After watching a clip from "State of Play" and the story of the photojournalist who won the Pulitzer Prize, there are similarities in the way they do journalism, but fictional journalism and the real thing showed themselves to be very different.
The real contrast between the two was emotion in my opinion. "State of Play" showed journalists to be very cutthroat and very intent on revealing the truth, no matter who it hurt or what the consequences. As it was said in class though, truth can be a weapon. If your audience is not ready, it will hurt them. In contrast, the photojournalist had a heart for the hostage situation that was going on. It was a small town and he was emotionally invested in everything. He could not bring himself to take a picture of the cut-up, thrashed, 5-year-old girl because it was too graphic. If that had been a fictional situation, I think they definitely would have revealed the picture of the little girl. Fiction is meant to shock, as opposed to real life where people are real and have real emotions and do what the average person would do.
Sometimes with fiction journalism out there as a model, we forget that journalists are just average people who have normal responses to unusual situations. Real journalists are not much different than us, while fictional journalists can be very ruthless as they try to get to the bottom of the story in a very pressing, cutthroat manner to not only reveal the truth, but advance their careers.
That is the difference between truth and fiction.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
So About This Class...
Basically, this class has been pretty crazy. Michael J. Farr came in who works for the L.A. Times and I learned a lot about how they do coding for the html and even how to do some simple things, like insert format for a story, and I know that will come in handy at some point, so I am pretty excited. I feel slightly more computer literate. Unfortunately, this class came in at a time when I had to pick classes, so I only halfway paid attention to some of the stuff. I missed out a little bit on the learning. Bummer. Actually as I am typing this, I should be inserting html or something. I don't know what I am supposed to be doing. At least I showed up, right?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Ideas Raised From "All The President's Men"
According to the review by Roger Ebert handed out in class, "All The President's Men" was an extremely accurate vision of what real journalism looked like and for that he praised the movie, but also said that it lacked storytelling elements usually necessary to satisfy moviegoers. Maybe this is true, but I throughly enjoyed the way that they accurately portrayed journalism instead of making it just another flashy, unreal, exciting, Hollywood film. Journalism is not always going to have all the leads or information one needs, and it is not always going to be a glamorous job that receives a lot of recognition for findings. There is real work involved, and real dead ends, and times when the story is not always going the way you expect it to.
I think that "Woodstein's" techniques to get the story on the Watergate scandal were completely ridiculous and unconventional, but given the situation, it was completely necessary. There were so many secrets going around that unless they used all the anonymous sources and semi-confirmations, they were never going to be able to get to the bottom of the story the way that they did. I honestly hope that when I believe a full-fledged journalist one day that I do not have to go through the lengths that they did to get every little tidbit of information that added together to make the story that they were after. I do not know if the public would accept this kind of vagueness in today's society. There are so many people who doubt the validity of the press and all that they have to say and would probably just peg things like that as conspiracy theory. I mean, look at the story of the death of Bin Laden! People already doubt if it happened just because of the lack of evidence in their possession, like the body or a picture of the body. How then would they be able to accept such a vague story with such elusive details and sources as the one that Woodward and Bernstein put out?
Another issue brought up in this class was the fact that President Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal so that he could avoid impeachment, while President Bill Clinton, the president with the highest approval rating of any other president ever in America's history did not resign and was later impeached. I think that this situation speaks a lot about both the character of Nixon vs Clinton, as well as Congress's response to their given situations. From their different reactions to facing impeachment, it can be deduced that Nixon is the kind of man who cares very much about his pride and his image, while Clinton cares more about standing up for what he has done and taking responsibility for it, as well as facing the controversy head on. Also I think that based on this contrast, we should critique Congress and their decisions. Congress decided that despite the people's love for President Clinton, they could not have someone who committed adultery and lied about it as their president. Personally, I think that it had nothing to do with his ability to lead the country and the decision to impeach him upset a lot of people and was probably not the best for the country. On the other hand, I think that their decision to try to impeach President Nixon was completely valid and it is too bad that he never came them the chance to impeach him.
I think that "Woodstein's" techniques to get the story on the Watergate scandal were completely ridiculous and unconventional, but given the situation, it was completely necessary. There were so many secrets going around that unless they used all the anonymous sources and semi-confirmations, they were never going to be able to get to the bottom of the story the way that they did. I honestly hope that when I believe a full-fledged journalist one day that I do not have to go through the lengths that they did to get every little tidbit of information that added together to make the story that they were after. I do not know if the public would accept this kind of vagueness in today's society. There are so many people who doubt the validity of the press and all that they have to say and would probably just peg things like that as conspiracy theory. I mean, look at the story of the death of Bin Laden! People already doubt if it happened just because of the lack of evidence in their possession, like the body or a picture of the body. How then would they be able to accept such a vague story with such elusive details and sources as the one that Woodward and Bernstein put out?
Another issue brought up in this class was the fact that President Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal so that he could avoid impeachment, while President Bill Clinton, the president with the highest approval rating of any other president ever in America's history did not resign and was later impeached. I think that this situation speaks a lot about both the character of Nixon vs Clinton, as well as Congress's response to their given situations. From their different reactions to facing impeachment, it can be deduced that Nixon is the kind of man who cares very much about his pride and his image, while Clinton cares more about standing up for what he has done and taking responsibility for it, as well as facing the controversy head on. Also I think that based on this contrast, we should critique Congress and their decisions. Congress decided that despite the people's love for President Clinton, they could not have someone who committed adultery and lied about it as their president. Personally, I think that it had nothing to do with his ability to lead the country and the decision to impeach him upset a lot of people and was probably not the best for the country. On the other hand, I think that their decision to try to impeach President Nixon was completely valid and it is too bad that he never came them the chance to impeach him.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Truth Behind Journalism
All The President's Men is a riveting movie that provided a great amount of insight into the world of journalism.
The portion of the movie that we just watched in class is about the pursuit Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein engaged in to find the story behind the Watergate Scandal. Through a lot of investigative work, they were able to make a connection between the burglars of the Watergate Hotel to the Chief of Finances in the White House. I thought the movie and the true story behind it was extremely compelling both in the historical lesson it provided as well as the picture of journalism that it painted for me.
All The President's Men portrayed such an intriguing illustration of the journalism world, so I am extremely glad I watched it. It depicted the journalism field as not only a career in writing, but more importantly a career in investigating. Woodward and Bernstein were like the authorities the way they inquired the real story behind all the lies and confusion surrounding the crime. It was not about the way they wrote and used colorful imagery or anything like that that they became known for, it was their cracking down and getting the story. Journalism is not always about the way you write, as I have come to learn. It is about WHAT you write and the facts you have to back it up. Journalism is very much about investigating and getting to the true heart of the issue that one is writing about.
The portion of the movie that we just watched in class is about the pursuit Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein engaged in to find the story behind the Watergate Scandal. Through a lot of investigative work, they were able to make a connection between the burglars of the Watergate Hotel to the Chief of Finances in the White House. I thought the movie and the true story behind it was extremely compelling both in the historical lesson it provided as well as the picture of journalism that it painted for me.
All The President's Men portrayed such an intriguing illustration of the journalism world, so I am extremely glad I watched it. It depicted the journalism field as not only a career in writing, but more importantly a career in investigating. Woodward and Bernstein were like the authorities the way they inquired the real story behind all the lies and confusion surrounding the crime. It was not about the way they wrote and used colorful imagery or anything like that that they became known for, it was their cracking down and getting the story. Journalism is not always about the way you write, as I have come to learn. It is about WHAT you write and the facts you have to back it up. Journalism is very much about investigating and getting to the true heart of the issue that one is writing about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)