Chapters 8 and 22

Refreshing my memory in the land of Chapter eight led to pretty much the same findings I found the first time around...but a few new things jumped out at me also.

I am still confused as to how one finds clarity and creativity in writing straight news ledes. But after my last story in class about the town meeting Lisa explained to me how you didn't want to start a story. My story's lede had all the right information but was sooo borning even in that first sentence. I had bogged down the reader with too many big boring words right off the bat. After a little editing I found that words like "emergency funds" was much more exciting than the name of some drawn out committee. So I didn't make the same mistake the next committee story I wrote...maybe I learned something...hmmm.

Chapter eight also talks about the importance of details in a story which I completely agree with. If a reporter can put the reader in an accurate setting while reading something of significant importance, I say job well done. I didn't understand that this was a possibility in writing until I read a book by Joan Didion, very cool stuff. If you're a jounalist frustrated with finding creativity in writing like me -- read some of her work and thank me later.

OH I know what was new that I wanted to mention. Using concrete examples. I read a few passages they had as examples of this and I have to say that some of these "concrete examples" were straingly reminiscent of cough...cliches....cough. Interesting...even after we just had that talk in class. This is a big topic for me because yes kids...I once was a cliche addict...I know don't judge me. But they just flowed like smooth BS for me if ya know what I mean. But I'm happy to say that I'm overcoming my addicition with the help of support groups like News I.

Ok -- onto the Media Law chapter. What a dozy, and to think -- I was almost a lawyer...yikes!

I have to say that having studied some of these cases in past legal studies classes I kind of scratched my head at some of the examples given in the book as cases to know. Most of which were so unimportant that I can't remember their names right now -- plus the fact that a vast majority of them settled out of court without really leaving a mark.

But I do smile when I read the popular, "no other business enjoys specific constitutional protection yada yada..."

One thing that I didn't really know alot about before reading this chapter was the idea of privelege. That we as reporters are safe if we are covering any of the three branches of government and quoting what is said from them. If I understand this correctly governmental officials actually have the "privelege" title and we as reporters get to print that even if what they are saying is false information. I thought that was kind of cool and complicated, perhaps we could discuss further in class?

Ah -- and then the actual malice test from good ole' New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) LOVE IT! I had to do a big project on this case and just loved all the details and loops that came out of this decision. I felt the chapter didn't focus enough on the idea of covering a public figure as opposed to a private individual. It's a big line to cross and if one is not familar with that case it could be really confusing.

And finally the whole expectation of privacy. It seems like it would be crystal clear but -- don't go into people's bedrooms -- but actually some of the examples had really random outcomes from the rulings. Sense when does one not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a doctor's office? Maybe I'm just weird but I do! All things we should discuss in class.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZS.html