The nurse shark being blamed for the recent deaths of Chrissie Watson and Alex Kintner has been caught and killed, and the fishermen responsible are being rewarded $3000 for their efforts.
Matt Hooper, a marine biologist and shark expert from Woods Hole, Mass., Oceanographic Institute identified it as a nurse shark, one of the most brutal and dangerous sharks around the East Coast of the United States.
Hooper was also saying that the shark that has been caught might have a bite radius too small to be responsible for the death of Chrissie Watson after examining her body.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Jaws activity 3
A town meeting of Amity was held last night to discuss the recent deaths of Chrissie Watson and Alex Kintner.
"We're going to put on the extra- the extra summer deputies as quickly as possible, and then we're going to try and use, uh, shark-spotters on the beach," said Police Chief Martin Brody.
During this meeting it was brought up that Kintner's mother is offering a $3000.00 reward for finding her sons killer.
The beaches will be closed for a 24 hour period following the possibility of the attacks being shark related. Many locals expressed their displeasure at having the beaches closed for any amount of time saying it would hurt local businesses.
Brody seemed to desire the beaches closed for a longer period of time.
"I'll catch this bird for you, but it ain't gonna be easy," said local fisherman Ben Quint. "I'll find him for three, but I'll catch him, and kill him, for ten [thousand dollars]. For that you get the head, the tail, the whole damn thing."
The council said they would take Quint's offer under consideration.
It has still not been officially confirmed that it was a shark attack.
Who's in control the editor or reporter?
Who's really in control of what gets into the paper? Does the editor sit behind you looking over your shoulder the whole time while you write, just edit away once you give him your story, or just blindly print everything that comes across his desk?
I suppose it depends on the editor in the end. A good editor will probably trust his reporters, but will look over what happens every now and again.
It also depends on the publisher as well. If a publisher is a Nazi about everything the editor will probably be more strict so as to keep his job and appease the publisher.
I remember reading one of Hunter S Thompson's stories and in it one reporter was getting chewed out by an editor for having his story too long. That has always given me the view that editors are always in control with an iron fist.
But, I don't think that is too true. That might just be one editor. And he got killed in the end anyways so it all worked out. I'm not sure of the factual evidence of that story.
I suppose it depends on the editor in the end. A good editor will probably trust his reporters, but will look over what happens every now and again.
It also depends on the publisher as well. If a publisher is a Nazi about everything the editor will probably be more strict so as to keep his job and appease the publisher.
I remember reading one of Hunter S Thompson's stories and in it one reporter was getting chewed out by an editor for having his story too long. That has always given me the view that editors are always in control with an iron fist.
But, I don't think that is too true. That might just be one editor. And he got killed in the end anyways so it all worked out. I'm not sure of the factual evidence of that story.
Rumor has it
Rumors, scuttlebutt, words on the grapevine. Should newspapers print rumors?
I mean sometimes it can be a great way to get a start on breaking a big news story and you can be the focus of much praise. Other times it turns into nothing and everyone looks at you like you're a babbling nincompoop.
Take the Boston bombings for example. There were so many rumors flying around that at the beginning. Hell someone said Zooey Deschanel was a suspect for the bombings themselves. Now this is ridiculous and was quickly taken down and apologized for. But, what happens when it's not someone famous and the news story just sort of drops the follow up on what happened? How many people's good names were dragged through the mud by the time they found the real suspects?
I guess it's a tentative line we flirt with as to whether or not we should use them.
I mean sometimes it can be a great way to get a start on breaking a big news story and you can be the focus of much praise. Other times it turns into nothing and everyone looks at you like you're a babbling nincompoop.
Take the Boston bombings for example. There were so many rumors flying around that at the beginning. Hell someone said Zooey Deschanel was a suspect for the bombings themselves. Now this is ridiculous and was quickly taken down and apologized for. But, what happens when it's not someone famous and the news story just sort of drops the follow up on what happened? How many people's good names were dragged through the mud by the time they found the real suspects?
I guess it's a tentative line we flirt with as to whether or not we should use them.
Swearing in the newspapers
Can we swear in news articles? Because the FCC does not control the content in newspapers like it does in TV and radio.
If so we should take advantage of this ability as TV and radio can not. It's an untapped market right there. I'm not saying put "fuck" right in the title, but at least give it a little more spice. Hell it's worked for TV to show more and more vulgar material and get more and more viewers.
Maybe in order to win back a few readers we need to lower our standards on use of swears. But, that's a fine line to cross too. You go too far and you start to alienate readers who are turned off by that. Whereas going too shallow wont do anything at all and it's unlikely most would notice.
This might be too late though. With the advent of the internet people can say whatever the hell they want without any concern for language use. I mean I just wrote the F work not 6 lines above. So, this market may have already passed them by.
If so we should take advantage of this ability as TV and radio can not. It's an untapped market right there. I'm not saying put "fuck" right in the title, but at least give it a little more spice. Hell it's worked for TV to show more and more vulgar material and get more and more viewers.
Maybe in order to win back a few readers we need to lower our standards on use of swears. But, that's a fine line to cross too. You go too far and you start to alienate readers who are turned off by that. Whereas going too shallow wont do anything at all and it's unlikely most would notice.
This might be too late though. With the advent of the internet people can say whatever the hell they want without any concern for language use. I mean I just wrote the F work not 6 lines above. So, this market may have already passed them by.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Story telling or Journalism?
Journalism is more than just telling a story. A story needs to be compelling, interesting, and engaging, and a news article aims to be that too.
But, a story doesn't need to be factual. A story can vague and gloss over certain details. That is not the case with news articles.
News articles need to be well researched and specific to show that the writer knows what he's talking about. It needs to have concrete quotations and details.
Another big difference is that the most often remembered parts of a story is the beginning and the end. A news article is usually remembered for the beginning and that's about it because after that it starts to get more broad and general.
A story also needs an arch. A news article doesn't necessarily need one, the character of a news article isn't always going to come around and become a new person.
Another difference is that sometimes there isn't going to be a protagonist of a news article. That's something that a story needs and can't live without.
But, a story doesn't need to be factual. A story can vague and gloss over certain details. That is not the case with news articles.
News articles need to be well researched and specific to show that the writer knows what he's talking about. It needs to have concrete quotations and details.
Another big difference is that the most often remembered parts of a story is the beginning and the end. A news article is usually remembered for the beginning and that's about it because after that it starts to get more broad and general.
A story also needs an arch. A news article doesn't necessarily need one, the character of a news article isn't always going to come around and become a new person.
Another difference is that sometimes there isn't going to be a protagonist of a news article. That's something that a story needs and can't live without.
My wrist hurts...
Recording everything a speaker or interviewee says is a bitch. It is hard. A lot of times my wrist is killing me by the end of the interview.
I also feel telling them to stop talking is a little rude. Even if said in a kind way it still feels a little rude. Interrupting them to say, "hey could you hold on a sec". It also looks bad on you because you can't get everything they say down immediately. It can also cause a speaker to forget what it was they were talking about and ruin a good quote or idea and waste the time it took to write everything down that is unfinished now.
I also feel I miss some important quotes when writing down other ones and panic and don't know which to write down at all.
I feel blessed when a speaker recognizes my speed and pauses for me though. It shows they can understand me and aren't just upset that I'm there interrupting their life.
I suppose I should start recording what people say and use that instead. It would be easier on the wrists at the very least.
People can be dicks
When I was covering a women's lacrosse game everyone I interacted with was an ass to me. They all acted like they were upset I was there and I felt repulsed to be having to interview and rely on them.
The team I was covering had just lost the game and it was a close match, but damn don't take it all out on me. And even questions I was asking meaning to be impartial and matter-of-factly they bit my goddamn head off for. "Well I think we played great and it wasn't a real loss!"
It was real loss! The scoreboard says so! Don't take your anger out on me.
But, this experience has given me a valuable lesson: timing is everything. Interviewing someone at a certain time can have their emotions running in completely different directions than at another time. Sometimes that can be good to cover. Other times people can be dicks to you for no reason.
The team I was covering had just lost the game and it was a close match, but damn don't take it all out on me. And even questions I was asking meaning to be impartial and matter-of-factly they bit my goddamn head off for. "Well I think we played great and it wasn't a real loss!"
It was real loss! The scoreboard says so! Don't take your anger out on me.
But, this experience has given me a valuable lesson: timing is everything. Interviewing someone at a certain time can have their emotions running in completely different directions than at another time. Sometimes that can be good to cover. Other times people can be dicks to you for no reason.
Is it lying if I don't mention it?
Honestly is it? I'm not saying it's moral, but if you want to gloss over some details or just altogether not mention something is it lying in a news story? Like doing a profile on someone for example. If part of a politician's platform is family values but he's having an affair with his secretary is it better to just ignore that bit and talk about his platform or break the story about the affair. If you don't break the story you will probably get to continue following him around for the remainder of the candidacy, but, then again, if you break it the candidacy might end right there and you get really noticed. But, according to Hunter S. Thompson something like that can completely alienate you on capital hill for future races as people are afraid you can't be trusted.
What about manipulating quotes? I'm not saying chop up sentences and suddenly someone went from peace advocate to warmonger. I mean can I take one sentence and put another sentence that relates to the same context but was said later on in an interview right next to it? I suppose that can be a pretty broad topic though as it can easily get out of hand and end up being the peace to war example.
What about manipulating quotes? I'm not saying chop up sentences and suddenly someone went from peace advocate to warmonger. I mean can I take one sentence and put another sentence that relates to the same context but was said later on in an interview right next to it? I suppose that can be a pretty broad topic though as it can easily get out of hand and end up being the peace to war example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)