Public Interest- Shaken-Baby Syndrome Faces New Questions in Court
From the very first words of this article to the last, it is a story built around the idea of the standard American family. Though it focused on a predicament that not every family faces, the article is tailored to fit the sensibilities and mentality of the general public. This means that most every move made in this article has a reason. For example, the story of the Noah Whitmer and those around him paints a picture of loving parents without demonizing the person that shook him when she was frustrated. The story does not condemn Rueda (who is suspected of shaking Noah, but the journalist is careful to mark that line) and instead tries to understand her alleged actions.
This article is for the public interest in the best way. It focuses on conveying positive emotions to its audience, like the love for a child, instead of negative emotions, like fear and hate of "baby-shakers." I say that it is for the general public in the best way because it is positive and does not rely on quick and easy hateful and fearful emotions but rather focuses on love and understanding (which can be trickier to sway the reader towards). It focus on good where it would have been easier to write a hateful article on the evils of shaken-baby syndrome. By doing this, it allows the reader to make up his or her own mind. Journalism can be written for public consumption, but if it forces an opinion down its audience's throat it is not written with public interest in mind. It is in the public's interest to form their own opinions based on valid, factual information. This is a democracy, silly (I hope, but that's the cynic in me). We have this thing called freedom of opinion. Journalism is written so that the audience receives the information it needs to be free and self-governing, not to propagate an opinion or spread fear.
NY Times- Emily Bazelon
Public Interest- Breast cancer risk is rising, study shows
This story brings up the line between journalism that is informative and journalism that contributes or conveys public opinion. Honestly, I find that line to be a little tricky. Is this piece merely informative? It contains information the is quite necessary for public life, it concerns directly half the public (women) and indirectly the other half (friends and family) without which public life and opinion would be severely lacking. But I wonder if a public opinion piece has to contain whatever that opinion is. If public opinion on abortion is that it is a justified procedure etc... then a public opinion piece on the recent controversy surrounding legislation proposals to redefine rape (and therefore abortion as well) would have to call for a definition of rape that includes proposals to make abortion access more available or perhaps to include abortion in health care. But wait, I've read that piece. Here it is http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/dear-john-why-are-you-raising-my-taxes/. And it reads like an op ed piece with an agenda and a slant.
So I'm pretty sure that this piece on breast cancer is an article for the public interest. It's subject is pertinent, its information valid and factual and it allows the reader to take what they will from the article. I think I was a bit confused earlier, its clearer now. What is the point of learning and taking in more information if not to progress in the direction of knowledge and maturity?
(Again, I hate rhetorical questions. But its Friday morning. I just don't care.)
So I'm pretty sure that this piece on breast cancer is an article for the public interest. It's subject is pertinent, its information valid and factual and it allows the reader to take what they will from the article. I think I was a bit confused earlier, its clearer now. What is the point of learning and taking in more information if not to progress in the direction of knowledge and maturity?
(Again, I hate rhetorical questions. But its Friday morning. I just don't care.)
The Guardian- Dennis Campbell
Healthy Skepticism- Fed not ready to cub stimulus measures, Bernanke says
Okay, so I'm going to look at the language in this article. I don't really feel like discussing the content beyond the fact that it expresses skepticism in regard to US financial policy. The fact is that the author is skeptical not only of US policy but also skeptical of the skepticism others exhibit towards the policies. It is skeptical of being skeptical, in the way, which seems like the right way to be skeptical.
It starts in the lede with a simple word: "easy." The author is referring to US policies, characterizing them as relaxed and almost too easy.
Puzzanghera is neutral where he needs to be, which strengthens his argument. If his article were loaded with opinion and rash language, I wouldn't feel like he had as much legitimacy. An example is: "
Indeed, he strongly defended the effort in the face of sharp criticism from top Republicans, strong objections from China, Germany and other global competitors and even questions about whether the central bank's actions helped fuel the crisis in Egypt by driving up food prices."
Puzzanghera could have easily said: Bernanke defended the successful stimulus plan despite harsh criticism from Republican partisans, China, Germany and other global economic competition and questions of whether the central bank had a hand in the escalation of the violent protests in Egypt.
But he didn't. I respect that. My philosophy professor from first semester drilled it into our brains that to be skeptical of a thing you had to make it stand as strongly as possible. Then you could tear it down.
Puzzanghera is neutral where he needs to be, which strengthens his argument. If his article were loaded with opinion and rash language, I wouldn't feel like he had as much legitimacy. An example is: "
Indeed, he strongly defended the effort in the face of sharp criticism from top Republicans, strong objections from China, Germany and other global competitors and even questions about whether the central bank's actions helped fuel the crisis in Egypt by driving up food prices."
Puzzanghera could have easily said: Bernanke defended the successful stimulus plan despite harsh criticism from Republican partisans, China, Germany and other global economic competition and questions of whether the central bank had a hand in the escalation of the violent protests in Egypt.
But he didn't. I respect that. My philosophy professor from first semester drilled it into our brains that to be skeptical of a thing you had to make it stand as strongly as possible. Then you could tear it down.
The L.A. Times- Jim Puzzanghera
Cynicism- Republicans Retreat From Brave Fight Against Government Rape Regulations
On of the main things that separates this article from the L.A. Times article is that the author uses very emotional and dramatic language. The author is trying to express an opinion and sway his readers by using emotional language to direct them towards his point of view. In my eyes his entire argument is discredited by this, as if his audience is comprised of identical drone like pencil pushers easily directed to believe anything. As if his opinion and his mind are the absolute authority on all things, as if he is somehow separate and above his surroundings. Obviously, this kind of writing really hit a nerve for me.
So, let's look at the title and the lede. Stuef describes the proposals made by the GOP towards a different definition of rape as a 'brave fight.' In the first paragraph, Stuef displays his real view of the GOP effort through sarcasm. He says
"House Republicans have given up their noble battle to change what counts as rape in their latest proposed bill to ban federal funding for abortions (except, as it has always been, in cases such as rape). It’s a cowardly compromise that upsets a proud nation of people who all hope one day they too will be roofied and copulated with and be told it’s not legally rape."
Very sarcastic, too sarcastic. I see what he is doing, and I might even agree with some of what he says. But there's a question drilled into my brain from a recent set of discussions in class. "Are you doing journalism?" This dude isn't.
So, let's look at the title and the lede. Stuef describes the proposals made by the GOP towards a different definition of rape as a 'brave fight.' In the first paragraph, Stuef displays his real view of the GOP effort through sarcasm. He says
"House Republicans have given up their noble battle to change what counts as rape in their latest proposed bill to ban federal funding for abortions (except, as it has always been, in cases such as rape). It’s a cowardly compromise that upsets a proud nation of people who all hope one day they too will be roofied and copulated with and be told it’s not legally rape."
Very sarcastic, too sarcastic. I see what he is doing, and I might even agree with some of what he says. But there's a question drilled into my brain from a recent set of discussions in class. "Are you doing journalism?" This dude isn't.
Wonkette- Jack Stuef
<3
Oh, this is Garrity. I posted my last journal entry on my personal blog. Oops. Here's a link.
ReplyDeletehttp://astrayingtailofblood.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-journal-entry-intro-to-journalism.html
<3
I have some questions about this posting. I'm not sure I see the connection between a positive spin and being in the public interest. if anything I'd be concerned that attempting to put a positive spin on things shields the public from the truth. Also, I don't see how the Guardian article is opinionated. it doesn't seem that way to me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I should have warned you of Wonkette - they're whole angle is being cynical. They're trying to be funny about it, so it's hard to compare their work to, say, the new york times.
I'm glad, even if I don't agree with all your conclusions, that you're engaging with the reading and thinking about all this stuff.