This semester flew by. Looking back, I can sincerely say that this class has been one of the most useful classes I've taken – not just compared to the classes from this semester but compared to the classes I've taken during my three years on this campus.
Out of the required journalism classes, this class has added on to my list of the few classes that have actually taught me something; I walked out of Greg 1 feeling more confident in my abilities as a journalist and a possible future copy-editor. This isn't an attempt to boost my semester grade or get a better curve on some of those in-class quizzes (yikes!), it's just my way of expressing how useful and helpful this class has been for me.
In one of the last lectures of the semester, we discussed changing the format of this class, and I agree with the ones who said that this class should be a pre-req for Reporting I and II. I think I would have done better in both classes and felt more knowledgeable about the newspaper industry in general if I had taken a copy-editing class before I began reporting. One of the biggest lessons that this class has taught me is that there are so many different aspects that go into making a quality newspaper what it is; in order to succeed in this business, journalists must be as well-rounded as possible – they can't just be reporters, they have to be copy-editors as well.
I wrote about the poor grammar used in text messages for my first blog entry. As much as I'd like to say that the quality of my text messages have changed, I'll admit that they haven't. But, I can say that I definitely catch myself more in my writing and use better grammar and punctuation than I have done in the past. And, I appreciate the players in the newspaper industry a lot more; so much unappreciated work is done behind-the-scenes just to produce good quality copy for readers.
Whether my profession lies in the nursing field or journalism field is still up in the air, but either way, I'm thankful because I've walked away from this class a little wiser.
Oh… and the cookies were a plus, too. =)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
"The great quote question"
I visited a lot of websites related to journalism and ethics when I was doing research for the JOUR 420 paper. One of the websites I found was from Indiana University's School of Journalism. I referred back to it a lot but unfortunately, never cited it in my paper.
I just thought I'd share it with anyone who would be interested; it's a compilation of articles about different journalism ethic cases from different reporters. The articles are separated into various categories such as "Sensitive news topics," "Handling sources," "Invading privacy," and "Getting the story."
One of the articles relevant to our class was written by Doreen Carvajal, titled "The great quote question." In it, Carvajal questioned whether or not it was ethical for reporters and editors to clean up quotes in order to make them more grammatically correct.
The problem, Carvajal notes, is when cleaning up quotes takes away from the essence of the story and from the character of the source.
Several newspapers have guidelines about this type of thing, such as USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Los Angeles Times. Most of the guidebooks instruct reporters and editors not to change the quote unless it's ungrammatical. Reactions to these rules have varied. For example, The St. Petersburg Times received angry reactions from readers who were upset that a story quoted a black athlete speaking in "black dialect," while Eskimos asked an Alaskan newspaper to keep their "broken English" because they didn't want to appear white-washed.
This just provides insight into one of the many issues copy-editors have to deal with. There are so many factors to consider, such as the group of readers you may or may not offend and the tone of the article. If I was put in that situation, I'm not really sure what I would do. Obviously, as copy-editor, my first priority would be to make sure the story is as grammatically and factually correct as possible. But, what happens if doing so changes the whole tone of the piece?
This is exactly why Indiana University's website is so great; reading all of their articles helped me think about what I would do if I was put in those scenarios. It makes for an interesting read.
I just thought I'd share it with anyone who would be interested; it's a compilation of articles about different journalism ethic cases from different reporters. The articles are separated into various categories such as "Sensitive news topics," "Handling sources," "Invading privacy," and "Getting the story."
One of the articles relevant to our class was written by Doreen Carvajal, titled "The great quote question." In it, Carvajal questioned whether or not it was ethical for reporters and editors to clean up quotes in order to make them more grammatically correct.
The problem, Carvajal notes, is when cleaning up quotes takes away from the essence of the story and from the character of the source.
Several newspapers have guidelines about this type of thing, such as USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Los Angeles Times. Most of the guidebooks instruct reporters and editors not to change the quote unless it's ungrammatical. Reactions to these rules have varied. For example, The St. Petersburg Times received angry reactions from readers who were upset that a story quoted a black athlete speaking in "black dialect," while Eskimos asked an Alaskan newspaper to keep their "broken English" because they didn't want to appear white-washed.
This just provides insight into one of the many issues copy-editors have to deal with. There are so many factors to consider, such as the group of readers you may or may not offend and the tone of the article. If I was put in that situation, I'm not really sure what I would do. Obviously, as copy-editor, my first priority would be to make sure the story is as grammatically and factually correct as possible. But, what happens if doing so changes the whole tone of the piece?
This is exactly why Indiana University's website is so great; reading all of their articles helped me think about what I would do if I was put in those scenarios. It makes for an interesting read.
A disagreement with "The Findings in Brief"
I started reviewing for the JOUR 420 final over the weekend and have been re-reading the various assigned readings for lecture. One of the websites, "The Findings in Brief," described the results of a survey that polled journalists and the public about different aspects related to the newspaper industry.
When I read this article back in February, I agreed with the public's opinion on all points, including the public's belief that newspapers had too many factual errors and spelling/grammar mistakes in their papers, sensational stories were "over-covered" by the press just to sell newspapers and a newsroom's values and practices conflicted with reporters' values and practices at times.
But, when I re-read this article over the weekend, I realized that a semester of JOUR 420 had definitely changed my opinion about at least one point in the article:
"2 The public perceives that newspapers don't consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities. Journalists are much less critical of themselves."
Okay, so this statement may be true for reporters – on occasion. However, I don't think this holds true for copy-editors. I know I've repeated it time and time again in my entries, but this class has definitely given me a new-found appreciation for the work copy-editors do. They are the silent, steady behind-the-scene journalists that make the stories in a newspaper – or at least attempt to make them – as factual and grammatically correct as possible. Because of this work that they do, I think that they do, in fact, "demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities."
When I read this article back in February, I agreed with the public's opinion on all points, including the public's belief that newspapers had too many factual errors and spelling/grammar mistakes in their papers, sensational stories were "over-covered" by the press just to sell newspapers and a newsroom's values and practices conflicted with reporters' values and practices at times.
But, when I re-read this article over the weekend, I realized that a semester of JOUR 420 had definitely changed my opinion about at least one point in the article:
"2 The public perceives that newspapers don't consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities. Journalists are much less critical of themselves."
Okay, so this statement may be true for reporters – on occasion. However, I don't think this holds true for copy-editors. I know I've repeated it time and time again in my entries, but this class has definitely given me a new-found appreciation for the work copy-editors do. They are the silent, steady behind-the-scene journalists that make the stories in a newspaper – or at least attempt to make them – as factual and grammatically correct as possible. Because of this work that they do, I think that they do, in fact, "demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
