NPR beating print

I figure I would have my last post be about how print is getting its but kicked by radio

Over the past couple months, I have gotten hooked on podcasts from NPR. The one that sticks out the most is "Planet Money." It is more or less a blog and podcast breaking down the financial crisis issues down, so ordinary citizens can understand what is going on.

For my money, I have not seen any print news journalism come even close to how good they are. Print has not been good at defining terms (simply laying them out there, leaving the reader scratch their head) or talking about the issues.

Print journalism needs to step it up. If a reporter is talking about the Dow Jones falling, the reader needs to know what that is, and why it is important. The reader needs to know why inflation is going to cause trouble for middle-class Americans. The readers need to know why Zimbabwe is going through hyperinflation, and why it is important to them. They need to know it in the simplest terms possible.

It is not explained very well, and it can be. Print journalism usually takes the lead for being through and very investigative, but in this case, they are falling behind. I advise reporters everywhere to step it up, because competition is getting harsh.

That is all I have to say about that.

Acronyms

The Daily Illini only allows a few acronyms to be published.

Among the few are CITES (Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services), ARC (Activities and Resource Center) and CRCE (Campus Recreation Center-East). The rest need to be spelled out, or at least be given a shorter name on subsequent references.

I'm not sure how I feel on this. On one end, it makes for a lot of words that could be cut down. On the other end, it is to prevent confusion for the readers. A new acronym may not be the easiest thing to remember.

Ultimately, though, I have enough faith in readers to think they can figure out an acronym if it is spelled out on a first reference in an article, they will be able to figure it out. An article is not like a novel, they will be able to remember for the remainder of the read.

I would also agree that it does take up a lot more space in an article, essentially taking up space that could be used in other ways. If it needs to be spelled out, that can add a lot of words to an article, and really make it a pain to read.

I have heard from readers before about why we don't use acronyms. I know it is The Daily Illini's policy, but it can be a pain if a student organization or government branch is talked about. Maybe there is a compromise, maybe we should just start allowing more of them than the select few we do now.

How much editing does editing entail?

This blog is starting to sound like me putting all my editing problems on a public forum, but oh well.

There is a certain way I like to have things worded. I want everything to read that way. However, there are other writers who have their own style. It's different, but it works for them. it's not any better or worse, it just kind of...is.

When I started as an editor, the first thing I wanted to do was to make it read well for me. It didn't matter if the reporter had any preferences, it was my way or the highway.

Needless to say, it didn't work very well. I may have not got any really huge complaints, but I definitely did feel some discomfort as the editing process went on.

As the semester wore on, I decided to loosen up a bit. After all, just because it is worded differently, it doesn't mean it is wrong, right?

I think I have gotten better with this. The editing process, as far as grammar goes, has gotten easier for me. I am a bit more lenient as long as a word or phrase is grammatically correct, I will let it slide. Sometimes I will change it just because it will sound better in my eyes. I will give in a bit, but not all the time either way.

A person who writes "John's brother" is not wrong if I think it should be written "brother of John." It is merely a preference.

Blogging: Changing Information, is it okay?

For my research paper for J420, I was able to interview Jeff Finley, an editor for Pioneer Press who also writes for the religion blog "What Do We Believe?".

During the interview, one of the things we talked about was his views on going back and changing things in a blog. I asked him if he thought it was okay, and he said it was okay for things such as punctuation or errors, but not as an opinion.

However, for something like an opinion, he doesn't think it should be changed. Finley said that he writes his posts late at night, and in the morning he has sometimes found himself thinking about the topic differently.

Still, if he is thinking about a post a different way, he will not change it, but instead put his new thoughts in the comments section of the blog. To him, the post is complete, and was a reflection of what he thought at the time.

I'd have to agree. A blog post is a representation of the frame of mind the writer is in at the time of posting/publication. That should not be changed. It is not possible to change it in print, and a blog post should not be different.

This is content-wise, at least. I do agree grammatical errors should be changed. Point of views should be left alone though. It is a viewpoint from a certain point in time.

Music reviewing and fact checking

I figured this would tie in a bit after I addressed the JOUR 200 class on Monday regarding music writing and reviewing. I wanted to talk a little bit about accuracy not just in music writing, but in any form that requires opinions.

There are way too many examples of writers being careless because they feel that if it's their opinion, the information is correct. As a result, a lot of opinions articles suffer from misinformation. If a writer feels they know something, they feel they have no reason check up on the facts.

Of course, this is an over exaggeration, but it does paint a picture of a prevalent problem (not to use too much alliteration). Columns and opinions pieces should be subject to just as much scrutiny as regular articles, if not more. In a column, not everything is attributed, so the error falls on the writer's shoulders, not a source.

Still, if an album release date is wrong or title is incorrect, it can be overlooked (which this blogger did in this article. It's fixed on the Web site, but it was embarrassing to make an error like that). It's that kind of carelessness that can label music writers, and opinions writers in general, lazy, which is not the case.

They should take responsibility for their work though, and make sure everything checks out. That way a mistake like the one I made is not made. Fact checking is essential, especially when it is not attributed to anyone.

A little late, but it's still relevant to talk about politics

It's been a while since I've posted on this thing (laziness may be a factor, but it isn't the main one, I assure you), but I think it's still okay to talk about politics.

I have never made any bones on where I stand politically. It isn't a big deal, but at this point in my life, I know where I stand.

Still, maybe it's because I am in the position of power (if an assistant editor can be considered a powerful position), but I have become aware of others stances. A lot of times, they are different than mine. The purpose of this post isn't to deride anyone's beliefs, but rather to talk about making an effort to be more accommodating.

As a part of The Daily Illini's ethics policy, employees are not supposed to show any of their political affiliations, for fear of alienating a prospective source. I understand that. However, it can make the editing process a lot more uncomfortable if something is said. For example, if I was to criticize John McCain's view on immigration, and to demean him for it, I may alienate a reporter. It may create for a more strained relationship.

I have learned to be more respectful, and as a result, I would say more informed. If I have an opinion on a political candidate, I really need to be able to back it up. Saying "Obama is stupid" just will not do. I would need to know why he is stupid. That way if it is something defaming someone, it will not simply be a blind insult.

I know this may not seem relevant, but it does really help to build a rapport between reporters and editors. It is still something I am working on.