Vladimir Propp was a 20th century formalist who studied common narrative structures in Russian folk tales. His main idea was that there are limited functions in stories that, put together, construct a story. In this view, each narrative has repetitive elements such as departure, wedding, solution, victory and punishment. Later structuralist scholars have suggested that what is original about a narration is the way it is expressed. But, if you could analyze every existing story, you would find common elements in them. These functions are not only found in fiction. They can also be found in journalism.
In this New York Times story which describes an existing tension in Iraq, for example, I recognized Propp's struggle function.
Because journalism is not the exact reflection of reality, but a reporter's account of that reality, the stories we read every day in newspapers are constructions. These narrative constructions, have, as well, common functions.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Saw this posted on National Association of Science Writers list-serve, and thought it had some good tips on interviewing, storytelling, etc. It's a series of quotes from journalists at the recent narrative conference at Boston University. Wish I had known about it. Would have liked to have gone to it.
http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/2014/04/08/its-not-about-the-cameras-its-about-how-you-see-the-world-and-49-other-tips-and-inspirations-from-the-bu-narrative-conference/
http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/2014/04/08/its-not-about-the-cameras-its-about-how-you-see-the-world-and-49-other-tips-and-inspirations-from-the-bu-narrative-conference/
Friday, April 25, 2014
Russians in Crimea, Truth or Consequences
My final story for our Proseminar class addressed Minnesota's Ukrainian and Russian communities' reactions to the events in Crimea and Ukraine. The NYT offers excellent and comprehensive coverage almost daily. I read the article below in the paper a few days ago and discovered it online for posting at the Blog.
What I liked about the article was that it resonated with some of the remarks I heard from Minnesotans who had relatives in Crimea. Most of those I interviewed did not want to go on the record for concerns regarding their loved ones still living in Crimea and Ukraine. The article discusses transition problems from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. It was tragically easy for Putin; unencumbered, waltzing in, taking over. East Ukraine? All Ukraine? The Baltics? The Cold War Served Hot? The verdict isn't in.
I realize, after revisiting MacFARQUAR's well-documented and nicely written article, mine was understated. That made me happy as I often think of Minnesotans as understated. This article took it's toll. I said to myself today, well, one has a moral obligation to be miserable at least one day a year whether one wants to be or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/world/europe/under-russia-life-in-crimea-grows-chaotic.html?_r=0
Post Script: I loved the class last evening. Jenifer B. McKim's writing was superb. Each article held the ring of truth based on my time in DCFS [Minnesota.]
What I liked about the article was that it resonated with some of the remarks I heard from Minnesotans who had relatives in Crimea. Most of those I interviewed did not want to go on the record for concerns regarding their loved ones still living in Crimea and Ukraine. The article discusses transition problems from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. It was tragically easy for Putin; unencumbered, waltzing in, taking over. East Ukraine? All Ukraine? The Baltics? The Cold War Served Hot? The verdict isn't in.
I realize, after revisiting MacFARQUAR's well-documented and nicely written article, mine was understated. That made me happy as I often think of Minnesotans as understated. This article took it's toll. I said to myself today, well, one has a moral obligation to be miserable at least one day a year whether one wants to be or not.
Under Russia, Life in Crimea Grows Chaotic
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/world/europe/under-russia-life-in-crimea-grows-chaotic.html?_r=0
Post Script: I loved the class last evening. Jenifer B. McKim's writing was superb. Each article held the ring of truth based on my time in DCFS [Minnesota.]
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Where should comments be edited, removed, or prohibited?
I think profane, rude, or hateful comments should be prohibited or removed, as should personal attacks.
I do think we need to be careful, though, not to censor political views or views on social issues that run counter to our own. I consider myself a moderate as I agree with liberals on some issues and conservatives on others. But, I actually had journalists try to censor me on the National Association of Science Writers list-serve because I disagreed with the liberal orthodoxy on some issues. I found the thought of journalists trying to censor someone with opposing views absolutely frightening. In my mind journalists should be champions of free speech, even for those with opposing views.
I think profane, rude, or hateful comments should be prohibited or removed, as should personal attacks.
I do think we need to be careful, though, not to censor political views or views on social issues that run counter to our own. I consider myself a moderate as I agree with liberals on some issues and conservatives on others. But, I actually had journalists try to censor me on the National Association of Science Writers list-serve because I disagreed with the liberal orthodoxy on some issues. I found the thought of journalists trying to censor someone with opposing views absolutely frightening. In my mind journalists should be champions of free speech, even for those with opposing views.
Shutdown the trolls
When should comments be edited, removed or prohibited on news sites?
Comments on online news stories have a vast array of responses from argumentative, to profane and affirming to educational. A term called "trolling" has been coined for commenters who purposely comment to provoke others and/or comment in an inappropriate or attacking manner.
If comments are highly inappropriate by using vulgar or profane language, then comments should be deleted. "Trolling" comments serve no purpose for public good, or contribute any level of intelligence to the conversation - however, I can certainly understand each person's right to free speech.
In the setting of an online comments forum for news stories, the comment section - in my opinion - should serve as a contribution of opinion and informative debate.
Comments on online news stories have a vast array of responses from argumentative, to profane and affirming to educational. A term called "trolling" has been coined for commenters who purposely comment to provoke others and/or comment in an inappropriate or attacking manner.
If comments are highly inappropriate by using vulgar or profane language, then comments should be deleted. "Trolling" comments serve no purpose for public good, or contribute any level of intelligence to the conversation - however, I can certainly understand each person's right to free speech.
In the setting of an online comments forum for news stories, the comment section - in my opinion - should serve as a contribution of opinion and informative debate.
Edited, removed, or prohibited...
When should comments be
edited, removed, or prohibited on news sites?
Prohibited or Deleted
As a general rule, I think it’s
always justifiable to delete comments that are crude, profane or bigoted. Comments
that are intended to harm or offend should always be prohibited.
Spam can sometimes be blatant,
and other times it can be cleverly constructed to seem like it’s relevant. Either
way, if a comment is provably spam then I think it’s correct to delete it.
Edited (sometimes)
It’s less clear-cut when a
comment is on-topic but excessively argumentative or when a comment is on-topic
but troll-y. In those cases, I think whether the comment should be edited depends
on its severity.
Example: I was reading an
article about a Salvadoran refugee who was being deported from Canada (after
having lived here for many years with his family) because of his past
connections with the FMLN, a revolutionary paramilitary group in El Salvador that
fought government forces during the civil war, but has since become a legitimate
and leading political party in the country. The comments section in the article
was filled with hateful comments directed at refugees in general—about how
refugees shouldn’t be allowed into Canada, and how refugees are taking jobs
away from Canadians and crippling our economy.
I was irritated after reading the
comments. That kind of hateful thinking doesn’t make sense to me. But I would
never advocate censoring them. Why? Because the comments were voicing an opinion
and they weren’t derogatory or obscene. I don’t agree with that opinion, but
that isn’t grounds enough for censorship.
My Website Isn’t A Democracy
Last February, psychologists from the University of
Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and University of British Columbia published the results to a study on Internet behavior. They found that Internet
tolls—people who behave in a “deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a
social setting on the Internet”—meet the clinical definition for psychopathy
and sadism.
Every high-profile website on earth has to deal with
internet trolls on a daily basis, which is why companies like CNN, Google, and Huffington
Post are desperately trying to find an effective defense. Other sites, like
Popular Science, have completely done away with comment systems.
I think it’s impossible to take a news organization
seriously if the comments section is filled with garbage. I understand that CNN
doesn’t have control over the types of stupid things its readers think, but it
does have control over how those ideas are disseminated. If you wouldn’t let an
overt psychopath anchor the evening news, they shouldn’t have a voice in the
comments section.
Comments should add depth to a story. They should allow
people to share their own perspective and turn the news into an interactive
experience. They shouldn’t derail the conversation or turn it into an argument.
Edit to stay on message...
I hear a never ending chorus from people who say "You are violating my 1st amendment rights!!!" to anybody and everybody who tries to control/edit what you say. They are almost always wrong.
The 1st amendment, as is generally the case with the others, describe a relationship between people and the government, not you and an online blog run by some guy named Dave...
Now that we have show it is not a legal issue in most cases, lets examine if it is a moral/ethical one. Without a doubt it can be. We have to look at venue.
If I am running a corporate blog from Exxon and doing public affairs for them, my job is presenting the image of all things Exxon in the best light. It would be an ethical issue if I didn't serve my clients/employers needs. I am disseminating news and information. Some of it may be very legitimate and of extreme public interest but I am not bound to give all stakeholders a say. Editing comments on the IBM facebook page is just fine just as it would be on my own personal facebook page.
What about a news organization? Something that presents itself as bound by the general ethics of journalism? I think the line changes but doesn't disappear.
If comments are within a few degrees of the message, they probably should stay. When the comments go way off message, they are no longer part of the story. Obviously spam would fall into the category but people use any soap box they can find for personal agendas. If it is off message, it can be deleted.
The 1st amendment, as is generally the case with the others, describe a relationship between people and the government, not you and an online blog run by some guy named Dave...
Now that we have show it is not a legal issue in most cases, lets examine if it is a moral/ethical one. Without a doubt it can be. We have to look at venue.
If I am running a corporate blog from Exxon and doing public affairs for them, my job is presenting the image of all things Exxon in the best light. It would be an ethical issue if I didn't serve my clients/employers needs. I am disseminating news and information. Some of it may be very legitimate and of extreme public interest but I am not bound to give all stakeholders a say. Editing comments on the IBM facebook page is just fine just as it would be on my own personal facebook page.
What about a news organization? Something that presents itself as bound by the general ethics of journalism? I think the line changes but doesn't disappear.
If comments are within a few degrees of the message, they probably should stay. When the comments go way off message, they are no longer part of the story. Obviously spam would fall into the category but people use any soap box they can find for personal agendas. If it is off message, it can be deleted.
Oh the trolls of comment boxes
Comment boxes are a tough area. They are a great opportunity for people to have a voice, and that really is important in the news arena. However, many comment boxes tend to feel more like gladiator than rational discussion. Rather than engage in a conversation that respects the other person, it often becomes fighting, ad hominem arguments, name-calling and mere statements of opinion that do not even resemble logical debate.
For example, at Our Sunday Visitor, we published an article about same-sex marriage. The article was bombarded with inappropriate, derogatory comments. The article was targeted by a site that sends people to post in such a way. These people were not interested in a respectful discussion, but continued on with foul language and fallacy-filled comments, despite efforts to encourage respectful engagement. Some of the comments had to be deleted since our policy does not allow inappropriate language.
Interestingly, not long after that, I came across an article from Slate titled "Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People." It found some strong correlations between Internet trolls and Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy and sadism (known as Dark Tetrad traits). That paints a pretty picture doesn't it?
Obviously not all comment boxes experience this extreme, but the lack of thoughtful discussions is certainly present. It makes it difficult to fully embrace comment boxes, but if we want to drive discussion and engagement, it’s a necessary evil.
For example, at Our Sunday Visitor, we published an article about same-sex marriage. The article was bombarded with inappropriate, derogatory comments. The article was targeted by a site that sends people to post in such a way. These people were not interested in a respectful discussion, but continued on with foul language and fallacy-filled comments, despite efforts to encourage respectful engagement. Some of the comments had to be deleted since our policy does not allow inappropriate language.
Interestingly, not long after that, I came across an article from Slate titled "Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People." It found some strong correlations between Internet trolls and Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy and sadism (known as Dark Tetrad traits). That paints a pretty picture doesn't it?
Obviously not all comment boxes experience this extreme, but the lack of thoughtful discussions is certainly present. It makes it difficult to fully embrace comment boxes, but if we want to drive discussion and engagement, it’s a necessary evil.
When the Media goes too far
I found this article regarding a reporter who threatened a
source out of frustration. Apparently,
the reporter was not able to obtain the information through interviews and
threatened to publish an individual’s name as one of the people responsible for
withholding information from the public.
The person complained and was compensated by the reporter’s paper. In addition, the reporter was investigated
and forced to stop their (as they were called) bullying tactics.
We have all seen (on TV) where the media camps out in front of a sources home and the homeowner demands that they leave the property. Is this going too far? In many cases, reporters have to go to great lengths to get the story. Who draws the line and when is it appropriate to cross it? Thoughts?
The article also has some good information on journalism ethics and advice to those who might think that they are obligated to speak to the media.
Link:
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/articles/when-the-media-goes-too-far.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The greatest guilt trip of all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/south-korea-ferry-sinking_n_5189514.html
In Korea, many journalists are being criticized for writing about this issue based on emotion. Normally in "breaking news" format, provocative headlines and articles are delivered. "Everything Went Wrong from A to Z" Most article mention what happened in two hours but only interviewed one sided party. For example, if the article is about 119 (911) person who first answered the call from the passenger, it says how a student called 119 to report about the ferry sinking, but the police kept asking longitude and latitude. After sharing the transcribe of the conversation between the two, the article ends like this: The cop said he THOUGHT the caller was a captain. If the cop asked for the name of this ferry, since this student was the very first one to call the police, it would have given extra 6 minutes to save these kids. -the end-
Before I took this class, the article like this didn't bother me, but now I understand why this class has thought me to interview at least three sources. Articles like that are outraging the Koreans. We fired three ministers (including a house representative) in a week due to this accident. One was eating cup noodles at the scene. The other one was trying to take a picture with public officials at the scene. The other didn't show up immediately after the ferry sank. I mean, I don't get to hear why the minister ate cup noodle at the rescue scene, I don't get to know why that minister showed up late, it is all about if this person sent the aids when, then the ferry wouldn't have sunk, and if this minister took in charge from the beginning, then the rescuers would have tied the inner ropes to buy more time....etc. Chosun Daily- nation's no. one newspaper- mentioned yesterday, the reporters are being provocative, please report about this issue based on facts, not on emotion, and from one sided point of view. Many Koreans read news articles (streaming news articles on naver.com) so many young people click the news by intriguing headlines. Many online news media are uploading articles on naver.com and they are all about click numbers. This somewhat relates to the class reading "Online witch hunt for Boston bomber leads to NY Post cover photo of innocent 'suspects'.
In Korea, many journalists are being criticized for writing about this issue based on emotion. Normally in "breaking news" format, provocative headlines and articles are delivered. "Everything Went Wrong from A to Z" Most article mention what happened in two hours but only interviewed one sided party. For example, if the article is about 119 (911) person who first answered the call from the passenger, it says how a student called 119 to report about the ferry sinking, but the police kept asking longitude and latitude. After sharing the transcribe of the conversation between the two, the article ends like this: The cop said he THOUGHT the caller was a captain. If the cop asked for the name of this ferry, since this student was the very first one to call the police, it would have given extra 6 minutes to save these kids. -the end-
Before I took this class, the article like this didn't bother me, but now I understand why this class has thought me to interview at least three sources. Articles like that are outraging the Koreans. We fired three ministers (including a house representative) in a week due to this accident. One was eating cup noodles at the scene. The other one was trying to take a picture with public officials at the scene. The other didn't show up immediately after the ferry sank. I mean, I don't get to hear why the minister ate cup noodle at the rescue scene, I don't get to know why that minister showed up late, it is all about if this person sent the aids when, then the ferry wouldn't have sunk, and if this minister took in charge from the beginning, then the rescuers would have tied the inner ropes to buy more time....etc. Chosun Daily- nation's no. one newspaper- mentioned yesterday, the reporters are being provocative, please report about this issue based on facts, not on emotion, and from one sided point of view. Many Koreans read news articles (streaming news articles on naver.com) so many young people click the news by intriguing headlines. Many online news media are uploading articles on naver.com and they are all about click numbers. This somewhat relates to the class reading "Online witch hunt for Boston bomber leads to NY Post cover photo of innocent 'suspects'.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Tolerance in digital media
Comments on digital news stories shouldn´t be either edited, removed or prohibited.
Although news media are legally alowed to do so - the contrary would represent a violation to their First Amendment's rights -, by concept, they wouldn´t be able to do so without being incoherent. They cannot silence the community and ask freedom of speech for themselves.
Also, it would be a great loss. When citizens contribute with diverse ideas in the digital platform, readers have access to them. It is enriching.
Of course, hatred speech can spread in the comments of news stories.
Journalists want to look for the truth. Hatred is real. Silencing it doesn´t make any difference: Racists will remain racist.
On the contrary, if people are exposed to that type of comments, they have the opportunity to answer. If mentality changes is not by silencing dissenters; but by listening to them and being listened, too. I'm not saying it, John Stuart Mill said it in his book On liberty.
I'm not saying it. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes talked about the marketplace of ideas back in 1919, setting a precedent on American common law.
Truth is self-evident. I cannot go through walls. Reality will impose itself in front of me. When readers face an offensive comment on digital news stories, they recognize it as offensive. And if they don´t, other voices can function as eye-openers because they have the opportunity to participate in public debate by writing their own thoughts.
Some will feel offended. From what I´ve seen, historical and social changes begin when somebody feels uncomfortable.
Although news media are legally alowed to do so - the contrary would represent a violation to their First Amendment's rights -, by concept, they wouldn´t be able to do so without being incoherent. They cannot silence the community and ask freedom of speech for themselves.
Also, it would be a great loss. When citizens contribute with diverse ideas in the digital platform, readers have access to them. It is enriching.
Of course, hatred speech can spread in the comments of news stories.
Journalists want to look for the truth. Hatred is real. Silencing it doesn´t make any difference: Racists will remain racist.
On the contrary, if people are exposed to that type of comments, they have the opportunity to answer. If mentality changes is not by silencing dissenters; but by listening to them and being listened, too. I'm not saying it, John Stuart Mill said it in his book On liberty.
I'm not saying it. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes talked about the marketplace of ideas back in 1919, setting a precedent on American common law.
Truth is self-evident. I cannot go through walls. Reality will impose itself in front of me. When readers face an offensive comment on digital news stories, they recognize it as offensive. And if they don´t, other voices can function as eye-openers because they have the opportunity to participate in public debate by writing their own thoughts.
Some will feel offended. From what I´ve seen, historical and social changes begin when somebody feels uncomfortable.
To Be or Not to Be
I've been writing about Ukraine and Crimea. The climate is changing rapidly. At times, I feel I'm drowning in a sea of confusion. And I hope the article reflects that confusion as well as clarity of thought.
Jeremy's assignment: Where should comments be edited, removed, or prohibited on news sites? is addressed as a backdrop for the final article.
I'm going to provide concrete examples as I've employed all of the above and give my reasons.
PROHIBITING
I was interviewing a Russian immigrant who shall remain unnamed. She said,
“There are problems with people who are holding Ukrainian passports in Minnesota. As Ukrainian citizens, they can’t go back at this time to Crimea with Ukrainian passports as Crimea is now part of Russia."
I decided this should be barred from publication at this time in my article and I self-censored. I have eliminated significant information, so the identity of the source shall not be revealed.
I could not define or document through secondary sources what had been conveyed by my first source regarding Minnesota Crimean visitors returning to Crimea. Please know, I first went to the Consulate Office, Russian Federation, in DC. A woman answered and said, NO COMMENT loudly, when I discussed Crimeans wishing to return home on their Ukrainian passports. Then she gave me another number to call. I called a second number in DC and another said, "I didn't know that. Call this number." It was the Russian Federation Consulate in Seattle---no one answered the phone at this third Russian consulate. I left a message. No one called me back. I called the Ukrainian Consulate in Chicago and I was told all Crimeans could return to Crimea who were visiting Minnesota with a Ukrainian passport. Okay, all of that was clear as mud [which harkens back to Filipov's article; all jokes aside] as Crimea is now under the governmental control of the Russian Federation by popular vote.
EDITING
I agreed to edit someone's contribution because they had 'buyers' remorse. They were afraid they might bring harm to someone and I wanted to honor their concern and felt it would not alter things radically with the article.
Most editing, for me, comes with fact checking and responding to editorial requests. I am known for taking 100% of all edits for every article, with rare exception.
CUTTING
I cut a quote by a source at the sources request. I was within my rights to publish. I stated I was writing a freelance article and comments were on the record. I sent the quotes on for review as the anti-Semitic leaflets were distributed in Donetsk AFTER I had interviewed and suspected he would want to update his comments; he just asked to be excluded from the article. I honored the request. The irony; during interview he simply stated what was going to happen four days before it happened today. Hmmmmm. I have considerable material now. I decided to include a couple of other sources. It was last minute for me.
I realize I have discussed self-regulation-not the regulation of others. I realize judgement must be exercised. I mentioned in Angus's post, I don't support snuff films, child pornography, yelling fire in a crowded theater, plagiarism, fraud, etc. I suspect my standards are low; don't mind including verbatim swearing if someone swore, etc. I suspect not much should be censored with the exception of deceptive or false information, issues noted here.
I think it was the Supreme Court Justice White who said in exasperation, I know pornography when I see it... in efforts to define exactly what pornography is, floundering in my opinion. Gave me a chuckle.
I want to thank my team for helping so much with review: Clair, Joshua, and Don, big hugs. Diane
Jeremy's assignment: Where should comments be edited, removed, or prohibited on news sites? is addressed as a backdrop for the final article.
I'm going to provide concrete examples as I've employed all of the above and give my reasons.
PROHIBITING
I was interviewing a Russian immigrant who shall remain unnamed. She said,
“There are problems with people who are holding Ukrainian passports in Minnesota. As Ukrainian citizens, they can’t go back at this time to Crimea with Ukrainian passports as Crimea is now part of Russia."
I decided this should be barred from publication at this time in my article and I self-censored. I have eliminated significant information, so the identity of the source shall not be revealed.
I could not define or document through secondary sources what had been conveyed by my first source regarding Minnesota Crimean visitors returning to Crimea. Please know, I first went to the Consulate Office, Russian Federation, in DC. A woman answered and said, NO COMMENT loudly, when I discussed Crimeans wishing to return home on their Ukrainian passports. Then she gave me another number to call. I called a second number in DC and another said, "I didn't know that. Call this number." It was the Russian Federation Consulate in Seattle---no one answered the phone at this third Russian consulate. I left a message. No one called me back. I called the Ukrainian Consulate in Chicago and I was told all Crimeans could return to Crimea who were visiting Minnesota with a Ukrainian passport. Okay, all of that was clear as mud [which harkens back to Filipov's article; all jokes aside] as Crimea is now under the governmental control of the Russian Federation by popular vote.
EDITING
I agreed to edit someone's contribution because they had 'buyers' remorse. They were afraid they might bring harm to someone and I wanted to honor their concern and felt it would not alter things radically with the article.
Most editing, for me, comes with fact checking and responding to editorial requests. I am known for taking 100% of all edits for every article, with rare exception.
CUTTING
I cut a quote by a source at the sources request. I was within my rights to publish. I stated I was writing a freelance article and comments were on the record. I sent the quotes on for review as the anti-Semitic leaflets were distributed in Donetsk AFTER I had interviewed and suspected he would want to update his comments; he just asked to be excluded from the article. I honored the request. The irony; during interview he simply stated what was going to happen four days before it happened today. Hmmmmm. I have considerable material now. I decided to include a couple of other sources. It was last minute for me.
I realize I have discussed self-regulation-not the regulation of others. I realize judgement must be exercised. I mentioned in Angus's post, I don't support snuff films, child pornography, yelling fire in a crowded theater, plagiarism, fraud, etc. I suspect my standards are low; don't mind including verbatim swearing if someone swore, etc. I suspect not much should be censored with the exception of deceptive or false information, issues noted here.
I think it was the Supreme Court Justice White who said in exasperation, I know pornography when I see it... in efforts to define exactly what pornography is, floundering in my opinion. Gave me a chuckle.
I want to thank my team for helping so much with review: Clair, Joshua, and Don, big hugs. Diane
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Washington Post: Ukraine austerity stokes separatism
As you know, my local paper is The Washington Post and a story by reporter Anthony Faiola caught my eye. The story is titled, "Ukraine austerity stokes separatism" and has a subtitle "Bailout to bring economic plan."
The lede sets up the rest of the article by beginning in the middle of an action - it states, "As pro-Russia militants stormed City Hall here Wednesday...." The lede gives the timing, the who, and the where and goes into the why in the next sentence. The article goes on to explain the urgency for Kiev, and what the political landscape is experiencing.
The nut graf paints a more detailed picture also starting in the middle of an action to play off of the lede, with, "Scenes of armed occupation unfolded Wednesday across eastern Ukraine." The nut graf almost reads as a sub-story to the first two paragraphs. A quote is not even given until well after five paragraphs into the story.
This story was above the fold on Thursday April 17, 2014.
The lede sets up the rest of the article by beginning in the middle of an action - it states, "As pro-Russia militants stormed City Hall here Wednesday...." The lede gives the timing, the who, and the where and goes into the why in the next sentence. The article goes on to explain the urgency for Kiev, and what the political landscape is experiencing.
The nut graf paints a more detailed picture also starting in the middle of an action to play off of the lede, with, "Scenes of armed occupation unfolded Wednesday across eastern Ukraine." The nut graf almost reads as a sub-story to the first two paragraphs. A quote is not even given until well after five paragraphs into the story.
This story was above the fold on Thursday April 17, 2014.
Why should we engage with online ‘trolls’?
With the growth of the Internet, countless new
ideas are spread online. But hate speech also spreads with ease on the Web,
allowing hurtful and inflammatory language to reach wide audiences.
Governments often use censorship and punishment to
counter hate speech, yet, oppressive tactics not only limit free expression, but
also have little impact on reducing hate speech.
What’s more, censorship and punishment “work
less-well online," according to Susan Benesch, a
professor at American University’s School of International Service and founder
of the Dangerous Speech Project.
But old ideas are not just part of how governments confront
hate speech.
With much of our communication online, people tend
to believe that ignoring hate speech is the best way to deal with Internet
“trolls,” in my definition, people who generally make hateful or anti-social remarks online.
What may be needed instead, Benesch, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and
Society, said in a recorded talk at Harvard’s Berkman Center last month, is a
new approach for reducing hate speech online.
A vast majority of Internet users describe their
interactions on the Web as positive, according to a Pew Internet survey. Online hate speech
nevertheless has both real and dangerous consequences.
This was particularly evident at Kenya’s presidential election
in 2007, when, “after months of inflammatory speech online,” the elections “fell
part,” Benesch said.
Hateful rhetoric led to violence in
Kenya surrounding the vote, leaving more than 1,000 dead and over 1/2 million people displaced, with many still displaced today, Benesch said.
While Kenya’s Constitution protects freedom of
expression, it does not protect hate speech, or what Benesch called “speech
with a special capacity to incite mass violence.”
Benesch said researchers have used
a speech-tracking system called “Umati” — Swahili for “crowd” — looking for hateful, inflammatory, or dangerous
social media posts with Kenya's last elections in 2013.
What might be better at reducing hate speech online
is what Benesch called “counter speech," or encouraging free speech, not
restricting it.
Counter speech, she explained, means speaking out against
people who use hate speech, relying on contrasting ideas rather than oppression.
Parody and humor can sometimes be effective forms of
counter speech, she said, although there are many different kinds of
counter speech.
Whereas before the Internet, Benesch said,
people would generally expect to know their audience — both whom they were
speaking to and whether anyone could overhear them — now the Internet allows us to virtually
overhear more.
Now, one person’s bad day can change the mood of an
entire online community, she said.
Sheltered and ignorant people create hate speech, but “non-trolls,” people who behave “normally” in most circumstances, can also
be hateful online, Benesch said.
Counter speech can potentially influence a large part of the roughly 80
percent of people whose views are malleable to community norms, she said, though there is a minority who will not be persuaded by reasoned debate.
Benesch pointed to examples on
Twitter with the Miss America nomination last year, showing
how thoughtful responses might calm a hateful commentator, and in this case, warrant an apology.
Nina Davuluri, the Miss America winner, who has Indian
parents, was attacked online for being Arab.
“I am literally soo mad right
now a ARAB won. #MissAmerica,” said a post on Twitter from the user @DallasRobinson8.
Many responses condemned the post as racist -- the incident was picked up by the mainstream media -- and there was a much different response:
@MissAmerica sorry for being rude and "racist" and calling you a Arab please tweet back so everyone will know its real
— Dallas Robinson (@DallasRobinson8) September 18, 2013
Social networks play an
important role in exposing different communities to new ideas, especially in places where
there is limited Internet penetration.
In Myanmar,
where the government recently opened the Web after strict online censorship, Facebook is increasingly popular. For many in Myanmar who use Facebook,
Benesch said, according to a colleague of hers, Facebook and the Internet are
essentially the same.
However, Facebook is particularly
fertile ground for hate speech, Benesch’s research has found.
Memories of life under the country's former military regime mean Facebook’s
“reporting” function is feared by many in Myanmar,
though the reporting function is useful in other contexts, Benesch said.
When governments use heavy-handed tactics to silence certain voices online — even those that are legitimate threats — it punishes the majority of Internet users who can benefit from unrestricted access to the Web.
Seventy percent of Internet
users have been treated positively online, and most think that the Internet has
improved their relationships with friends and family, according to the Pew
Internet survey.
Regardless of their age,
race, or gender, the survey said, 90 percent of Internet users believe that the Internet has benefited
them personally, while three-quarters think that the Web is good for society.
Though governments’
oppressive tactics for limiting hate speech often suppress freedom of speech, hate
speech itself has the capacity to alter someone else's speech, Benesch said, which can
also be damaging to free expression.
In conclusion, with more communities using
the Web, we need more to research understand whether hate speech online could
be a kind of venting, which takes hate out of the real world, Benesch said.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Your Bravery is Killing Us Both
My favorite part of this week's reading was this quote from Jennifer Gish, a sports columnist from Times-Union:
“The downside to putting email addresses out there, of course, is that people are a lot braver when they get in front of computers than they are when they dial their phones," she said, "so the discourse isn’t always as fruitful or respectful.”
It's incredibly easy to get in touch with your favorite journalist these days. And even if you don't actually speak to them, Twitter gives the impression that you're at least moderately acquainted. But the internet makes people brave, even when that bravery is tethered to something trivial.
Part of me wonders if serious discussions have any place on Twitter. I can't imagine that many genuinely helpful pieces of constructive criticism have been delivered via tweet. But attempts to publicly humiliate someone are an hourly occurrence.
That being said, I love Twitter. The medium itself is a perfect for small talk and up-to-the-minute journalism. But after reading this week's homework, I wonder how often journalists should interact with their followers. Do we only acknowledge the positive stuff, completely ignoring the negative?
“The downside to putting email addresses out there, of course, is that people are a lot braver when they get in front of computers than they are when they dial their phones," she said, "so the discourse isn’t always as fruitful or respectful.”
It's incredibly easy to get in touch with your favorite journalist these days. And even if you don't actually speak to them, Twitter gives the impression that you're at least moderately acquainted. But the internet makes people brave, even when that bravery is tethered to something trivial.
Part of me wonders if serious discussions have any place on Twitter. I can't imagine that many genuinely helpful pieces of constructive criticism have been delivered via tweet. But attempts to publicly humiliate someone are an hourly occurrence.
That being said, I love Twitter. The medium itself is a perfect for small talk and up-to-the-minute journalism. But after reading this week's homework, I wonder how often journalists should interact with their followers. Do we only acknowledge the positive stuff, completely ignoring the negative?
On using notebooks and "creative bumbling" in journalism
Found this blog post on the National Association of Science Writers list-serve. Interesting take on using notebooks instead of recording devices, and on "creative bumbling" -- a term I never heard before.
http://jacklimpert.com/2014/04/get-people-talk-lot-tell-lot/
http://jacklimpert.com/2014/04/get-people-talk-lot-tell-lot/
Pograms anyone?
Anti-Jewish fliers in eastern Ukraine blasted
'It is beyond unacceptable,' Kerry says
Author: By Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper, Nick Paton Walsh and Sherisse Pham CNN
Published On: Apr 17 2014 12:10:29 PM CDT Updated 1 m
omersukrugoksu/iStock
(CNN) - U.S. officials Thursday denounced what one called a "grotesque" leaflet ordering Jews in one eastern Ukrainian city to register with a government office, but the Jewish community there dismissed it as a "provocation."
The fliers were handed out by masked men in front the main synagogue in Donetsk, where pro-Russian protesters have declared a "People's Republic," Jewish leaders there said. The document warned the city's Jews to register and document their property or face deportation, according to a CNN translation of one of the leaflets.
Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" that a respected Jewish leader in Ukraine showed him a photograph of one of the leaflets. He called the document "chilling."
And in Geneva, where diplomats held emergency talks on the Ukrainian crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called the leaflets "grotesque" and "beyond unacceptable."
But the Jewish community statement said relations between the Jews of Donetsk and their neighbors were amicable, and the self-proclaimed head of the "People's Republic," Denis Pushilin, denied any connection to the fliers.
Pushilin told CNN the handwriting on the flier wasn't his, and the title attached to his name was not one he uses. It wasn't clear who had distributed the leaflets, but the chief rabbi of nearby Dnipropetrovsk said, "Everything must be done to catch them."
"It's important for everyone to know its not true," said the rabbi, Shmuel Kaminezki. "The Jews of Donetsk will not do what the letter says."
The reports come as Ukraine's Western-backed interim government has been struggling to contain uprisings by pro-Russian political movements in several eastern cities, with both sides invoking the historical horror of Nazism in their disputes. Pyatt told CNN that radical groups may be trying to stir up historic fears or create a provocation to justify further violence.
"It's chilling. I was disgusted by these leaflets," Pyatt said. "Especially in Ukraine, a country that suffered so terribly under the Nazis, that was one of the sites of the worst violence of the Holocaust. To drag up this kind of rhetoric is almost beyond belief."
The leaflets were handed out on Tuesday, during the Jewish holiday of Passover, the Jewish community statement said. They stated that registration was required because Jewish leaders had supported the "nationalists and bandits" in Kiev, where a popular revolt ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February.
"All citizens of Jewish nationality over age of 16, living on territories of Donetsk People's Republic, have to register with DPR commissioner of nationality before May 3rd, 2014 at the Donetsk Regional Administration, room 514, registration fee is $50," read a photographed copy of the leaflet translated by CNN. "Must have in person $50 cash, passport, all available IDs, and documentation of ownership of real estate and transportation."
The men also hung posters with the same message, it said.
"Who is behind this is an open question," Rabbi Pinkhas Vishedski said in the statement. But he said the act was a provocation "and should be treated accordingly ... full stop and end of topic."
Provocation or not, the U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League condemned their distribution and what it called their "cynical and politically manipulative" exploitation of anti-Semitism.
"We are skeptical about the flier's authenticity, but the instructions clearly recall the Nazi era and have the effect of intimidating the local Jewish community," ADL Director Abraham Foxman said in a written statement.
Pyatt said that in Kiev, where the Jewish community is a vital part of political life, there is "no sympathy for this approach."
"It's almost inconceivable that this kind of thing could be happening in the 21st century," Pyatt said.
And Kerry said all parties at the Geneva talks unanimously condemned anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance.
"Any of the people who engage in these kinds of activities -- from whatever party or whatever ideology or whatever place they crawl out of -- there is no place for that," he said.
The fliers were handed out by masked men in front the main synagogue in Donetsk, where pro-Russian protesters have declared a "People's Republic," Jewish leaders there said. The document warned the city's Jews to register and document their property or face deportation, according to a CNN translation of one of the leaflets.
Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" that a respected Jewish leader in Ukraine showed him a photograph of one of the leaflets. He called the document "chilling."
And in Geneva, where diplomats held emergency talks on the Ukrainian crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called the leaflets "grotesque" and "beyond unacceptable."
But the Jewish community statement said relations between the Jews of Donetsk and their neighbors were amicable, and the self-proclaimed head of the "People's Republic," Denis Pushilin, denied any connection to the fliers.
Pushilin told CNN the handwriting on the flier wasn't his, and the title attached to his name was not one he uses. It wasn't clear who had distributed the leaflets, but the chief rabbi of nearby Dnipropetrovsk said, "Everything must be done to catch them."
"It's important for everyone to know its not true," said the rabbi, Shmuel Kaminezki. "The Jews of Donetsk will not do what the letter says."
The reports come as Ukraine's Western-backed interim government has been struggling to contain uprisings by pro-Russian political movements in several eastern cities, with both sides invoking the historical horror of Nazism in their disputes. Pyatt told CNN that radical groups may be trying to stir up historic fears or create a provocation to justify further violence.
"It's chilling. I was disgusted by these leaflets," Pyatt said. "Especially in Ukraine, a country that suffered so terribly under the Nazis, that was one of the sites of the worst violence of the Holocaust. To drag up this kind of rhetoric is almost beyond belief."
The leaflets were handed out on Tuesday, during the Jewish holiday of Passover, the Jewish community statement said. They stated that registration was required because Jewish leaders had supported the "nationalists and bandits" in Kiev, where a popular revolt ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February.
"All citizens of Jewish nationality over age of 16, living on territories of Donetsk People's Republic, have to register with DPR commissioner of nationality before May 3rd, 2014 at the Donetsk Regional Administration, room 514, registration fee is $50," read a photographed copy of the leaflet translated by CNN. "Must have in person $50 cash, passport, all available IDs, and documentation of ownership of real estate and transportation."
The men also hung posters with the same message, it said.
"Who is behind this is an open question," Rabbi Pinkhas Vishedski said in the statement. But he said the act was a provocation "and should be treated accordingly ... full stop and end of topic."
Provocation or not, the U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League condemned their distribution and what it called their "cynical and politically manipulative" exploitation of anti-Semitism.
"We are skeptical about the flier's authenticity, but the instructions clearly recall the Nazi era and have the effect of intimidating the local Jewish community," ADL Director Abraham Foxman said in a written statement.
Pyatt said that in Kiev, where the Jewish community is a vital part of political life, there is "no sympathy for this approach."
"It's almost inconceivable that this kind of thing could be happening in the 21st century," Pyatt said.
And Kerry said all parties at the Geneva talks unanimously condemned anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance.
"Any of the people who engage in these kinds of activities -- from whatever party or whatever ideology or whatever place they crawl out of -- there is no place for that," he said.
Horn Rapids Teen Murder Trial Follow-up
Here is the follow-up to a previous post regarding the 2013 teenage
murder of Joshua Snapp, 17, near my Horn Rapids neighborhood in Richland. This story, written by Kristin Kraemer, follows
the trial of the second assailant, John C.I. Young, 19. The first assailant, Joshua Hunt, 1 received
more than 23 years in prison for his part in the crime.
Once again, Ms. Kraemer does a good job with her lede,
nutgraf and use of good quotes. In
several cases, she refers to “the attorney said” or “the defense attorney said.” She could use the name of the defense
attorney to be more specific, as there could be more than one.
Overall, this is a good piece that follows the story well. The supporting photograph clearly illustrates
a young man with a grim future. As stated
in my first post on this topic, I think this is a very tragic story that illustrates
how lives can be ruined in an instant – on both sides of the crime.
Link:
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/04/16/2929822/murder-trial-opens-for-richland.html?sp=/99/900/901/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)