6. CITIZEN JOURNALIST IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724065
"'Citizen journalism' is one of those buzzwords that's hot in our
industry right now," writes Steve Outing. "While some journalists
might hope it's a fad that will go away soon, I don't think that's
likely. Inviting the public to participate in online news
publishing by contributing articles and photographs is likely here
to stay -- indeed, it might allow journalism institutions to renew
some of the public trust they've lost in recent years by inviting
the public in instead of keeping them outside the ropes."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, November 19, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1100840404
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Here is a review of two movies about two very bad journalists who I mentioned to you before. Both showed a failure of morality and ethics that betrays a trust that their fellow works and readers had in them.
Getting tangled up in the deadline
By KAORI SHOJI
Shattered Glass
Rating: * * * * (out of 5)
Japanese title: News no Tensai
Director: Billy Ray
Running time: 94 minutes
Language: English
Opens Nov. 27
[See Japan Times movie listings]
Truth may be more interesting than fiction, but try telling that to a reporter on deadline, while he or she sits in front of a blank screen in the wee hours. At such times, fiction (or fabrication) seems much more glamorous, entertaining and, most importantly, easier to write. "Shattered Glass" is based on the true story of a reporter who succumbed to that temptation, and his subsequent fall from grace.
Hayden Christensen in "Shattered Glass"
In 1998 Stephen Glass was a hotshot staff writer for The New Republic, who also had bylines in magazines like Rolling Stone and Harpers -- that is, until it was discovered that he had cooked up more than half his articles and he was subsequently run out of journalism.
At the time of the movie's release in the United States last year, Glass was awaiting the results of his bar exam in New York, and it's a mystery whether the irony of his newly chosen profession ever struck him. How was he going to take "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but . . . " day after day? Since then, he's written an autobiographical novel called "The Fabulist" (for which he got a handsome advance) and made an appearance on "60 Minutes." A similar resurrection is in process for Jayson Blair, a star reporter for The New York Times who also fabricated dozens of articles and was exposed in 2003. The definition for the moniker "great pretender" should include something about journalism.
Written and directed by Billy Ray, "Shattered Glass" is high on dramatic density and revealing psycho-dialogue, delving not just into the characters of Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) and his office nemesis Chuck Lane (Peter Saarsgard), but everyone on TNR's writing staff. Witness, for example, how the underconfident and slightly overweight Amy Brand (Melanie Lynskey) is always moaning about how she can't write or get any good stories, casting a brief, tortured glance at Stephen as if to say: "What would you know about my suffering?"
Probably nothing. Stephen is everyone's talented darling, who pads around the office in his socks (as if the place were a college dorm), pays lavish compliments to every female on the premises ("That lipstick is so you!"), and is adept at appearing conscientious, asking "Are you mad at me?" to anyone who gives him less than a beaming smile.
Chuck Lane, on the other hand, is serious and laconic, too proud to stoop to self-promotion tactics. He seems to be the only one immune to the charms of Stephen. So when TNR's beloved editor Michael Kelly (who later died in Iraq -- in the movie, he's portrayed by Hank Azaria) is ousted by the magazine's eccentric publisher and replaced by Chuck, Stephen is even more unsettled than the others. Here's one person on whom his wide-eyed "Are you mad at me?" has little effect.
Chuck, however, turns out to be a fair and even-handed boss, who never lets personal issues override his professional concerns. When he's alerted to Stephen's fabrications, he painstakingly investigates and researches the stories at every step and withholds judgment until hard evidence is staring him in the face. It is only then that he unleashes some well-deserved fury at Stephen, who just seems to melt into a puddle of sweat and humiliation.
For all that, "Shattered Glass" is not an indictment of Glass; rather, it scrutinizes the ecosystem of a magazine office -- and remember this isn't just any magazine but The New Republic, "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." The intense interoffice competition and the pressure to come up with better, sexier stories every week (by way of salutations, everyone is perpetually asking one another what story they're chasing) turns editorial meetings into veritable auditions: The reporter with the zippiest topic takes center stage.
Of course, this was likely to be Stephen, who struts his stuff with the timing and bravado of a stand-up comedian. And when his colleagues sigh in awe and envy ("I don't know how he does it"), he follows it up with an act of mock humility: "Nah, it's nothing, I stumbled on it by accident."
We see Stephen also as a byproduct of our times, when the approach to fame and success shifted from, say, hard work and industriousness to a "whatever it takes" mentality. The most interesting aspect of Stephen's character is that he seems to think his greatest mistake was in getting caught -- there was very little moral compunction involved, and right up to the end he shows signs of hoping that others will see his point of view: that it was ultimately OK to do what he did, that success was its own justification.
The Japan Times: Nov. 24, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Getting tangled up in the deadline
By KAORI SHOJI
Shattered Glass
Rating: * * * * (out of 5)
Japanese title: News no Tensai
Director: Billy Ray
Running time: 94 minutes
Language: English
Opens Nov. 27
[See Japan Times movie listings]
Truth may be more interesting than fiction, but try telling that to a reporter on deadline, while he or she sits in front of a blank screen in the wee hours. At such times, fiction (or fabrication) seems much more glamorous, entertaining and, most importantly, easier to write. "Shattered Glass" is based on the true story of a reporter who succumbed to that temptation, and his subsequent fall from grace.
Hayden Christensen in "Shattered Glass"
In 1998 Stephen Glass was a hotshot staff writer for The New Republic, who also had bylines in magazines like Rolling Stone and Harpers -- that is, until it was discovered that he had cooked up more than half his articles and he was subsequently run out of journalism.
At the time of the movie's release in the United States last year, Glass was awaiting the results of his bar exam in New York, and it's a mystery whether the irony of his newly chosen profession ever struck him. How was he going to take "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but . . . " day after day? Since then, he's written an autobiographical novel called "The Fabulist" (for which he got a handsome advance) and made an appearance on "60 Minutes." A similar resurrection is in process for Jayson Blair, a star reporter for The New York Times who also fabricated dozens of articles and was exposed in 2003. The definition for the moniker "great pretender" should include something about journalism.
Written and directed by Billy Ray, "Shattered Glass" is high on dramatic density and revealing psycho-dialogue, delving not just into the characters of Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) and his office nemesis Chuck Lane (Peter Saarsgard), but everyone on TNR's writing staff. Witness, for example, how the underconfident and slightly overweight Amy Brand (Melanie Lynskey) is always moaning about how she can't write or get any good stories, casting a brief, tortured glance at Stephen as if to say: "What would you know about my suffering?"
Probably nothing. Stephen is everyone's talented darling, who pads around the office in his socks (as if the place were a college dorm), pays lavish compliments to every female on the premises ("That lipstick is so you!"), and is adept at appearing conscientious, asking "Are you mad at me?" to anyone who gives him less than a beaming smile.
Chuck Lane, on the other hand, is serious and laconic, too proud to stoop to self-promotion tactics. He seems to be the only one immune to the charms of Stephen. So when TNR's beloved editor Michael Kelly (who later died in Iraq -- in the movie, he's portrayed by Hank Azaria) is ousted by the magazine's eccentric publisher and replaced by Chuck, Stephen is even more unsettled than the others. Here's one person on whom his wide-eyed "Are you mad at me?" has little effect.
Chuck, however, turns out to be a fair and even-handed boss, who never lets personal issues override his professional concerns. When he's alerted to Stephen's fabrications, he painstakingly investigates and researches the stories at every step and withholds judgment until hard evidence is staring him in the face. It is only then that he unleashes some well-deserved fury at Stephen, who just seems to melt into a puddle of sweat and humiliation.
For all that, "Shattered Glass" is not an indictment of Glass; rather, it scrutinizes the ecosystem of a magazine office -- and remember this isn't just any magazine but The New Republic, "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." The intense interoffice competition and the pressure to come up with better, sexier stories every week (by way of salutations, everyone is perpetually asking one another what story they're chasing) turns editorial meetings into veritable auditions: The reporter with the zippiest topic takes center stage.
Of course, this was likely to be Stephen, who struts his stuff with the timing and bravado of a stand-up comedian. And when his colleagues sigh in awe and envy ("I don't know how he does it"), he follows it up with an act of mock humility: "Nah, it's nothing, I stumbled on it by accident."
We see Stephen also as a byproduct of our times, when the approach to fame and success shifted from, say, hard work and industriousness to a "whatever it takes" mentality. The most interesting aspect of Stephen's character is that he seems to think his greatest mistake was in getting caught -- there was very little moral compunction involved, and right up to the end he shows signs of hoping that others will see his point of view: that it was ultimately OK to do what he did, that success was its own justification.
The Japan Times: Nov. 24, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Monday, November 22, 2004
Here is the interview help notes. See you on Thursday. Remember you should have your interview subject selected.
Can’t think of what to say next when your source stops talking?
Don’t worry. Here are a few strategies that may help you.
Responsive: “Oh Really, please tell me more. How interesting.” Use animated facial expressions.
Mirroring: Repeating pertinent pieces of information tha the source has just stated. The idea is to repeat the words of your source while taking the time to collect your thoughts and to think and frame your next question.
Silence: If the interviewer pauses the interviewee is likely to take note that he or she is still supposed to say something. Often this is how more details are gotten from a source. Essentially, you are pretending that you are still listening to what the source has to say in hopes that the source will continue to speak.
Developing: “Tell me more about this issue.” Asking for more information without specifying exactly what you are looking for. Using open-ended questions, questions that beg the interviewee to explain further his or her points with as many details as necessary.
Clarifying: Restating again what was just said but with a phrase such as, “Let me get that straight you just said that… It also helps you form in mind and memory a quotation that can be used later.
Active Listening Means:
Thinking on Your Feet
1. Listening for differences between what your source says and what you believe.
2. Listening for differences between what your source says and what other sources have said. Asking follow-up questions when you notice these differences.
3. Being willing to weight the sources’s answers based on what you know is true and what you don’t know is true. Listening again for clues until yo know the answer.
4. Listening for major points: listen very carefully to the speech following certain phrases: “I think; My point is; the idea is; the goal is…”
5. Listening for supporting evidence: Once the interviewer makes a point, listen carefully to the details he or she provides to explain the reasons for having that viewpoint.
6. Listening to what has not been spoken. Observe emotions and facial expressions for clues. Many Americans , for example, use sarcasm and expressions to reveal other messages. Listen for them. Often voice sound will change as well.
7. Asking a source to repeat or explain a point you don’t understand.
8. Asking a source to slow down his speech if he or she is talking too fast. If you are using a recording device it is better to let them continue talking rather then interrupt the flow.
9. Being and looking attentive: look like you care about what your source is saying.
10. A sneaky one is to misquote to your source and have them clarify what they have to say in different words or in more detail.
Can’t think of what to say next when your source stops talking?
Don’t worry. Here are a few strategies that may help you.
Responsive: “Oh Really, please tell me more. How interesting.” Use animated facial expressions.
Mirroring: Repeating pertinent pieces of information tha the source has just stated. The idea is to repeat the words of your source while taking the time to collect your thoughts and to think and frame your next question.
Silence: If the interviewer pauses the interviewee is likely to take note that he or she is still supposed to say something. Often this is how more details are gotten from a source. Essentially, you are pretending that you are still listening to what the source has to say in hopes that the source will continue to speak.
Developing: “Tell me more about this issue.” Asking for more information without specifying exactly what you are looking for. Using open-ended questions, questions that beg the interviewee to explain further his or her points with as many details as necessary.
Clarifying: Restating again what was just said but with a phrase such as, “Let me get that straight you just said that… It also helps you form in mind and memory a quotation that can be used later.
Active Listening Means:
Thinking on Your Feet
1. Listening for differences between what your source says and what you believe.
2. Listening for differences between what your source says and what other sources have said. Asking follow-up questions when you notice these differences.
3. Being willing to weight the sources’s answers based on what you know is true and what you don’t know is true. Listening again for clues until yo know the answer.
4. Listening for major points: listen very carefully to the speech following certain phrases: “I think; My point is; the idea is; the goal is…”
5. Listening for supporting evidence: Once the interviewer makes a point, listen carefully to the details he or she provides to explain the reasons for having that viewpoint.
6. Listening to what has not been spoken. Observe emotions and facial expressions for clues. Many Americans , for example, use sarcasm and expressions to reveal other messages. Listen for them. Often voice sound will change as well.
7. Asking a source to repeat or explain a point you don’t understand.
8. Asking a source to slow down his speech if he or she is talking too fast. If you are using a recording device it is better to let them continue talking rather then interrupt the flow.
9. Being and looking attentive: look like you care about what your source is saying.
10. A sneaky one is to misquote to your source and have them clarify what they have to say in different words or in more detail.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Well government bureaucracies seem to be the same everywhere. Busy making everyone else busy on your yen and producing a product that no one is interested in. What do you think?
Monday, November 22, 2004
JAPANESE PERSPECTIVES
Firms think little of government statistics, questionnaire shows
By YOSHIO NAKAMURA
Among government statistics detailing the condition of the Japanese economy, the Cabinet Office's quarterly estimates of gross domestic product, the Finance Ministry's report on corporate activity, and the "tankan" survey by the Bank of Japan are widely known. But there are many other economic statistics that are compiled by government ministries and agencies, and not all of them are useful.
Due to the sectoral division of the bureaucracy, a number of examples exist whereby very similar types of economic data are being compiled by different government bodies.
Many of these statistics concern corporate activities, and the companies that cooperate with the government surveys bear the heavy burden of responding to each inquiry from the bureaucracy. This has become an increasingly serious problem for companies that have streamlined operations in recent years, and the Keidanren is making efforts to minimize their burden.
At the same time, statistics compiled with cooperation from the corporate sector are public goods that should be used as widely as possible. However, a recent survey of member companies conducted by Keidanren shows that even major firms -- which are supposed to be sensitive to macroeconomic trends -- do not pay attention to many of the statistics.
In the questionnaire, Keidanren selected 72 government statistics that serve as short-term economic indicators and asked its members how much they use them in their operations and what they think of such data.
Each set of statistics was given a grade from 0 to 100, and any that were used by all the surveyed firms received a full 100 points. Those that were ignored by all of the firms got 0 points. As it turns out, many of the statistics received a score of between 15 and 35 points, while the average score was 38.8 points.
Many of the surveyed firms also expressed discontent with the statistics they use. Some companies complained that: a) they doubt whether the data compiled are precise enough; b) that the explanations by the bureaucracy on how to interpret the data are insufficient; and c) that the data should be released more quickly.
Many of the firms who said they do not use certain statistics said either that they were not interested in the government's data in those fields or that they did not even know such data were being compiled.
Statistics that draw no attention from relevant parties are of no use, and we must say they are being compiled merely for the satisfaction of the bureaucrats who make them. Also, lack of public knowledge about these statistics indicates that the officials who compile them are not making sufficient effort to publicize the data. I hope the government bureaucracy will take such opinions seriously.
What is important is to abolish economic statistics that are not needed, and to shift budget and personnel for researching data that are. Specifically, greater efforts are needed to improve government data on individuals and households, which are often criticized as less precise.
The Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy has set up an expert committee to scrap and build government statistics, and I hope the panel will provide good direction on the issue.
Yoshio Nakamura is a senior managing director of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren).
The Japan Times: Nov. 22, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
JAPANESE PERSPECTIVES
Firms think little of government statistics, questionnaire shows
By YOSHIO NAKAMURA
Among government statistics detailing the condition of the Japanese economy, the Cabinet Office's quarterly estimates of gross domestic product, the Finance Ministry's report on corporate activity, and the "tankan" survey by the Bank of Japan are widely known. But there are many other economic statistics that are compiled by government ministries and agencies, and not all of them are useful.
Due to the sectoral division of the bureaucracy, a number of examples exist whereby very similar types of economic data are being compiled by different government bodies.
Many of these statistics concern corporate activities, and the companies that cooperate with the government surveys bear the heavy burden of responding to each inquiry from the bureaucracy. This has become an increasingly serious problem for companies that have streamlined operations in recent years, and the Keidanren is making efforts to minimize their burden.
At the same time, statistics compiled with cooperation from the corporate sector are public goods that should be used as widely as possible. However, a recent survey of member companies conducted by Keidanren shows that even major firms -- which are supposed to be sensitive to macroeconomic trends -- do not pay attention to many of the statistics.
In the questionnaire, Keidanren selected 72 government statistics that serve as short-term economic indicators and asked its members how much they use them in their operations and what they think of such data.
Each set of statistics was given a grade from 0 to 100, and any that were used by all the surveyed firms received a full 100 points. Those that were ignored by all of the firms got 0 points. As it turns out, many of the statistics received a score of between 15 and 35 points, while the average score was 38.8 points.
Many of the surveyed firms also expressed discontent with the statistics they use. Some companies complained that: a) they doubt whether the data compiled are precise enough; b) that the explanations by the bureaucracy on how to interpret the data are insufficient; and c) that the data should be released more quickly.
Many of the firms who said they do not use certain statistics said either that they were not interested in the government's data in those fields or that they did not even know such data were being compiled.
Statistics that draw no attention from relevant parties are of no use, and we must say they are being compiled merely for the satisfaction of the bureaucrats who make them. Also, lack of public knowledge about these statistics indicates that the officials who compile them are not making sufficient effort to publicize the data. I hope the government bureaucracy will take such opinions seriously.
What is important is to abolish economic statistics that are not needed, and to shift budget and personnel for researching data that are. Specifically, greater efforts are needed to improve government data on individuals and households, which are often criticized as less precise.
The Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy has set up an expert committee to scrap and build government statistics, and I hope the panel will provide good direction on the issue.
Yoshio Nakamura is a senior managing director of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren).
The Japan Times: Nov. 22, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
