posts about or somewhat related to ‘editorial’

Hello, Krissy Eliot
If you follow what we do you might have noticed a new name popping up the last few days. Meet Krissy, Krissy Eliot.
Born at a young age, Krissy’s a screenwriter and social media writer from Baltimore. She works in all stages of video production, but specializes in concept development. She loves lemon desserts and sci-fi, and is known, she says, for her self-deprecating humor.
In the few weeks I’ve known her, she’s called me an amateur, threatened to slap me, told me I’m nerdly but somewhat of a chump for not watching The Walking Dead and shared her love of Burning Love. So we’re off to a great start.
You can find Krissy on Tumblr here. And on Twitter here. — Michael

Hello, Krissy Eliot

If you follow what we do you might have noticed a new name popping up the last few days. Meet Krissy, Krissy Eliot.

Born at a young age, Krissy’s a screenwriter and social media writer from Baltimore. She works in all stages of video production, but specializes in concept development. She loves lemon desserts and sci-fi, and is known, she says, for her self-deprecating humor.

In the few weeks I’ve known her, she’s called me an amateur, threatened to slap me, told me I’m nerdly but somewhat of a chump for not watching The Walking Dead and shared her love of Burning Love. So we’re off to a great start.

You can find Krissy on Tumblr here. And on Twitter here. — Michael

‘Never has it been so easy to expose an error, check a fact, crowdsource and bring technology to bear in service of verification.’

Craig Silverman, Nieman Reports. A New Age for Truth

This is all very true and we recommend reading what he has to say.

Unfortunately, we also recommend reading Jay Rosen’s recent article, If Mitt Romney were running a “post-truth” campaign, would the political press report it? 

His answer, unsurprisingly, is no, no it wouldn’t.

Can we talk about the nonsense of caring about which news outlet first reports a big piece of news? I’m not talking about a genuine scoop—a report that wouldn’t have otherwise come to light—but about news that we’re all eventually going to find out anyway. Who Mitt Romney selects to be his running-mate, for instance, or whether the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate.

I know I’m often out-of-the-loop when it comes to journalism norms and conventions, but this one honestly confounds me. Has any publication ever received a Pulitzer for being the first to report a major announcement? Is there some secret reward at stake—free cookies for a year? A trip to Hawaii? Do colleagues buy you a drink to congratulate you on beating the other networks by ten seconds?

Because if this is just about bragging rights, it needs to stop. Now. And not just because it can lead to some outlets rushing to report incorrect information, as CNN and FOX did with the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform. But because the race to be first is no longer just a feature of news coverage but often the main factor driving it.

Amy Sullivan, The New Republic. Who Reported It First? Who Cares?

With the Supreme Court about to announce their decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act our (mostly cable) media were chomping at the bit to be first out of the gate with some BREAKING NEWS.

CNN, as we know, fell flat on its face. It’s been struck down, they reported incorrectly. Their amplification machine went into overdrive with banner headlines on CNN.com and posts on social media until Wolf Blitzer — in a purely Wolf Blitzer moment — helpfully illuminated us all.

“It’s getting a little more complicated,” he said.

As Sullivan points out: “His remark, of course, referred to the network’s own coverage. The court’s decision couldn’t have gotten more complicated because it was final, set down on paper.”

Sullivan’s article is well worth the read. Yes, there’s some importance to speed, she writes, but the media focuses too much on getting it first on too many stories where getting it first really isn’t important. Like, say, a Supreme Court announcement that everyone will hear about when it’s actually announced.

If the topic interests you, check out her follow-up. And if your journo-geekery runs real deep, head over to SCOTUSblog where Tom Goldstein walks 7,000 plus words through a minute by minute account of how CNN and Fox got their reporting wrong, and how the whole media scrum works in cases such as this.

A good curator is thinking not just about acquisition and selection, but also contextualizing.
BBC Syria Coverage Uses Wrong Photo from Wrong Country and Wrong Year
The BBC published the photo above yesterday to illustrate the massacres taking place in Houla, Syria.
Problem is, the photo was taken by Marco di Lauro south of Baghdad in 2003.
Via the Telegraph:

Mr di Lauro, who works for Getty Images picture agency and has been published by newspapers across the US and Europe, said: “I went home at 3am and I opened the BBC page which had a front page story about what happened in Syria and I almost felt off from my chair.
“One of my pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration claiming that those were the bodies of yesterday’s massacre in Syria and that the picture was sent by an activist.
“Instead the picture was taken by me and it’s on my web site, on the feature section regarding a story I did In Iraq during the war called Iraq, the aftermath of Saddam. “What I am really astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn’t check the sources and it’s willing to publish any picture sent it by anyone: activist, citizen journalist or whatever. That’s all.”
He added he was less concerned about an apology or the use of image without consent, adding: “What is amazing it’s that a news organization has a picture proving a massacre that happened yesterday in Syria and instead it’s a picture that was taken in 2003 of a totally different massacre.”

FJP Pro Tip: a reverse image search could have flagged this photo in seconds. Where to do it? We use Google Image Search (instead of typing a search term in the text box select the camera icon which allows you to either enter the URL of an image or upload one) and Tineye (the process is the same).
Image: An Iraqi girl jumps over body bags containing skeletons found in the desert south of Baghdad. Marco di Lauro, 2003.

BBC Syria Coverage Uses Wrong Photo from Wrong Country and Wrong Year

The BBC published the photo above yesterday to illustrate the massacres taking place in Houla, Syria.

Problem is, the photo was taken by Marco di Lauro south of Baghdad in 2003.

Via the Telegraph:

Mr di Lauro, who works for Getty Images picture agency and has been published by newspapers across the US and Europe, said: “I went home at 3am and I opened the BBC page which had a front page story about what happened in Syria and I almost felt off from my chair.

“One of my pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration claiming that those were the bodies of yesterday’s massacre in Syria and that the picture was sent by an activist.

“Instead the picture was taken by me and it’s on my web site, on the feature section regarding a story I did In Iraq during the war called Iraq, the aftermath of Saddam. “What I am really astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn’t check the sources and it’s willing to publish any picture sent it by anyone: activist, citizen journalist or whatever. That’s all.”

He added he was less concerned about an apology or the use of image without consent, adding: “What is amazing it’s that a news organization has a picture proving a massacre that happened yesterday in Syria and instead it’s a picture that was taken in 2003 of a totally different massacre.”

FJP Pro Tip: a reverse image search could have flagged this photo in seconds. Where to do it? We use Google Image Search (instead of typing a search term in the text box select the camera icon which allows you to either enter the URL of an image or upload one) and Tineye (the process is the same).

Image: An Iraqi girl jumps over body bags containing skeletons found in the desert south of Baghdad. Marco di Lauro, 2003.

Time’s Upcoming Cover
Discuss.

Time’s Upcoming Cover

Discuss.

Daughters Are Precious
My morning reading in the Hindustan Times today. A new column by actor-activist Aamir Khan. He writes:

Every conceivable reason that I have come across during our research of people explaining why they want a boy and not a girl as a daughter does not seem to make any sense to me. For instance, “if we have a girl then at the time of her marraige we have to pay dowry”, or “a girl cannot perform the last rites after the death of her parents, or near and dear ones”, or “the girl can’t take the vansh, or family forward”…All these are man-made reasons. We have created dowry and are now killing the girl child as if she is responsible for it. We have decided for ourselves that girls can’t perform last rites and then we say the girl is to blame.”

FJP: Agreed, approved, and happy to see this in a newspaper.

Daughters Are Precious

My morning reading in the Hindustan Times today. A new column by actor-activist Aamir Khan. He writes:

Every conceivable reason that I have come across during our research of people explaining why they want a boy and not a girl as a daughter does not seem to make any sense to me. For instance, “if we have a girl then at the time of her marraige we have to pay dowry”, or “a girl cannot perform the last rites after the death of her parents, or near and dear ones”, or “the girl can’t take the vansh, or family forward”…All these are man-made reasons. We have created dowry and are now killing the girl child as if she is responsible for it. We have decided for ourselves that girls can’t perform last rites and then we say the girl is to blame.”

FJP: Agreed, approved, and happy to see this in a newspaper.

Suit Yourself
Or Shit Yourself as the mirrored text might say.
Choice is yours. We’re going with the former.
Via Reddit.

Suit Yourself

Or Shit Yourself as the mirrored text might say.

Choice is yours. We’re going with the former.

Via Reddit.

5 Ways to Spot a BS Political Story in Under 10 Seconds →

Political journos and junkies take note: Cracked creates a handy guide to evaluate an article’s newsworthiness:

#5. The Headline Contains the Word “Gaffe”
A politician accidentally misspoke in a way that made him or her look silly, and the opponents are pouncing on it.

#4. The Headline Ends in a Question Mark
A news story so questionable the publication literally felt the need to mark it as such.

#3. The Headline Contains the Word “Blasts”
A politician or other prominent person has taken to a microphone to say something inflammatory about the other side, usually by rephrasing their own party’s talking points over and over.

#2. The Headline Is About a “Lawmaker” Saying Something Stupid
A low-level politician with no power said something incredibly stupid, and the opposing party is trumpeting it from the mountaintops to make everyone in the low-level politician’s party look stupid.

#1. The Headline Includes the Phrase “Blow To”
Neglecting to explain hugely important policy changes in favor of focusing on the drama, and how it affects the personal political careers of the politicians involved.

Read through for explanations and examples of each.

The backwardness of political cartoons is especially evident when you compare them to the bounty of new forms of graphical political commentary on the Web. My Facebook and Twitter feeds brim with a wide variety of political art — biting infographics, hilarious image macros, irresistible Tumblrs (e.g., Kim Jong-il Looking at Things), clever Web comics, and even poignant listicles. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a traditional political cartoon appear on my various social-media channels…

…This isn’t surprising. Editorial cartoons were born in the era of newspapers, and while they now regularly appear on the Web—including in Slate—they remain stuck in the static, space-constrained, caricaturist mind-set of newsprint. The Pulitzers began awarding a prize for cartoons in 1922, and other than a few notable exceptions — Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury in 1975, Berkeley Breathed’s Bloom County in 1987, and Mark Fiore’s animated cartoons in 2010 — the overwhelming majority of its awards have gone to traditional, single-panel cartoonists. It’s time for the Pulitzers to look past this old-fashioned medium and include graphics that are better attuned to this century.

My first suggestion would be for the committee to recognize infographics and interactive visualizations. Like most political cartoons, infographics are rarely funny. Unlike most political cartoons, the best infographics tend to pack a wallop.

Farhad Manjoo, Slate. Editorial Cartoons Are Stale, Simplistic, and Just Not Funny: The Pulitzer committee should honor slide shows, infographics, and listicles instead.

I don’t think the Pulitzer’s should abandon the editorial cartoon but absolutely agree there should be a new category for graphical stories. — Michael

The Economist Style Guide, Animated Edition

H/T: Journalism.co.uk

What Happened to the Iceberg That Sank the Titanic? →

Via Wired:

Exactly one hundred years ago Sunday, an ocean liner struck a block of ice and sank in the North Atlantic. The story of the ocean liner has been told hundreds of times. This story is about the block of ice.

And that is how you come at a story from an altogether different angle.

When I first got here and was watching the page one meeting, I’d watch them decide what were going to be the six most important stories in the western world for the following day’s paper. Meanwhile the web’s above their heads, where all stories are becoming interchangeable. I thought, ‘Oh, this is so silly to blow a whistle and say, “Stop! These are the stories worth your attention.’”

But now that I’m bathed in information every single day and stuff is wooshing by me, I kind of love the full-stop arrangement of stories on The New York Times. A lot of times I wake up and think about the day that’s just passed and wonder, ‘What was that? What happened?’ A lot of stuff, and I can’t really tell which part of it was important.
Please take a seat in the shaming room.
In its 40-plus years as a syndicated comic strip Doonesbury has seen a fair share of controversy.
This week it sees it again. Starting today with the strip above, Doonesbury author Gary Trudeau satirizes various legislative attempts across the United States to make women undergo ultrasounds before getting an abortion.
The result, a number of newspapers such as the Kansas City Star will not be running the strip but instead replace it with archives provided by Universal Uclick, Doonesbury’s syndicator.
Others, such as the Los Angeles Times are moving the strip off the “family friendly” comics pages to its editorial page.
Via The Guardian:

The strip deals specifically with a law introduced in Texas and other states requiring a woman who wants to have an abortion to have an ultrasound scan, or sonogram, which will show an image of the foetus and other details, in an attempt to make her reconsider.
It portrays a woman who turns up at an abortion clinic in Texas and is told to take a seat in “the shaming room”. A state legislator asks if she has been at the clinic before and, when she says she had been to get contraceptives, he replies: “Do your parents know you’re a slut?”
Later, she says she does not want an intrusive vaginal examination but is told by a nurse: “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10-inch shaming wand.” The nurse adds: “By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.”

In an email to the Guardian, Trudeau writes, “I write the strip to be read, not removed. And as a practical matter, many more people will see it in the comics page than on the editorial page.”
Image: Doonesbury, March 12, 2012. The first in a weeklong series that tackles proposed abortion laws.
Click to embiggen.

Please take a seat in the shaming room.

In its 40-plus years as a syndicated comic strip Doonesbury has seen a fair share of controversy.

This week it sees it again. Starting today with the strip above, Doonesbury author Gary Trudeau satirizes various legislative attempts across the United States to make women undergo ultrasounds before getting an abortion.

The result, a number of newspapers such as the Kansas City Star will not be running the strip but instead replace it with archives provided by Universal Uclick, Doonesbury’s syndicator.

Others, such as the Los Angeles Times are moving the strip off the “family friendly” comics pages to its editorial page.

Via The Guardian:

The strip deals specifically with a law introduced in Texas and other states requiring a woman who wants to have an abortion to have an ultrasound scan, or sonogram, which will show an image of the foetus and other details, in an attempt to make her reconsider.

It portrays a woman who turns up at an abortion clinic in Texas and is told to take a seat in “the shaming room”. A state legislator asks if she has been at the clinic before and, when she says she had been to get contraceptives, he replies: “Do your parents know you’re a slut?”

Later, she says she does not want an intrusive vaginal examination but is told by a nurse: “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10-inch shaming wand.” The nurse adds: “By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.”

In an email to the Guardian, Trudeau writes, “I write the strip to be read, not removed. And as a practical matter, many more people will see it in the comics page than on the editorial page.”

Image: Doonesbury, March 12, 2012. The first in a weeklong series that tackles proposed abortion laws.

Click to embiggen.