RE: "Shattered Glass"

I enjoyed reading Buzz Bissinger's September 1998 "Shattered Glass" piece in Vanity Fair. Thoroughly. I consider it a classic on how to do a profile. 

The piece told the story of Stephen Glass's fall as a journalist due to his undermining of journalistic truth with his fabrications. It positioned the story within a wider perspective of a reporter-editor relationship and trust as well as within a broader narrative and trajectory of Glass's development, family, education, socio-economic background and influence, and career ambition built on a vulnerable foundation of self-doubt and obsessive proclivity to please everyone, especially persons of authority.

The article kept me reading all of its seventy-five-hundred-plus words, wanting to know more every step of its gradual revelation. It's like peeling an onion and gradually revealing more details.

See Buzz Bissinger, Shattered Glass

Objectivity

Objectivity in the media is an important topic, but it feels intangible in a way. No person is perfectly objective, yet we rely on the news media to be. This sets up a dilemma for journalists. Interestingly, when I think about objectivity, I think about Ayn Rand. Many dispute her for being heartless and almost in-human in her beliefs, but in fairness she believed in total and complete objectivity. For her, this meant that those who contribute most to society should keep all of their talents and riches to themselves, as it was not their responsibility to share or help, nor would it be rational to be so charitable. She would let society collapse for the benefit of the intelligent and wealthy.

I do not believe that this degree of objectivity has any place in the news. I think that to be completely objective about tragedy, especially, is out of place. Being human means that we are called to be sympathetic to victims, kind to innocents and children, etc. Humanity is not objective.

Obviously, however, in the treatment of social and political issues, it is important to remain impartial so as not to influence others, unless you are transparent about your background and intentions.

Breaking news

By Cristin Nelson

Breaking news about a new drug approval from the FDA was released this morning, and I examined it in light of our in-class breaking news exercise yesterday.

This news is prominently featured in the Globe because Vertex is a local company, and because of the news' potential impact on the lives of many people who are generally seen as a sympathetic population.  The approval also sets a precedent, given that the drug is the first of its kind.

The lede got right to the point and summed up the situation well.  The nut graf did a fine job of not only explaining some of the technical aspects, but also of explaining why we should care.

The writer runs a real risk of reader boredom if he clumps too many numbers or complicated biotech regulatory information together.  He solves this problem by introducing a human element right after the nut graf: the mother of a 16-year-old girl with cystic fibrosis.  This serves to break up the information, but is also a good human-interest piece of the story.  It is the only quote in the article, and the story never comes back to these people.

Except for the quote, and for a quick check-in on today's Vertex stock price, it is clear that all of the information came from previous news and press releases.  Very little of the information is attributed, making me think it came from previous Globe reports.  The attributions that are given are vague: "Analysts have estimated"; "Scientists have discovered"; "An FDA staff report."  I imagine that the newsroom is working on more detailed follow-ups.

It was also interesting to read the article while keeping in mind our readings about bias.  The article gave me the distinct impression that the writer thought the approval was a good thing.  Other than the cost of the drug, there are no downsides presented here.  The mother's quote is adamantly enthusiastic.

One word choice also created the impression of bias.  The writer called the approval "long-awaited," making me wonder--long-awaited by whom?  Presumably by the company, but the placement and context does give me the impression of an implication that the public at large has been waiting.

MJ LEE OF CNNPOLITICS.COM GETS IT RIGHT: Macy’s dumps Donald Trump

MJ Lee, journalist for CNNPolitics.com posted an article on Wednesday at 6:35pm confirming Donald Trump has been dropped from Macy’s

MJ Lee is one of many journalists confirming the news, after controversy about Donald Trump’s racially charged comments on the Mexican-American Community.

I thought the article was a very well written piece and extremely informative. MJ also gave readers insight on Donald Trump's merchandise within the department store, which could be something that CNNPolitics overall readers may not know much about.

MJ also included quotes from other politicians and public figures. These quotes pertained to Donald Trump's controversial remarks and Macy's terminating their partnership with the Donald and his brand. These quotes could potentially be detrimental, since Donald Trump is currently running for presidency.

I really enjoyed the article. I thought it provided current updates, but also reviewed past news about the scandal in case readers were unfamiliar.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-macys/

Online vs Print Content

Sunday’s New York Times cover story was a feature about a young woman that had been entangled with ISIS groomers online. I saw it at first in print a Starbucks, then went home to finish the story by looking it up online.

When I searched and found the article, “ISIS and the young lonely American,” a video popped up, and for the next eight minutes I watched a young girl talk about her online ‘friends’ and her new found Islamic faith. The video did not show her face, but it played footage of her recounting some of her views that were not included in the print article.

The difference was significant: in the print version of the article the woman was dignified, if simply a little lost. In the video, she seemed almost childish, yet unbearably lonely in her grandparents house in the middle of nowhere. The video showed her room, her things, what she wore and other details that the article had left out.

I was intrigued initially, though, by what had been printed in the article, and I went on to finish the long feature after watching the video. Honestly, had I only stumbled across the online version, I may not have taken the time to read the story in its entirety after watching the video. It was very well written and I felt very personally involved in the story. Again I began to wonder about the future of Journalism and how the rising trend toward online consumption will change the way that we present the news.

This feature was very in depth, uncovered a complicated and frequently misunderstood subject, and was frankly a bit frightening. The use of the video footage of the subject of the feature actually enhanced its reality. When I was reading, I felt distanced from the woman and her issues felt alien and unrelated. When I watched the video, suddenly the was real. The two mediums gave completely different tones, yet in a way they complemented one another. The print story provided much needed storyline and background information, while the video allowed the subject to tell her version of reality to the viewer without filter or interpretation.

I’m not sure that the use of video would be effective in every online story, but for this feature it brought the people and places to life very effectively. The article can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/world/americas/isis-online-recruiting-american.html?_r=0

Reporting Style and Perspectives on Mental Health

The New York Times Magazine recently released their “Mental Health Issue”, with the articles also available alongside the daily paper on the New York Times website. There are several interesting pieces, but a number of them are very personal and do not employ the objective, impartial observer stance required of a journalistic piece. This is an interesting issue to consider in relation to reporting on this topic, as mental illness is highly stigmatized largely due to a lack of understanding, and most high profile news around it seems to concern either celebrities or criminals. If reporters use personal experience as a “source” on a story does that discredit it to a degree, even if the topic is a subjective experience? At what point is a reporter “too close”? Why do we consider successful professors, actors, artists to be reputable sources to comment on their own illnesses, but shy away from criminals own declarations of instability when the result of their dismissal is some degree of disaster? It strikes me as selective reporting, brushing aside the issue of mental health care and the consequences of limiting access, marginalizing some sufferers, and normalizing others. 

These questions were in my mind as I came across a New York Times article about a young man who committed suicide after assaulting four Asian women in New York city this past week. The article focused on balancing evidence of his insanity and potential, spending more time detailing his troubled childhood and distinctly different adult life than it did on the actual crimes. I was curious as to why the sudden shift in his personality was not investigated in more depth, instead skimmed over in the article in one interview with an unnamed source at the very end. The closing line would have made a great lede for the story with this slightly re-worked angle: “He was wearing a silver spacesuit and had a noose around his neck.” Overall the article felt like a collection of disparate facts and observations rather than a cohesive story that explained how or why the events occurred. It didn’t seem to commit to telling the story of the man or the people who knew his functional personality or the victims he attacked or the police who investigated the crimes, but took small pieces from each of these angles. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/i-dont-believe-in-god-but-i-believe-in-lithium.html?action=click&contentCollection=Magazine&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/nyregion/how-a-life-that-showed-promise-veered-into-violence-against-asian-women.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The hard news questions

By Cristin Nelson

My goal for this post is to share some thoughts about my experience writing the hard news story due last Friday.

I struggled with the tone and format of the article, but in the end, I decided to write it as a hard news story (as opposed to a “reax”).  My struggle with writing it as a hard news story stemmed from the fact that the purpose of a press release is for an organization to get exposure.  I believe that companies and organizations often invent “news” and send it out via press release only to further their agenda or to get their name in the paper.  So, why do we think that an AARP study finding value in older employees is anything other than AARP trying to ensure their own relevance?  How can we truly verify this information released from a company that has a dog in the fight?  Even if we contact the company for more information, how can we be sure they are giving us the whole story?

And, how do we know that by reporting it, we’re not just being used as the company’s marketing tool?  A line in the AARP press release indicated that they had done the same study 10 years earlier, with very similar findings.  (I can imagine that if a study delivered any other result, AARP would not publish it.)  I do believe that workers over 50 add value to the workplace.  But is a study with such a slam-dunk result—such a foregone conclusion—really news?  People of all sorts might enjoy reading about this, but the subject material isn’t especially groundbreaking.  And, in that case, I start to wonder how close we’re coming to marketing AARP’s agenda.

One time, within the last year or so, I pitched a story about a study released showing that over the years, potatoes had been unjustly slapped with a negative nutritional reputation—that in fact, far from being empty carbs, they had plenty of nutrition.  The editor wrote back that she thought this might be a tool from Big Potato, trying to increase sales, and we didn’t run with it.  I guess my question is: how do we know when we’re being used, and what do we do about it?  Any and all thoughts welcome.