Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Celebrity, Celebrity

I am at a loss as to what I should blog about this week, so I decided to blog about my first truly great experience with journalism and what I learned from it. In April I was able to cover Ebertfest for The Buzz, and while waiting in line for the movie I had never even heard of, Rufus Sewell walked out of the bathroom right next to me. Many of you are probably wondering who he is. Well I call him, "medieval bad guy", because he usually plays one, but not all the time. He has been in A Knight's Tale, The Holiday, Dark City, and Tristan and Isolde.

This was so exciting for me because I really want to report about movies or do movie reviews after I graduate. Yes, it seems like one of the more glamorous journalism jobs, but I tend to watch one new movie a week, at least, and it just seemed to fit.

This being my first celebrity interview, I was more than nervous. But, after asking him if I could interview him for the paper, and he didn't even hesitate to say yes, I began to ease up. What I realized is that I shouldn't lose my ability to interview someone, or forget everything that I have been taught just because someone is famous. We ended up talking for about thirty minutes, because people kept asking for pictures and photographs, and then he gave me one of the best compliments I've received to date. He told me that I was a great young reporter.

Since then I think that I have gained more confidence with my reporting and my ability to interview others. I am still learning all the mechanics, like all these crazy grammar rules, but I feel much better about myself as a reporter than I did a year ago.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Tired of the Election

I'm in Journ 405 this semester, and one of the things we recently talked about was how during the Revolutionary War and for several years afterwards, newspapers were guided by political news. Meaning one newspaper would support one ideology and that particular party would help support and fund the entire newspaper. It became so heavily biased that newspapers no longer needed advertisements because the political party they supported was paying for everything. We then talked about how this was a weaker time in our history of journalism, but it seems to me that history is repeating itself.

Nowadays you can't turn on the TV, go on the internet, or read a newspaper without realizing that the article you are reading or the story you are hearing is a little bit more than somewhat biased. It could be that medium chooses to only report on one candidate, or it could be that they report on both candidates but it's blatantly clear who they support.

The Election coverage is possibly one of the most important things a medium can report on. The information the media chooses to present to us, helps us make "informed" decisions about the candidate we will vote for. So, if I'm only hearing one side how can I make an informed decision.

It's as if our media coverage has returned to that politically dominated time in our past. Election coverage gets so out of hand sometimes that I almost expect to turn on the TV and hear them telling me Obama shops at Walmart over Target, oh, the horror. While I am well aware that I can pick and choose which stations, internet sites, or papers I want to be exposed to, it just seems wrong that an issue that is so important in our country is falling prey to the bias preditor.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Whose Opinion is this Anyway?

I'm sure some people are going to be upset with me for saying this, but I'm not a die-hard Obama fan. I'm not really a McCain fan either. But, the other night while watching "Showbiz Tonight" on Headlines News, it brought up an interesting question: "Do celebrities influence or sway your opinion on who you will vote for?"

This question was prompted by the Tina Fey skit on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. In the skit she played McCain's Vice President candidate, Sarah Palin. (It was bound to happen since all anyone can talk about is how similar they look.)

Right after I heard the question I thought to myself, Lindsay Lohan's opinion of the possible future vice president should have nothing to do with me. After all, when it comes to voting, she is just one person. It's not like her vote counts for more then mine or yours. But why then are some people so outraged or enamored with a celebrities opinion on the candidates.

I know my mom gets really upset when celebrities don't agree with her, or if they say something she doesn't agree with herself. A lot of people react this way. It seems to suggest that while we think celebrities don't influence our vote, they somehow have impacted us. Either they confirm our personal choice, or you look at someone like Lindsay Lohan saying don't vote for so and so and you think, if Lindsay says no, I'm certainly saying yes.

The fact that an entire twenty minutes was dedicated to discussing this question and reviewing popular celebrity's opinions of the cadidates reveals how particular types of media work. They were insinuating that a celebrities opinion should mean nothing to you, but then they spent a large portion of the show talking about it. It's because of this saturation that our opinions are often influenced by celebrity choices, or we can't go a day without learning what they're thinking. I guess that just goes to show how powerful the news is.

Monday, September 8, 2008

A Spicy Robbery

My friend sent me a link to this article last night, explaining how glad she is we are Journalism majors and get to write stories like this one. The headline reads, "Officials: Burglar wakes men with spice rub, sausage whack." This story was posted last night on CNN.com.


This article is about two farmers who were robbed and then oddly enough, beaten with meat. The headline caught my attention because I couldn't believe what the headline was insinuating. If I were to change the headline, I might change it to, "Burglar beats with meat." I think the more absurd the headline for this story, the better.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Mmm Delicious (Word of the Week)

"Palatable," an adjective meaning "pleasing to the taste." This yummy adjective came from an article in The News Gazette on page B-6, September 2, 2008. It appeared in an article with the headline "Economy forcing more to work well into 60s." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "palatable" can also be used to mean something that is "agreeable or acceptable to the mind," which is how the word was used within the article. I chose "palatable" for my word of the week because it has a unique sound to it. It is not an adjective that is often used, so when I came across it while reading the paper it caught my eye.