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.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
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-Ã -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-Ã -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.
3/4 - Paul Parker Summary, Chase Carnot (Beren Jones)
Chase Carnot
JOUR 3050
March 4, 2009
Speaker Summary
Speaker: Paul Parker
Chase Carnot
Discussion Leader: Beren Jones
In discussing the investigative techniques Paul Parker uses in his reporting for the Providence Journal, the class discussion moved for the first time significantly outside the realm of ethics. There was little mention of the assigned readings and instead, both Parker and the class focused more on the changing media landscape. As discussion leader, Beren focused on this and took it in two directions: both the future of newspapers and the use of new technologies at print publications.
Beren pointed first to the simulation in which Parker had constructed a model of the Station nightclub fire using computer software and data gathered by 62 reporters. Beren said the model struck him as little more than speculation. Some students agreed at first but Prof. Dufresne pointed out that the data was gathered from eyewitnesses that actually escaped the fire and traced their route out of the club on a map that Journal reporters took with them to interviews. More students then said they found the simulation a good “concrete example” that could dispel rumors among the public about what actually happened on the night of the fire.
Students also found that the story was made more clear with the alternative models of what could have happened had the club adhered to at least one of its occupancy limits. Alyssa and Joe however, said the models were irrelevant because it wasn't what happened and “what ifs” are simply conjecture. Pat believed that the models and graphics would attract more readers to the newspaper, whether online or in print. He said that the breakdown of all the scenarios like a crime scene investigation would also be beneficial for future planning. Another student pointed out that the coverage has already resulted in changes to Rhode Islands building and fire codes. The rest of the class seemed to agree that the alternative models make fault more clear, which leads to better accountability.
Parker warned the class that they would need to know things like Excel and Power Point and be skilled with a video camera. Erin said that she thought Parker's concerns were “old school” since our generation grew up with this technology. Alyssa added that her camera, unlike Parker's, takes video and photos.
Underlying the class's discussion of this theme seems to be that technology is very important to the work of reporting and will only grow more so as newspapers compete with broadcast and web news. There seems also though, to be a healthy skepticism about what technology really adds to the news. Pat admitted that he found all the spreadsheet and database stuff confusing while other students said they felt the graphics and data can be overwhelming, at least in print. The consensus was that the use of technology should probably be reserved for reporting and to make more clear to the reader what that reporting uncovered. Graphics, charts, lists and tables shouldn't replace content, but instead demystify it.
Computer-assisted reporting held the class's attention for much of Beren's 10 minutes but he was able to set the tone for the other discussion leaders, at least in part, by focusing next on the future, or lack thereof, for newspapers. Beren asked: Do newspapers need to be online?
Parker earlier raised the specter of the death of newspapers when he touched on the layoffs and buyouts at the Providence Journal last year. The newspaper was chaotic for a time before it underwent a reorganization with its diminished staff. The shakeup at the Journal came only a few years after it provided such valuable coverage of the Station fire. Dozens of Journal reporters dedicated themselves to the story and uncovered information at odds with official reports from state agencies. The paper's financial difficulties seem all the more glaring in light of this recent public service.
The class agreed that the web makes much of the information clearer than in print where it would be overwhelming. Parker sounded optimistic in his presentation about the future of newspapers. He said that the corporate model is what is failing now with its emphasis on quarterly returns for investors at the expense of good journalism. The web isn't responsible for that. Parker added that local news will still need to be covered. And that while bigger papers may look down their nose at them, smaller local papers provide a service that won't be snatched up by the bigger papers and can't be replaced by the internet. Those publications will also remain in print because when people are part of the news, like if their child's boy/girl scout troop made the paper, they want something tangible and permanent.
The class was less optimistic than Parker in response to the question of the future of newspapers and whether they need to migrate online. Some students said that only the big papers like the Washington Post and New York Times with a national audience could afford to stay in print. Others agreed with Parker and Prof. Dufresne that small local papers are the only outlets that are irreplaceable and that unique content and becoming “hyper local” is their best bet. The consensus seemed to be though that people need the news and that it is merely migrating online. Those papers that can survive the next couple decades as predominately print institutions will be a special case, focusing exclusively on national or exclusively on local news.
In conclusion, the importance of technology to journalism and investigative reporting in particular is obvious. But at the same time, that technology is not a substitute for good journalism. It is important to remember that news is a public service and that even though it is failing as a business doesn't mean we can live without it. While the internet is seen as replacing the traditional newspaper, internet news is just an aggregation of what has already appeared in print for the most part.
It looks like the class found everything very “interesting.” The cards overwhelmingly point to the significance of computer-assisted reporting as a major theme or at least the most interesting. Some students were surprised that it plays such an important role. Others were struck by the way technology could clarify the story. Overall the class seems to have taken to heart the fact that such in-depth reporting will sustain the news in the future, if not newspapers. Amy made the point that Parker was the first speaker that did not raise “glaring ethical concerns” and links that to the fact that he is a UConn graduate.
Take-Away Cards
Shane Godrich: “Computer assisted reporting appears to have opened many new doors to the extent and detail a story can be reported on. The knowledge needed to use this kind of reporting seems to be an important skill for future journalists.”
Emily Abbate: “Paul's experiences at the PRJ is extremely interesting and very inspiring considering I have never learned (?) anything about investigative reporting before.”
Kim Romanello: “I found his specialty of computer-assisted reporting to be very intriguing and something I had known very little about.”
Aaron Roy: “Paul's speech demonstrated how C.A.R. is essential to the future of journalism. Journalists are going to need skills beyond the past norms that have been established.”
Amy Lockmiller: “I think it's interesting that this is the first speaker we've had that there seemed to be no glaring ethical concerns. I wonder if this is because Parker has been through the same journalism program we're going through.”
Brendan Cox: “I was struck by the importance that seemingly irrelevant software (ie Excel) plays in his job. The Station Fire coverage w/ the simulation software was very innovative, in my opinion.”
Daniella Henry: “It was very interesting how the floor plans and data sheets really enhanced the stories about the station fire.”
Amanda Wisniowski: “I was surprised to learn how software plays a major role in reporting these days.”
JOUR 3050
March 4, 2009
Speaker Summary
Speaker: Paul Parker
Chase Carnot
Discussion Leader: Beren Jones
In discussing the investigative techniques Paul Parker uses in his reporting for the Providence Journal, the class discussion moved for the first time significantly outside the realm of ethics. There was little mention of the assigned readings and instead, both Parker and the class focused more on the changing media landscape. As discussion leader, Beren focused on this and took it in two directions: both the future of newspapers and the use of new technologies at print publications.
Beren pointed first to the simulation in which Parker had constructed a model of the Station nightclub fire using computer software and data gathered by 62 reporters. Beren said the model struck him as little more than speculation. Some students agreed at first but Prof. Dufresne pointed out that the data was gathered from eyewitnesses that actually escaped the fire and traced their route out of the club on a map that Journal reporters took with them to interviews. More students then said they found the simulation a good “concrete example” that could dispel rumors among the public about what actually happened on the night of the fire.
Students also found that the story was made more clear with the alternative models of what could have happened had the club adhered to at least one of its occupancy limits. Alyssa and Joe however, said the models were irrelevant because it wasn't what happened and “what ifs” are simply conjecture. Pat believed that the models and graphics would attract more readers to the newspaper, whether online or in print. He said that the breakdown of all the scenarios like a crime scene investigation would also be beneficial for future planning. Another student pointed out that the coverage has already resulted in changes to Rhode Islands building and fire codes. The rest of the class seemed to agree that the alternative models make fault more clear, which leads to better accountability.
Parker warned the class that they would need to know things like Excel and Power Point and be skilled with a video camera. Erin said that she thought Parker's concerns were “old school” since our generation grew up with this technology. Alyssa added that her camera, unlike Parker's, takes video and photos.
Underlying the class's discussion of this theme seems to be that technology is very important to the work of reporting and will only grow more so as newspapers compete with broadcast and web news. There seems also though, to be a healthy skepticism about what technology really adds to the news. Pat admitted that he found all the spreadsheet and database stuff confusing while other students said they felt the graphics and data can be overwhelming, at least in print. The consensus was that the use of technology should probably be reserved for reporting and to make more clear to the reader what that reporting uncovered. Graphics, charts, lists and tables shouldn't replace content, but instead demystify it.
Computer-assisted reporting held the class's attention for much of Beren's 10 minutes but he was able to set the tone for the other discussion leaders, at least in part, by focusing next on the future, or lack thereof, for newspapers. Beren asked: Do newspapers need to be online?
Parker earlier raised the specter of the death of newspapers when he touched on the layoffs and buyouts at the Providence Journal last year. The newspaper was chaotic for a time before it underwent a reorganization with its diminished staff. The shakeup at the Journal came only a few years after it provided such valuable coverage of the Station fire. Dozens of Journal reporters dedicated themselves to the story and uncovered information at odds with official reports from state agencies. The paper's financial difficulties seem all the more glaring in light of this recent public service.
The class agreed that the web makes much of the information clearer than in print where it would be overwhelming. Parker sounded optimistic in his presentation about the future of newspapers. He said that the corporate model is what is failing now with its emphasis on quarterly returns for investors at the expense of good journalism. The web isn't responsible for that. Parker added that local news will still need to be covered. And that while bigger papers may look down their nose at them, smaller local papers provide a service that won't be snatched up by the bigger papers and can't be replaced by the internet. Those publications will also remain in print because when people are part of the news, like if their child's boy/girl scout troop made the paper, they want something tangible and permanent.
The class was less optimistic than Parker in response to the question of the future of newspapers and whether they need to migrate online. Some students said that only the big papers like the Washington Post and New York Times with a national audience could afford to stay in print. Others agreed with Parker and Prof. Dufresne that small local papers are the only outlets that are irreplaceable and that unique content and becoming “hyper local” is their best bet. The consensus seemed to be though that people need the news and that it is merely migrating online. Those papers that can survive the next couple decades as predominately print institutions will be a special case, focusing exclusively on national or exclusively on local news.
In conclusion, the importance of technology to journalism and investigative reporting in particular is obvious. But at the same time, that technology is not a substitute for good journalism. It is important to remember that news is a public service and that even though it is failing as a business doesn't mean we can live without it. While the internet is seen as replacing the traditional newspaper, internet news is just an aggregation of what has already appeared in print for the most part.
It looks like the class found everything very “interesting.” The cards overwhelmingly point to the significance of computer-assisted reporting as a major theme or at least the most interesting. Some students were surprised that it plays such an important role. Others were struck by the way technology could clarify the story. Overall the class seems to have taken to heart the fact that such in-depth reporting will sustain the news in the future, if not newspapers. Amy made the point that Parker was the first speaker that did not raise “glaring ethical concerns” and links that to the fact that he is a UConn graduate.
Take-Away Cards
Shane Godrich: “Computer assisted reporting appears to have opened many new doors to the extent and detail a story can be reported on. The knowledge needed to use this kind of reporting seems to be an important skill for future journalists.”
Emily Abbate: “Paul's experiences at the PRJ is extremely interesting and very inspiring considering I have never learned (?) anything about investigative reporting before.”
Kim Romanello: “I found his specialty of computer-assisted reporting to be very intriguing and something I had known very little about.”
Aaron Roy: “Paul's speech demonstrated how C.A.R. is essential to the future of journalism. Journalists are going to need skills beyond the past norms that have been established.”
Amy Lockmiller: “I think it's interesting that this is the first speaker we've had that there seemed to be no glaring ethical concerns. I wonder if this is because Parker has been through the same journalism program we're going through.”
Brendan Cox: “I was struck by the importance that seemingly irrelevant software (ie Excel) plays in his job. The Station Fire coverage w/ the simulation software was very innovative, in my opinion.”
Daniella Henry: “It was very interesting how the floor plans and data sheets really enhanced the stories about the station fire.”
Amanda Wisniowski: “I was surprised to learn how software plays a major role in reporting these days.”
2/25 - Eric Danton Summary, Kate Monohan (Daniella Henry)
Speaker: Eric Danton Summary
Notes by Kate Monohan
Discussion leader: Daniella Henry
Eric Danton brought up the Courant’s audience several times in his talk to explain what kinds of bands he has to cover. Daniela began her discussion by asking how much the target audience influences his coverage. A student replied that it was significantly influenced by the baby-boomer type audience the Courant has. He won’t focus on alternative music that 20 year olds listen to if they aren’t going to be his readers, the student said.
This discussion also turned to talking about what Danton himself listens to in comparison to his readers. A student said that he writes what is “mainstream” for the printed newspaper; they went on to say that he focuses on mostly smaller local acts.
Daniela then went on to ask if the class thought his blog /the Internet was an outlet for more “his age” music. One student said he listens to and reviews what he wants to on his blog, and openly talks of his favorite bands, not holding back much. Another student corrected this comment, and argued that Danton does not present any bands on his blog as “favorites.”
One question that was posed to Danton during his talk, and that Daniela brought up in the discussion, was whether or not he had a background in music. He said that he knew some guitar and had played in some bands that didn’t work out, but that was it. The class was fairly divided on this subject, but in the end, most felt that a background would be beneficial to him.
Amy said she was surprised that Danton didn’t have a musical background, since she had looked at the requirements to be a food critic and found that most in that field go to culinary school as a base knowledge for their reviews. Another student explained that his lack of knowledge was OK since he doesn’t cover jazz, orchestra or other more technical forms of music with a specific, knowledgeable audience. Instead, he covers pop, and only focuses on the performance/entertainment value. Another student agreed, and said that as long as Danton has a passion for music, there’s nothing wrong with him not being well a versed in musical theory.
Katie, who works with Danton, said he is involved with the local music scene. She said he knows what sounds good due to his ample exposure to many different bands. She likened his knowledge in music to a sports writer who may have never played a sport, but watches sports frequently, and as a result knows what teams are good. She also said that Danton is writing general reactions to Top-100 radio, and an education is unnecessary for such music.
Someone else said that, “teeny-boppers” aren’t reading the Courant, and if someone is off pitch, Danton should have the education to hear this. In other words, with an adult audience, perhaps a music background would be more appropriate.
Erin said that she agreed that Danton’s work was quite good, but she herself knows how to play guitar too, but didn’t think she would feel comfortable criticizing others’ music. She didn’t think it was enough to make his critiques have authority.
Someone said that they thought that he didn’t need a background because, in broadcast sports for example, the reporters are almost always a former coach of player. It is easier in sports to get into print that it is to work in music and turn to journalism.
Ortiz? said that all that counts is having a “knowledge of what you love.” If a critic constantly reads up on the history and constantly reads new publications in their field, then they should be fine to be a critic in it. Another student agreed to this, saying that a musical background is a bonus, but not a requirement.
Prof. Dufresne interjected that he thought that there was a question of which was more important: being a good reporter, but not an expert or being an expert, but a poor reporter. This contrast suggested that reporting skills are tantamount. Particularly since, as someone mentioned, it isn’t important for a deep analysis in the Courant, since 90 percent of the audience wouldn’t understand the lingo of a well-educated music critic. If he started referencing specific notes, chords, (etcetera) and used a great deal of jargon, many readers would be off put.
The final note by Baron was that good writing is more pertinent than knowledge. He used an analogy comparing the critiques a movie critic might make on something like “Transformers,” versus “Citizen Kane.” For the former, one would focus on entertainment value and experience, he said. For the latter, one would expect a serious analysis of the content and quality of the film.
The main conclusion the class seemed to come to, is that being a good reporter with foundational skills in hard news will be the best way to prepare for a specialized reporting job.
It also seemed that Daniela’s discussion brought about questions of the value of Danton’s reviews and most students agreed that if he was writing for his blog, or a niche magazine, he could write at a higher level throwing in more specific musical critiques of the concerts he attended. At the Courant though, this is not appropriate, and he must pander to the public he serves, providing objective reviews and keeping his stories simple and readable. My take-away card didn’t get taken, I just said that I though that learning to write front page news was a good idea for all journalism students, since the economy is poor. In this climate I think eventually the specialized reporters (like the environmental one who was laid off at the Courant) will fade away.
The take-away cards are as follows:
Katie Bushey- offered the first good insight into the world of newspaper writing
Chase Carnot- I don’t think I could do this job. Imagine having to see Nickelback
Jesse Grab- I found out more about how to seamlessly blend personal opinion and actually quality of the music
Alex Sanders- I thought it was interesting that he doesn’t use “I” statements because he needs to speak with authority, but reviews seems to carry a strong opinion anyway.
Mike Northrup- Even if you don’t personally like a band or artist, you don’t have to review. It is important to write a fair review for the fans of that band or artist that are out there.
Aaron Roy- Provided me with insight into a (site??-illegible) of journalism I had not, as of yet, had a perspective into. I like the concept of being able to switch between reportage and opinion, so his job for the most part seems like an enjoyable occupation. Nice to hear some happier journalism news for once.
Amanda Wisnioski- I was surprised about how critics write their reviews. They must be objective as possible.
Notes by Kate Monohan
Discussion leader: Daniella Henry
Eric Danton brought up the Courant’s audience several times in his talk to explain what kinds of bands he has to cover. Daniela began her discussion by asking how much the target audience influences his coverage. A student replied that it was significantly influenced by the baby-boomer type audience the Courant has. He won’t focus on alternative music that 20 year olds listen to if they aren’t going to be his readers, the student said.
This discussion also turned to talking about what Danton himself listens to in comparison to his readers. A student said that he writes what is “mainstream” for the printed newspaper; they went on to say that he focuses on mostly smaller local acts.
Daniela then went on to ask if the class thought his blog /the Internet was an outlet for more “his age” music. One student said he listens to and reviews what he wants to on his blog, and openly talks of his favorite bands, not holding back much. Another student corrected this comment, and argued that Danton does not present any bands on his blog as “favorites.”
One question that was posed to Danton during his talk, and that Daniela brought up in the discussion, was whether or not he had a background in music. He said that he knew some guitar and had played in some bands that didn’t work out, but that was it. The class was fairly divided on this subject, but in the end, most felt that a background would be beneficial to him.
Amy said she was surprised that Danton didn’t have a musical background, since she had looked at the requirements to be a food critic and found that most in that field go to culinary school as a base knowledge for their reviews. Another student explained that his lack of knowledge was OK since he doesn’t cover jazz, orchestra or other more technical forms of music with a specific, knowledgeable audience. Instead, he covers pop, and only focuses on the performance/entertainment value. Another student agreed, and said that as long as Danton has a passion for music, there’s nothing wrong with him not being well a versed in musical theory.
Katie, who works with Danton, said he is involved with the local music scene. She said he knows what sounds good due to his ample exposure to many different bands. She likened his knowledge in music to a sports writer who may have never played a sport, but watches sports frequently, and as a result knows what teams are good. She also said that Danton is writing general reactions to Top-100 radio, and an education is unnecessary for such music.
Someone else said that, “teeny-boppers” aren’t reading the Courant, and if someone is off pitch, Danton should have the education to hear this. In other words, with an adult audience, perhaps a music background would be more appropriate.
Erin said that she agreed that Danton’s work was quite good, but she herself knows how to play guitar too, but didn’t think she would feel comfortable criticizing others’ music. She didn’t think it was enough to make his critiques have authority.
Someone said that they thought that he didn’t need a background because, in broadcast sports for example, the reporters are almost always a former coach of player. It is easier in sports to get into print that it is to work in music and turn to journalism.
Ortiz? said that all that counts is having a “knowledge of what you love.” If a critic constantly reads up on the history and constantly reads new publications in their field, then they should be fine to be a critic in it. Another student agreed to this, saying that a musical background is a bonus, but not a requirement.
Prof. Dufresne interjected that he thought that there was a question of which was more important: being a good reporter, but not an expert or being an expert, but a poor reporter. This contrast suggested that reporting skills are tantamount. Particularly since, as someone mentioned, it isn’t important for a deep analysis in the Courant, since 90 percent of the audience wouldn’t understand the lingo of a well-educated music critic. If he started referencing specific notes, chords, (etcetera) and used a great deal of jargon, many readers would be off put.
The final note by Baron was that good writing is more pertinent than knowledge. He used an analogy comparing the critiques a movie critic might make on something like “Transformers,” versus “Citizen Kane.” For the former, one would focus on entertainment value and experience, he said. For the latter, one would expect a serious analysis of the content and quality of the film.
The main conclusion the class seemed to come to, is that being a good reporter with foundational skills in hard news will be the best way to prepare for a specialized reporting job.
It also seemed that Daniela’s discussion brought about questions of the value of Danton’s reviews and most students agreed that if he was writing for his blog, or a niche magazine, he could write at a higher level throwing in more specific musical critiques of the concerts he attended. At the Courant though, this is not appropriate, and he must pander to the public he serves, providing objective reviews and keeping his stories simple and readable. My take-away card didn’t get taken, I just said that I though that learning to write front page news was a good idea for all journalism students, since the economy is poor. In this climate I think eventually the specialized reporters (like the environmental one who was laid off at the Courant) will fade away.
The take-away cards are as follows:
Katie Bushey- offered the first good insight into the world of newspaper writing
Chase Carnot- I don’t think I could do this job. Imagine having to see Nickelback
Jesse Grab- I found out more about how to seamlessly blend personal opinion and actually quality of the music
Alex Sanders- I thought it was interesting that he doesn’t use “I” statements because he needs to speak with authority, but reviews seems to carry a strong opinion anyway.
Mike Northrup- Even if you don’t personally like a band or artist, you don’t have to review. It is important to write a fair review for the fans of that band or artist that are out there.
Aaron Roy- Provided me with insight into a (site??-illegible) of journalism I had not, as of yet, had a perspective into. I like the concept of being able to switch between reportage and opinion, so his job for the most part seems like an enjoyable occupation. Nice to hear some happier journalism news for once.
Amanda Wisnioski- I was surprised about how critics write their reviews. They must be objective as possible.
2/25 - Eric Danton Summary, Amy Lockmiller (Christine Gratton)
2/25/09
Speaker: Eric Danton
Amy Lockmiller
Discussion Leader: Christine Gratton
Christine started the discussion by noting that Danton made a few references to print being a dying medium and that the critic’s job was moving onto video appearances and blogging.
Pat thinks that this is exactly where the future of journalism is headed, but said that Danton should’ve been paid more for his extra appearances.
Eli responded by saying that getting paid less for doing more is a trend that will probably continue into the future.
Christine then talked about how being “a personality” is a new concept for print journalists, who in the past have been known mostly by a name and few would be recognized in public. She asked if the class thought this made the profession more intriguing or if it was a turnoff.
Alyssa brought up that she thought that being a face and not just a name could hold journalists even more accountable for their work and says that they also will end up having to be more diverse.
Joe thinks that this strengthens a person as a journalist because critics like Danton will have to know more about just music critiquing.
Erin said the idea of print journalists being personalities would scare her. She brought up again that a person like Danton does so much more work and is getting paid less than those in broadcast.
Professor Dufresne corrected Erin by saying that entry level salaries on tv are actually worse than those in print. This is why most television people are younger—there’s not as much longetivity in the job.
Christine moved on to the fact that it is interesting that the different mediums Danton used have different styles. For example, his blog allows him to be more candid than his pieces for the newspaper.
A student thought that the opinion he was able to express is a good thing because it allows for more transparency. They believed that this was especially good for a critic because it allows you to know if they have the kind of musical taste that you identify with so that you can decide whether or not their critiques are applicable to you.
Another student noted that outlets like blogs also allow them to write to a different audience. The Hartford Courant has a different target audience than his blog.
Eli said that the fact that Danton is a critic allows him to give his opinion and that his title is a disclaimer in itself.
Christine then wanted to talk about Danton’s views on freebies. He does not re-sell the music, but may choose to keep them for his own collection. Is this ethical?
Emily said that she sees where he is coming from. At the Daily Campus where she works, they see receiving music from local artists as necessary. They wouldn’t have been able to find the music otherwise.
Christine asked if keeping the CD’s is blurring the ethical boundaries.
Professor Dufresne said that as a critic, you’re supposed to be an expert. Keeping the music is just customary because you’re building your body of reference work.
Take Away Cards
Scott Powell- Eric’s last point on getting up to speed on current information regarding music was an interesting point. He mentioned that as a music writer, you don’t need to know everything because it’s impossible. Pick one or two styles and perfect them and find their roots, it makes for a more in-depth article.
Emily Abbate- Danton was pretty relatable. I really think that he legitimizes a job like this. You always hear stories or see movies/shows on being a music beat reporter. It seems like he really enjoys what he does. It’s refreshing.
Stephen Ortiz- It’s okay if you take the freebies, as long as you know boundaries.
Erin O’Toole- Eric Danton was interesting and very different because he has so much multimedia involved in his print job. I enjoyed his talk and thought having his job would be exciting.
Eli Pearlstein- Obviously his presentation wasn’t as controversial as the previous two, but I thought it was just as insightful. The ethics of concert tickets is certainly an interesting topic to explore.
Alyssa Carrol- This was our most honest and interesting speaker to me. His combination of reporting and journalistic background with insight and humor was great.
B. Cox- It was interesting to hear that Eric approaches criticism with a good sense of balances and fairness. I was always under the impression that criticism could be as haphazardly subjective as it wanted.
Speaker: Eric Danton
Amy Lockmiller
Discussion Leader: Christine Gratton
Christine started the discussion by noting that Danton made a few references to print being a dying medium and that the critic’s job was moving onto video appearances and blogging.
Pat thinks that this is exactly where the future of journalism is headed, but said that Danton should’ve been paid more for his extra appearances.
Eli responded by saying that getting paid less for doing more is a trend that will probably continue into the future.
Christine then talked about how being “a personality” is a new concept for print journalists, who in the past have been known mostly by a name and few would be recognized in public. She asked if the class thought this made the profession more intriguing or if it was a turnoff.
Alyssa brought up that she thought that being a face and not just a name could hold journalists even more accountable for their work and says that they also will end up having to be more diverse.
Joe thinks that this strengthens a person as a journalist because critics like Danton will have to know more about just music critiquing.
Erin said the idea of print journalists being personalities would scare her. She brought up again that a person like Danton does so much more work and is getting paid less than those in broadcast.
Professor Dufresne corrected Erin by saying that entry level salaries on tv are actually worse than those in print. This is why most television people are younger—there’s not as much longetivity in the job.
Christine moved on to the fact that it is interesting that the different mediums Danton used have different styles. For example, his blog allows him to be more candid than his pieces for the newspaper.
A student thought that the opinion he was able to express is a good thing because it allows for more transparency. They believed that this was especially good for a critic because it allows you to know if they have the kind of musical taste that you identify with so that you can decide whether or not their critiques are applicable to you.
Another student noted that outlets like blogs also allow them to write to a different audience. The Hartford Courant has a different target audience than his blog.
Eli said that the fact that Danton is a critic allows him to give his opinion and that his title is a disclaimer in itself.
Christine then wanted to talk about Danton’s views on freebies. He does not re-sell the music, but may choose to keep them for his own collection. Is this ethical?
Emily said that she sees where he is coming from. At the Daily Campus where she works, they see receiving music from local artists as necessary. They wouldn’t have been able to find the music otherwise.
Christine asked if keeping the CD’s is blurring the ethical boundaries.
Professor Dufresne said that as a critic, you’re supposed to be an expert. Keeping the music is just customary because you’re building your body of reference work.
Take Away Cards
Scott Powell- Eric’s last point on getting up to speed on current information regarding music was an interesting point. He mentioned that as a music writer, you don’t need to know everything because it’s impossible. Pick one or two styles and perfect them and find their roots, it makes for a more in-depth article.
Emily Abbate- Danton was pretty relatable. I really think that he legitimizes a job like this. You always hear stories or see movies/shows on being a music beat reporter. It seems like he really enjoys what he does. It’s refreshing.
Stephen Ortiz- It’s okay if you take the freebies, as long as you know boundaries.
Erin O’Toole- Eric Danton was interesting and very different because he has so much multimedia involved in his print job. I enjoyed his talk and thought having his job would be exciting.
Eli Pearlstein- Obviously his presentation wasn’t as controversial as the previous two, but I thought it was just as insightful. The ethics of concert tickets is certainly an interesting topic to explore.
Alyssa Carrol- This was our most honest and interesting speaker to me. His combination of reporting and journalistic background with insight and humor was great.
B. Cox- It was interesting to hear that Eric approaches criticism with a good sense of balances and fairness. I was always under the impression that criticism could be as haphazardly subjective as it wanted.
2/11 - Mike London Summary, Rowan McInnes (Chase Carnot)
Speaker: Mike London
Rowan McInnes
Discussion Leader: Chase Carnot
London had mentioned in his talk that entry-level public relations professionals typically begin making somewhere around $25,000-$30,000 a year, with salaries often reaching the $100,000 + mark within 10 years or so. He added that those choosing to work in public relations for non-profit organizations generally make a little less.
Chase began his portion of the discussion with a question about the money aspect of public relations, and whether or not the dollars that come with working in the public relations sector would be enough to lure one over to “The Dark Side.”
Patrick kicked things off by saying he’d “love to” join The Dark Side for the money. The rest of the answers varied, however, and weren’t as definitive.
Joe said he would rather sell his soul to the devil than work in public relations. He said he believes that journalism, in a sense, needs public relations, as it wouldn’t be as effective without it, but that he could personally never make the switch over to The Dark Side – not even for the money.
One student responded to Joe’s comment by saying that they respect his journalistic integrity, as well as that of anyone else who feels the same way or similarly, but that “selling one’s soul” is going a little too far. This student added that public relations is a necessary field, and is not going to disappear anytime soon.
Another student disagreed with the notion that public relations is, in fact, “The Dark Side,” stating that it’s just “where the money is.” To add to that, someone else felt that labeling public relations “The Dark Side” says something about the journalist.
Alyssa agreed that public relations is not “The Dark Side,” relating such a label to the idea of “killing babies,” which public relations is clearly (I hope) not. She went on to say that one of the reasons she feels comfortable with the field of journalism is that it revolves heavily around telling the truth, so she could do that. But if she doesn’t agree with what she’s doing, or it goes against her beliefs, she said she couldn’t do that, referring to public relations.
London interestingly stated early on in his talk that with public relations, you are not altering the truth. Instead, you are expressing an opinion in the way that your client wants you to, to get a point of view across to an audience, and thus try to sway their opinion as a result.
Someone else, in response to Alyssa’s comments, brought up the fact that even in journalism, you aren’t going to feel comfortable with everything you are doing, adding that this is the case with any career you choose.
Some people, however, like Alyssa said, would be more than happy to just stand by their morals and “eat macaroni and cheese for the rest of my life.”
London brought up several ethics issues with regard to public relations, such as the ghost-written op-ed articles, which are written by the public relations firm, and then signed by a CEO, or some other prominent figure. Having previously worked as a reporter for the Hartford Courant, London said he has ghost-written articles for the Courant, and that while it definitely bothers him to a degree, public relations is his job now, not reporting.
In reference to ethics and public relations, Eli introduced the perspective of someone entering the public relations arena with a proper background necessary to work in PR, and the right set of ethics, and suggested that such people could push out those who are doing an insufficient, perhaps unethical job. Maybe this kind of approach could lead those outside the field to view public relations in a more positive light.
Chase stayed with the topic of ethics, and asked if anyone thought that “ethical PR” was impossible to achieve. One person responded by saying that it’s just as possible to be ethical in public relations as it is with journalism, but that with PR you are forced to put a spin on things, so it might be slightly more difficult to maintain a strong set of ethics.
In response to that, and tying in the ethics question with the previous one about money, another student stated that a lot of people do things that are deemed “unethical” simply to make money, but that one doesn’t necessarily have to be unethical to make money. And that goes for public relations, as well.
London stepped in at the end of Chase’s discussion portion to discuss the recent current events issue surrounding Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps. He said that because Phelps had been coached by a good PR person, he did the right thing in taking immediate action by admitting his wrongdoing and moving on, whereas many people in his situation might’ve been more inclined to cover up what they did. Instead, he took full blame and responsibility for his actions, and at the same time, sounded quite credible in doing so. Despite losing an endorsement, London said he believed Phelps did pretty much everything correctly from a public relations standpoint, and as a result he did not really damage his reputation or athletic future.
A student responded to what London said by asking what would have happened if Phelps – who is viewed by so many as such a role model -- hadn’t been coached by someone in this situation. London stated that, without the proper guidance, Phelps’ career likely would’ve ended up “ruined.” Clearly, by saying that, he placed a ton of importance on the necessity of public relations.
Most of the takeaway cards I received touched on the connection between public relations and journalism, which makes sense being that the majority of us in this class are journalism majors. Some people were surprised how similar the two fields are, while others, despite realizing that there is more truth involved in public relations than many believe, were taken aback by how there is still so much manipulation and “twisting” that goes on the field of PR.
Takeaway Cards
Britton Taylor – Something that was interesting to me was how interconnected PR and journalism is. It seems like a very large portion of news is provided via a PR company, something I never knew before.
No name – PR is “creating news,” not twisting facts but exploring in a way to get your POV heard by the right audience to sway opinion.
Daniella Henry – I found the issue of accountability interesting in relation to PR. It seems that a lot of the information is released without a strong sense of liability to the public.
Amy Lockmiller – I definitely agreed with the point he made about defense attorneys defending murderers and how he related it to public relations. In a democracy, we need to hear both sides of the story. As long as someone is being attacked they have a right to be defended.
Alex Sanders – I was surprised that people in the world of PR can make unethical decisions because PR seems so closely related to journalism.
Rowan McInnes – London’s journalistic background seems to give him a different PR perspective than if he went straight into PR. But at the same time, he still goes ahead with certain projects that one might not think he’d find ethical journalistically.
Joe Callahan – PR is creating the news that doesn’t change facts, but expresses it in a way to promote your point of view. Who is the audience? What is the message? What do you want them to do with the message? A news release is only issued to get a reporter interested in a story.
Erin O’Toole – It was interesting how manipulative a PR firm can be even if they are telling the truth, how they twist is clever. However it is almost scary to know a lot of our news is constructed rather than researched.
Rowan McInnes
Discussion Leader: Chase Carnot
London had mentioned in his talk that entry-level public relations professionals typically begin making somewhere around $25,000-$30,000 a year, with salaries often reaching the $100,000 + mark within 10 years or so. He added that those choosing to work in public relations for non-profit organizations generally make a little less.
Chase began his portion of the discussion with a question about the money aspect of public relations, and whether or not the dollars that come with working in the public relations sector would be enough to lure one over to “The Dark Side.”
Patrick kicked things off by saying he’d “love to” join The Dark Side for the money. The rest of the answers varied, however, and weren’t as definitive.
Joe said he would rather sell his soul to the devil than work in public relations. He said he believes that journalism, in a sense, needs public relations, as it wouldn’t be as effective without it, but that he could personally never make the switch over to The Dark Side – not even for the money.
One student responded to Joe’s comment by saying that they respect his journalistic integrity, as well as that of anyone else who feels the same way or similarly, but that “selling one’s soul” is going a little too far. This student added that public relations is a necessary field, and is not going to disappear anytime soon.
Another student disagreed with the notion that public relations is, in fact, “The Dark Side,” stating that it’s just “where the money is.” To add to that, someone else felt that labeling public relations “The Dark Side” says something about the journalist.
Alyssa agreed that public relations is not “The Dark Side,” relating such a label to the idea of “killing babies,” which public relations is clearly (I hope) not. She went on to say that one of the reasons she feels comfortable with the field of journalism is that it revolves heavily around telling the truth, so she could do that. But if she doesn’t agree with what she’s doing, or it goes against her beliefs, she said she couldn’t do that, referring to public relations.
London interestingly stated early on in his talk that with public relations, you are not altering the truth. Instead, you are expressing an opinion in the way that your client wants you to, to get a point of view across to an audience, and thus try to sway their opinion as a result.
Someone else, in response to Alyssa’s comments, brought up the fact that even in journalism, you aren’t going to feel comfortable with everything you are doing, adding that this is the case with any career you choose.
Some people, however, like Alyssa said, would be more than happy to just stand by their morals and “eat macaroni and cheese for the rest of my life.”
London brought up several ethics issues with regard to public relations, such as the ghost-written op-ed articles, which are written by the public relations firm, and then signed by a CEO, or some other prominent figure. Having previously worked as a reporter for the Hartford Courant, London said he has ghost-written articles for the Courant, and that while it definitely bothers him to a degree, public relations is his job now, not reporting.
In reference to ethics and public relations, Eli introduced the perspective of someone entering the public relations arena with a proper background necessary to work in PR, and the right set of ethics, and suggested that such people could push out those who are doing an insufficient, perhaps unethical job. Maybe this kind of approach could lead those outside the field to view public relations in a more positive light.
Chase stayed with the topic of ethics, and asked if anyone thought that “ethical PR” was impossible to achieve. One person responded by saying that it’s just as possible to be ethical in public relations as it is with journalism, but that with PR you are forced to put a spin on things, so it might be slightly more difficult to maintain a strong set of ethics.
In response to that, and tying in the ethics question with the previous one about money, another student stated that a lot of people do things that are deemed “unethical” simply to make money, but that one doesn’t necessarily have to be unethical to make money. And that goes for public relations, as well.
London stepped in at the end of Chase’s discussion portion to discuss the recent current events issue surrounding Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps. He said that because Phelps had been coached by a good PR person, he did the right thing in taking immediate action by admitting his wrongdoing and moving on, whereas many people in his situation might’ve been more inclined to cover up what they did. Instead, he took full blame and responsibility for his actions, and at the same time, sounded quite credible in doing so. Despite losing an endorsement, London said he believed Phelps did pretty much everything correctly from a public relations standpoint, and as a result he did not really damage his reputation or athletic future.
A student responded to what London said by asking what would have happened if Phelps – who is viewed by so many as such a role model -- hadn’t been coached by someone in this situation. London stated that, without the proper guidance, Phelps’ career likely would’ve ended up “ruined.” Clearly, by saying that, he placed a ton of importance on the necessity of public relations.
Most of the takeaway cards I received touched on the connection between public relations and journalism, which makes sense being that the majority of us in this class are journalism majors. Some people were surprised how similar the two fields are, while others, despite realizing that there is more truth involved in public relations than many believe, were taken aback by how there is still so much manipulation and “twisting” that goes on the field of PR.
Takeaway Cards
Britton Taylor – Something that was interesting to me was how interconnected PR and journalism is. It seems like a very large portion of news is provided via a PR company, something I never knew before.
No name – PR is “creating news,” not twisting facts but exploring in a way to get your POV heard by the right audience to sway opinion.
Daniella Henry – I found the issue of accountability interesting in relation to PR. It seems that a lot of the information is released without a strong sense of liability to the public.
Amy Lockmiller – I definitely agreed with the point he made about defense attorneys defending murderers and how he related it to public relations. In a democracy, we need to hear both sides of the story. As long as someone is being attacked they have a right to be defended.
Alex Sanders – I was surprised that people in the world of PR can make unethical decisions because PR seems so closely related to journalism.
Rowan McInnes – London’s journalistic background seems to give him a different PR perspective than if he went straight into PR. But at the same time, he still goes ahead with certain projects that one might not think he’d find ethical journalistically.
Joe Callahan – PR is creating the news that doesn’t change facts, but expresses it in a way to promote your point of view. Who is the audience? What is the message? What do you want them to do with the message? A news release is only issued to get a reporter interested in a story.
Erin O’Toole – It was interesting how manipulative a PR firm can be even if they are telling the truth, how they twist is clever. However it is almost scary to know a lot of our news is constructed rather than researched.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Eric Danton Summary
Note taker: Patrick Swidler
Disscussion Leader: Alyssa Carroll
Unlike the previous speakers, the flow of Eric Danton's discussion was significantly less controversial and much more laid back. This class provided a fresh and rather relieving approach to journalism that stems not from money but from a passion for critiquing music. Eric Danton's positive attitude towards his job transcended his presentation and created a discussion that was dissimilar to any prior.
Alyssa Carroll focused her discussion on the public relations aspect of Eric Danton's job. She also proposed questions of ethical merit along with questions regarding the longevity of a critic's position in print journalism. The vast majority of the students participating in the discussion enjoyed Eric Danton's presentation and respected his ethical values. They seemed to appreciate his honesty and knowledge of the genre. However, one student questioned his background with music and the effect it may have on his career.
Alyssa first questioned whether Danton was using his critiques' as a means of PR. She inquired as to whether it was unethical to promote a band through his critiques, increasing their population recognition. Alex responded by saying that he is performing a subtle type of PR but with no spin or malice. Danton is merely doing his job. When a band or publishing company gives him an album to listen to, he has every right to say whatever he wants about it, highlighting his freedom and unbiased critiquing. Shane concurred with Alex because he believes Danton writes with a lack of intended spin. He said their was no limit on opinion with Danton's music writing. The rest of the class appeared to agree on this matter and settled on Danton being only a critic. Alyssa added that this was similar to Daily Campus reviews and their critiques on local bands. She explained how she thought it was indirect PR because it lacked specific attention. Whenever Danton goes to a concert or gets an album to critique it is done so in a open minded fashion. He is not necessarily hired by one specific company. Instead he decides which album he wants to listen to or which concert he wants to attend based on his interest in giving the respective band a fair critique.
Professor Dufresne described this as a difference between exposure and promotion. Danton is not promoting the band as a publisher would because he just as easily may say it is the worst thing he has ever listened to or attended. Instead he is simply giving the band exposure. Often journalists and publicists say “any news is good news.” This can apply to local bands because even if Danton doesn't think very highly of the band, others who dislike Danton's taste in music may enjoy it. The rest of the class agreed with Professor Dufresne on the lines of Danton's exposure as opposed to promotion.
The discussion then turned to a comparison between Danton and Kyle Reyes. Eli mentioned how the difference between them was Reyes “put on the air what he likes and Danton constantly keeps an open mind.” He added how Reyes and London attract more attention and also give more attention to one specific company, person or event.
The class agreed upon the importance of Danton's critiques as necessary for the people who follow music and read the Hartford Courant. The necessity of his job led Alyssa to lead the class into a discussion on job security. Danton had mentioned how the head political writer was laid-off at the Courant, but he was able to keep his job. He explained how it was because he was paid significantly less then the older employees so it is financially smarter to keep him on the payroll. He continued to say how he does feel his time will come and will eventually be laid off at some point or another.
When Alyssa posed this topic for class discussion, Jesse responded by saying he feels critic's like Danton will be forced to online writing only. Barren agreed by saying “Print critic's will go away and will be limited instead to websites like rottentomatoes.com and imdb.com.” The class felt the Internet will provide readers with more opportunities to give feedback to the critic's on their opinions. Unlike newspapers, online writing connects everyone instantly and provides an open forum that newspapers can not. Shane believes that there is more room for critic's on the Internet anyway. Outside of the “celebrity” critic's, the majority of them will be on the Internet in the future, according to the class.
A portion of the class mentioned the rise of tabloid popularity and the decline of newspaper quality. The firing of the head political writer only contributes to this trend and stories that provoke interest such as celebrity gossip benefit. There was a majority decision that this is not necessarily a bad thing. During tough economic times, softer news like the critiques Danton writes provide the reader with a good alternative to a constant barrage of bad news.
The final aspect of Alyssa's portion of the discussion focused around the transparency of Danton's work. She suggested that too much transparency is a bad thing and the objectivity Danton provides his readers is a plus. He mentioned that he will always respond if asked what music he is partial to, but will never openly post his favorite music on public forum's like Facebook. Alex thought it was a good thing for no transparency but realizes that when reviews are concerned some bias will always unintentionally go into it.
Danton finished his presentation in a similar fashion to Alyssa. She brought up how Danton never uses the word I in writing. He said this is because he feels it takes away from the credibility and overall power of the writing. He explained that it was better to “show and not tell” the reader what you are trying to get across. The class agreed with Danton's style and felt it provided the reader with a better article and smoother flow.
The take-away cards provided some interesting insight on what the students felt were the most interesting parts of Danton's speech. Joe felt the fundamentals are the key to all types of reporting. He appreciated how Danton didn't tell the readers what he thinks of the album, instead he tells them what the album is about. Danton mentioned this more then one time because he felt it was important for the audience to know about the concert or album as opposed to just how he felt about it personally.
The passion Danton has for his job rubbed off on the class during Alyssa's discussion. The lack of conflict was filled in with powerful interest by the class. Alyssa concluded her discussion with the specifics of Danton's writing which was entirely fitting because just as Danton puts the story before his opinion, she involved the class into a free flowing discussion above anything else.
Take-Away Cards:
Joe: It may be obvious, but fundamentals are the key to all types of reporting. Reporters aren't the story, he doesn't tell the readers what he thinks of the album. He tells them what the album is about. A paper loses its voice if it has no critics.
Rowan: I like how he is so passionate about his job, because that isn't always the case, especially in today's economy. I also thought he was really honest about what he didn't like about his job, like covering bands he hates.
Amy: I thought the point he made about the subjectivity in his writing-that he displayed his opinion, but that it was a fair and uniformed opinion, is a point I wish would be adopted by more traditional points of the news.
Christine: The fact that as a reporter, you are now expected to be multifaceted: a personality, blogger, etc...
Beren: Treat a show like your a foreign reporter, gotta show what it feels like to be in the show. Describe a GWAR show moot like a trip into Gaza.
Kim: I thought he was very informative about his career. He seems to have a great, exciting job that he is very dedicated to.