Felt Like My Blog Would Feel Left Out.

Dear Blog,

I am posting things on another site. I am sorry. You understand though. It's ok, I told it I loved it but that's a lie. Here's a cute picture to cheer you up.

It's squirrels kissing. Isn't that adorable?

I think the one on the right is named Bertram and the one on the left is named Lily. They've been married for 4 years. (In squirrel years that's a lot.) They're so happy. It's their anniversary. What Bertram doesn't know is that Lily is seeing a different squirrel named Javier. It's all very dramatic.

Here's the posting that you'll be missing out on. I'll be back next week with less filler and more substance.

Yours Faithfully,
Zaq

Food Wrapped in Newspaper

In all my years of eating, twenty to be precise, I have always found those who have the power to weave the spoken word with the overwhelming power of food to be of the highest standing. The New York Times is no exception to that rule. Not only do they have the power of reputation behind them but they also possess a great deal of skill in weaving a picture for their readers that allows us to see into exactly what they are reporting on.

In the January 19th edition of the Times, Julia Moskin reported on a recent uproar of an alien food called the pljeskavica. The non-traditional burger has taken off in popularity in Queens and has taken off wildly with the European population in the surrounding area. But why choose this article? Better yet, what makes it an interesting article? It’s hard for me to look at an article that follows current events, such as the earthquake in Haiti or the war in Afghanistan, because I find that often times the articles covering current events are written with a sense of urgency and lack the intimacy that articles written about smaller events and occurrences possess.

This article is no exception to the rule. Moskin weaves an interesting picture of a cultural phenomenon that is sweeping a small area and penetrating our view on something so American and boxed up. Moskin not only looks at something under the radar but through that reporting allows us to think of something that otherwise we might not have. The New York Times usually writes stories that capture the attention of its readers. In the writing Moskin brings a small aspect of the New York landscape to a forefront and allows readers to have a new piece of information and think about a whole topic, hamburgers and how we eat and look at them, it can change people and their opinions.

The article is well written, usually the New York Times is, and allows us to think differently about news. The story won't find itself on the cover story, it's not that kind of news. What the story is is a chance to look at news, from the viewpoint of the everyman.

The article, in its original form, can be found at the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/dining/20balk.html?ref=dining

Purple

I would recommend that more people wear purple. I suggest that we have a day in class where people wear purple. All of us as a matter of fact. Maybe we could start some kind of movement where everyone wears purple. What a grand movement that would be. After a while people would begin to feel united by their foolishness and we would find ourselves inexplicably drawn to one another. Over time people would just give up the outlandish principles to which they had so religiously subscribed and we would just fade into wonder and joy. By principles I don't really mean religion or values but more the dividing ideals keeping us from feeling unified. Just a thought really.

Boy....It sure is nice to have a brain with which to ramble wildly like this.

Network: A film that could change your whole mind.

This is something that many of you may have already heard or seen something about. I feel like it's your job as a journalist to look at it and think....think with wild abandon.

Objectivity and Why The Media Doesn't Have It

Every aspect of life has many facets. Complexity can comes from anywhere. Journalism is no exception. If we can learn as much from each of the different aspects as we do from the topic itself then we'll be better journalists overall. Likewise, We as journalists face a series of obstacles when writing about a topic.

Most of us are unlikely to find ourselves in a situation to report on world changing events in our career. If we are so lucky as to find ourselves covering a history changing event then we find ourselves in a pedigree with the likes of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Edward R. Morrow. However, even though we are not in the same position that the greats, like Cronkite, find themselves in we are still held to many of the same standards. One of these standards is based entirely in the morals of the writer. Our goal as a journalist should always be to maintain an air of neutrality so as to allow the reader to the reader to form their own opinions.

The sad reality is that, while this should be the goal of journalism, it is a near impossibility to expect an author of any piece of writing to be entirely objective. We find ourselves at a standstill in the world of journalism, as Melvin Mencher says in his book on news writing and reporting, because we are in a situation to cover stories which we may not always agree with and therefore must decide what we are obligated to print. The objectivity aspect of journalism comes from the voice of the journalist and how that voice manifests itself in the writing, particularly in dealing with issues where the author will face opposition and conflict from their readers.

Let's take, for example, the case of Charles Manson and the Family. Charles Manson and his cult following known as The Family were in the process of going on a killing spree and taking down a number of prominent individuals that they considered to be "pigs". One of the prominent figures was then wife of director Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate. The story gained speed quickly as more and more details came to light. Eventually the Family, and it's leader Charles Manson, were placed on trial for the murder and the murders and their leader were brought to justice. Why look at this particular case? What makes it so special? It is a classic example of reporting on the fringe. If we, as the reporter, are going to cover stories that involve controversial issues and usually universally recognized wrong, then it is our responsibility to maintain that neutrality.

The Manson case is a perfect example to look at when examining objectivity in the media because we're dealing with something that most people would consider to have been completely outrageous and completely unacceptable. The case was gruesome, very few will will dispute that, and as well most people were disgusted by Manson and his following. As a reporter we must put no spin on the case.

It is not our job, as a journalist, to impact the opinions of people. We give information to people, in the form of reporting and allow people to formulate their own opinions. If we should put a dash of our opinion on the story, no matter what it is, we risk becoming less professional and begin to stray into the realm of soapbox journalists like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Thus the importance lies in allowing ourselves to remain neutral. It is very difficult but the less opinion you attempt to insert into a story allows you to gain more respect. There will always be a little of your opinion but the less the better.