.
Erin O’Toole: Parker’s coverage of the Station fire was very impressive; however overall he seemed like one of the more old school speakers and I did not agree with him on the future of newspapers.
Notes by Amanda Wisniowski
Discussion Leader: Brendan COx
As the last person to go, Brendan’s discussion was affected greatly by time. However, his discussion was just as valuable. Brendan’s questions were geared toward the future of print journalism and problems within the industry itself.
His first question for the class was to give their thoughts about corporate ownership of newspapers. He wanted to know whether their need to amass greater profits contributed to the death of newspapers and/or their duty to the public.
One student responded that the corporations who own newspapers also own the online rights to those papers. These corporations are giving their readers options, according to the student.
Another student brought up Hartford Courant music writer, Eric Danton, and the fact that the company that owns the newspaper has him appear on television news segments regularly.
The discussion of this question reached a consensus when a third student discussed that corporations are indeed running the kinds of news that is out there. Their business is their main focus, and the student questioned their bias and their interests. Brendan added to this opinion by stating that family-owned newspapers might be more like watchdogs because they were able to devote more resources and effort.
Brendan’s next question concerned journalists and their technological know-how. He wondered if new additions like videos, Excel, and other software were overwhelming the industry at all.
The first student talked about how our generation is familiar with these programs and software since we were young. Professor Dufresne interjected with a clarification that knowing exactly how to use a video camera, how to analyze an Excel spreadsheet for data—these were different. His main point was being able to do things in a sound journalistic manner with such technologies.
The next student added that it was in fact overwhelming because of the loss of jobs. More individuals are spread thin, and have more duties than just reporting; they may have to post things on a blog for example.
Brendan then asked if our generation was at an advantage with the new software and programs.
Next, someone responded that these technological advances as a disadvantage because everyone in the business is using them as well. There is “no leg up.”
The last student agreed with the former student in that it was a disadvantage. The Providence Journal reporter Paul Parker, and those like him, were at an advantage because they know how to clean files, how to determine if a file is clean or dirty, etc.
The majority of the take-away cards thought that computer-assisted reporting was intriguing to say the least. One student said computer-assisted reporting used during the Station Fire series reminded him of CSI episodes. Many students in the cards thought the simulations of the Station Fire gave a wider perspective to the tragedy. Some did not realize how common it has become in the industry. On a different topic, another student believed that newspapers were dying because of corporate ownership than competition with online sources. Lastly, one classmate was unsure about the pertinence of the “What If” Station Fire simulations; she thought the other possible situations were not reality either.
Take Away Cards
Alyssa Carroll: The coverage by the Journal on the nightclub was very interesting. I’m confused about the relevance of the “What If” story, seeing as those other possible situations weren’t reality.
Christine Gratton: Interesting how computer-assisted reporting is taking an increasing role in investigative reporting. I didn’t realize its prevalence in explaining and digging into cases.
Britton Taylor: It was very interesting how the computer software is used in stories. I think it seemed useful for simulations for the Station fire, otherwise it seems un useful.
Jesse Grab: I found it eye-opening the way the escape simulation was able to provide answers that were much foggier before.
Eli Pearlstein: The Station nightclub fire materials were really interesting. The computer simulations provided a unique perspective regarding tragedy scenarios.
Beren Jones: Newspapers are struggling for survival and the struggle has been made worse more by corporate machinations rather than by competition with online sources.
Erin O’Toole: Parker’s coverage of the Station fire was very impressive; however overall he seemed like one of the more old school speakers and I did not agree with him on the future of newspapers.
3/4 - Paul Parker Summary, Alyssa Carroll (Aaron Roy)
Seminar Speaker: Paul Parker
Notes by Alyssa Carroll
Discussion Leader: Aaron Roy
Changing gears significantly from speaker Eric Danton, speaker and investigative reporter Paul Parker presented a new facet of journalism, focusing on changes to his investigative field and the coverage of the Providence nightclub fire.
Aaron began his portion of the discussion, by bringing up the notion that journalists, like Parker, sometimes have to exclude information from pieces for fear of upsetting the state legislature and having exemptions put on the information available to them. He questioned whether the role of journalists as watchdogs was hampered by this, and whether this exclusion of legally available information for fear of future censorship boded well for the future of journalism.
Though this first question was a strong and relevant way to begin, it was met by silence and metaphoric chirping of crickets. The question was further clarified by Professor Dufresne, explaining the idea of watchdog journalists being tentative of pushing the state too far in certain cases, afraid of having legislature change, and whether that was an appropriate strategy.
Eli explained that this symbiotic relationship is a give and take deal, focusing on how vital the information is and whether a journalist can leave some information out if it is going to compromise information gathering in the future.
Emily felt more strongly, remarking that if a journalist needs information for a story they must push for it and not be afraid of repercussion.
Aaron took the discussion reigns again here, and changed topics slightly. Aaron questioned the notion of printing of corporate salaries and information as well as the accountability of not printing them.
This related to Parker’s HuskyCT airport salary piece overall, but more strongly correlated to his example of the secretary who had suffered from spousal abuse and didn’t want her job and salary to be public for fear of repercussion.
This question ignited a good amount of debate and discussion, beginning with Kate’s comment that the information is public, thus giving the public a right to it. However, she explained that in certain situations (like Parker’s example of the police who didn’t want their home address available to the “crackpot” who was looking for them) that there should be exceptions, and that the journalists need to be responsible in thinking about potential harm before publication.
On the topic of the secretary who had been abused, Erin said that she was surprised about Parker’s dedication to print the information. Erin retracted her comment though, once it was explained that the secretary’s job information was already available online, should her husband and potential abuser be interested in ‘Googling’ her.
Professor Dufresne took this opportunity to have the class put himself or herself in the position of the professional journalist, and to ask themself about what could happen if the information was published. He explained that one must always consider the worst-case scenarios, and that it is a balancing act all of the time. The decision to knowingly cause any harm must be a compelling one.
Britton agreed, but differed slightly in her feelings of harm. She explained that it is not the job of the journalist to protect, and in the case of the secretary that it made sense to publish her name. She felt as though this was not exploitation, but rather a presentation of information that had already been made public.
Eli agreed, saying that if the taxpayer’s money is paying for the secretary’s salary than they should be able to publish her information publicly.
These sentiments echoed the rationale of Parker, who explained that the secretary was hired by the state, the state that is funded by its public, and therefore the public was in a sense her employer and had a right to the information.
Aaron quoted Parker, in saying “Without access, accountability suffers.”
Amy brought up the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) code, saying that it is the ethical and moral responsibility of journalists to minimize harm, but agreed that in the specific case of the secretary that Parker and his associates had done the right thing.
Aaron again changed gears here, turning focus away from harm and accountability to changes in the investigative reporting field. Aaron discussed how the investigative department had been distilled into five teams, and whether certain stories would fall between the cracks when it didn’t qualify into one of the distinct beats or genres of the teams.
This related back to Parker’s comments on how many people are unsure of who to turn or report to when they have story tips or ideas that they think belong in the paper. The genres of the investigative teams are broad, and overlapping does occur so he believed that there was room for stories to perhaps go overlooked.
One student said that she believed that the issue was not with stories going unreported, but was instead more of an issue of which department should get the story and how people could be informed so that they report stories to the appropriate departments, as the beats are currently so broad.
Scott brought up the idea, that perhaps the teams were separated by their professional backgrounds and knowledge breadth, giving more validity to the separation of investigative reporting as well as the caliber of the information presented.
Beren didn’t believe that the team separation would hurt reporting, and instead thought that in the failing economy it made more financial sense to have to teams split for maximum efficiency. The problem, he believed, was more deciding who would get the story when a tip was given.
Jesse concluded the discussion, explaining and agreeing with others that the overlap between the teams could create conflict of ownership and placement of stories. He among others believed that the only true remedy to the team-system flaw was a good means of communication between them.
The majority of the takeaway cards focused on the role of technology in journalism, as Parker had heavily focused on this. Among this vein, were comments on computer assisted reporting, the decline of print news, the trend towards online journalism, and the innovations that technology has lent us like in the nightclub fire simulation. However, a few focused more on Parker’s emphasis that the survival of news is dependent on the hyper-localization of hometown news and the treatment of post-tragedy sources.
Scott Powell: Paul Parker and the Providence Journal seem to be pretty innovative as a newspaper, with the use of computer software programs and their investigative reporting
Stephen Ortiz: If newspapers never went online, would we [newspapers] be in such a decline?
Mike Northup: Computers can be an extremely useful tool for investigative journalists in terms of compiling and analyzing data.
Rowan McInnes: I didn’t know much about the station fire until today, and I thought it was interesting how computer software nowadays can be used to get better understanding of what happened during such a tragic event.
Chase Carnot: Bigger papers and those based on the corporate (quarterly profit) model, will not be around in a decade or two. Small local papers will always be needed.
Katie Bushey: Obviously an extremely thorough reporter.
Joe Callahan:
• Computer Assisted reporting
• If local newspapers die, news dies
• Providence Journal now has five teams of reporters
Alex Sanders: I have always wondered if it would be difficult to talk to someone after a tragedy, and I found it very interesting that he said it is easiest to talk to people right after the event occurs. I would think that people would open up more with time.
Kate Monohan: I’m not sure that I agree that salaries for the state workers should be published online with names. The case of the abusive husband showed that there are exceptions that need consideration to the F.O.I.
Notes by Alyssa Carroll
Discussion Leader: Aaron Roy
Changing gears significantly from speaker Eric Danton, speaker and investigative reporter Paul Parker presented a new facet of journalism, focusing on changes to his investigative field and the coverage of the Providence nightclub fire.
Aaron began his portion of the discussion, by bringing up the notion that journalists, like Parker, sometimes have to exclude information from pieces for fear of upsetting the state legislature and having exemptions put on the information available to them. He questioned whether the role of journalists as watchdogs was hampered by this, and whether this exclusion of legally available information for fear of future censorship boded well for the future of journalism.
Though this first question was a strong and relevant way to begin, it was met by silence and metaphoric chirping of crickets. The question was further clarified by Professor Dufresne, explaining the idea of watchdog journalists being tentative of pushing the state too far in certain cases, afraid of having legislature change, and whether that was an appropriate strategy.
Eli explained that this symbiotic relationship is a give and take deal, focusing on how vital the information is and whether a journalist can leave some information out if it is going to compromise information gathering in the future.
Emily felt more strongly, remarking that if a journalist needs information for a story they must push for it and not be afraid of repercussion.
Aaron took the discussion reigns again here, and changed topics slightly. Aaron questioned the notion of printing of corporate salaries and information as well as the accountability of not printing them.
This related to Parker’s HuskyCT airport salary piece overall, but more strongly correlated to his example of the secretary who had suffered from spousal abuse and didn’t want her job and salary to be public for fear of repercussion.
This question ignited a good amount of debate and discussion, beginning with Kate’s comment that the information is public, thus giving the public a right to it. However, she explained that in certain situations (like Parker’s example of the police who didn’t want their home address available to the “crackpot” who was looking for them) that there should be exceptions, and that the journalists need to be responsible in thinking about potential harm before publication.
On the topic of the secretary who had been abused, Erin said that she was surprised about Parker’s dedication to print the information. Erin retracted her comment though, once it was explained that the secretary’s job information was already available online, should her husband and potential abuser be interested in ‘Googling’ her.
Professor Dufresne took this opportunity to have the class put himself or herself in the position of the professional journalist, and to ask themself about what could happen if the information was published. He explained that one must always consider the worst-case scenarios, and that it is a balancing act all of the time. The decision to knowingly cause any harm must be a compelling one.
Britton agreed, but differed slightly in her feelings of harm. She explained that it is not the job of the journalist to protect, and in the case of the secretary that it made sense to publish her name. She felt as though this was not exploitation, but rather a presentation of information that had already been made public.
Eli agreed, saying that if the taxpayer’s money is paying for the secretary’s salary than they should be able to publish her information publicly.
These sentiments echoed the rationale of Parker, who explained that the secretary was hired by the state, the state that is funded by its public, and therefore the public was in a sense her employer and had a right to the information.
Aaron quoted Parker, in saying “Without access, accountability suffers.”
Amy brought up the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) code, saying that it is the ethical and moral responsibility of journalists to minimize harm, but agreed that in the specific case of the secretary that Parker and his associates had done the right thing.
Aaron again changed gears here, turning focus away from harm and accountability to changes in the investigative reporting field. Aaron discussed how the investigative department had been distilled into five teams, and whether certain stories would fall between the cracks when it didn’t qualify into one of the distinct beats or genres of the teams.
This related back to Parker’s comments on how many people are unsure of who to turn or report to when they have story tips or ideas that they think belong in the paper. The genres of the investigative teams are broad, and overlapping does occur so he believed that there was room for stories to perhaps go overlooked.
One student said that she believed that the issue was not with stories going unreported, but was instead more of an issue of which department should get the story and how people could be informed so that they report stories to the appropriate departments, as the beats are currently so broad.
Scott brought up the idea, that perhaps the teams were separated by their professional backgrounds and knowledge breadth, giving more validity to the separation of investigative reporting as well as the caliber of the information presented.
Beren didn’t believe that the team separation would hurt reporting, and instead thought that in the failing economy it made more financial sense to have to teams split for maximum efficiency. The problem, he believed, was more deciding who would get the story when a tip was given.
Jesse concluded the discussion, explaining and agreeing with others that the overlap between the teams could create conflict of ownership and placement of stories. He among others believed that the only true remedy to the team-system flaw was a good means of communication between them.
The majority of the takeaway cards focused on the role of technology in journalism, as Parker had heavily focused on this. Among this vein, were comments on computer assisted reporting, the decline of print news, the trend towards online journalism, and the innovations that technology has lent us like in the nightclub fire simulation. However, a few focused more on Parker’s emphasis that the survival of news is dependent on the hyper-localization of hometown news and the treatment of post-tragedy sources.
Scott Powell: Paul Parker and the Providence Journal seem to be pretty innovative as a newspaper, with the use of computer software programs and their investigative reporting
Stephen Ortiz: If newspapers never went online, would we [newspapers] be in such a decline?
Mike Northup: Computers can be an extremely useful tool for investigative journalists in terms of compiling and analyzing data.
Rowan McInnes: I didn’t know much about the station fire until today, and I thought it was interesting how computer software nowadays can be used to get better understanding of what happened during such a tragic event.
Chase Carnot: Bigger papers and those based on the corporate (quarterly profit) model, will not be around in a decade or two. Small local papers will always be needed.
Katie Bushey: Obviously an extremely thorough reporter.
Joe Callahan:
• Computer Assisted reporting
• If local newspapers die, news dies
• Providence Journal now has five teams of reporters
Alex Sanders: I have always wondered if it would be difficult to talk to someone after a tragedy, and I found it very interesting that he said it is easiest to talk to people right after the event occurs. I would think that people would open up more with time.
Kate Monohan: I’m not sure that I agree that salaries for the state workers should be published online with names. The case of the abusive husband showed that there are exceptions that need consideration to the F.O.I.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)