This entire article rubs me the wrong way. Summary:

1. News photographers, especially high school sports photographers, have been barred from access to sports games if their paper sells a lot of reprints online or if they won’t sign a form promising not to sell reprints.
2. Some of these photographers directly make money from reprint sales; one from the Daily Southtown called a picture of a softball team cheering “the money shot.”
3. The Illinois High School Association (IHSA), says this is necessary to protect the contract they have with VIP, a PR company hired to specifically take shots to sell to students and parents; revenue is shared with the school district. “We don’t have a problem with you giving them away or doing photo galleries online,” Anthony Holman, assistant executive director of the IHSA, told Bloomington’s Pantagraph last November.
4. State Representative Joe Lyons has introduced House Bill 4582, which states that no school or school organization “may infringe upon or attempt to regulate in any manner the dissemination of news or the use of visual images by the news media…” which isn’t really what’s at stake here, is it? What’s at stake is the COMMERCIAL use of visual images by the news media.

There are so many things wrong with this. First, the IHSA is stepping way over its bounds. It doesn’t have the right to tell a newspaper what they can and can’t do with their photos. (The Illinois Press Association sued the IHSA to get access to the state football finals and lost the case. Has everyone in Illinois lost their minds?)

But on the other hand, a newspaper isn’t in–or shouldn’t be in–the business of selling reprints. Yet some are: “[V]isit the Web site of what’s now the SouthtownStar and you’ll see the paper means business. ‘Welcome to Southland Photo­Shoppe,’ it says. ‘Your shopping choices range from traditional prints to T-shirts, mugs, computer mouse pads and other items on which our photos are imprinted.’ A simple eight-by-ten is $25.” A newspaper is a public benefit, I believe the term is. It’s like a subway system or a museum in that it provides a value far greater than its monetary worth to shareholders. (Unlike subway systems and museums, newspapers aren’t kept afloat with government money. Probably a good thing, but the Beeb hasn’t often let me down…)

Alas, the sad fact of the news industry is that papers have to pursue outside interests and investments to remain viable. The Washington Post company owns Kaplan. The New York Times has About.com. Gannett owns a job site for nurses? (What? That one came as a surprise for me, too.) So if a small paper in Peoria (or whatever) needs an extra $2000 a year to keep afloat, it’s sad, crass, but necessary. I just somehow feel that the value of the”money shot” picture is more than the photograph itself. Does seeing yourself (or your kid) on the front page of your hometown newspaper not count as a value-add anymore? Isn’t that worth more than a framed photograph? Isn’t there a way for papers to capitalize on this without becoming commercial?

In the end, nobody wins here. As Lyons says, if VIP ever decides it’s not making enough money and pulls out and there’s nobody to take pictures, “Badda bing, badda boom, you’re taking your own photos.” News organizations that have been made to feel unwelcome for years are not going to flock back to take pictures of the high school chess club.

Ugh.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It looks like each page is printed with hand-drawn designs. Also, each month looks slightly different from the next, as if each was designed by a different artist. It’s just the right mixture of wacky and left-wing wacky that I can appreciate.

I’m experimenting with new organizational systems in the new year and so far I can wholeheartedly endorse the Slingshot. (If you want to BUY it, well, that’s tougher. Here’s a partial list of bookstores that carry it—though by now they may be sold out—and at the bottom of this page is a list of online retailers. And if you do make a purchase? The silver ink on black paper—the colors of the cover I own—look WAY cooler.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I think most of us have gotten past the poor high school girl’s quandary in #2:”I wanted to write a good story about overcoming obstacles,” she said. It’s important to write what happened, not try to fit notes into a preconceived pattern. But there’s a lot of ground to cover between that girl’s reporting and the New York Times articles mentioned in #1.

This has been on my mind recently because of my story about Becca Hart. And now of course I realize that I did use the word “obstacles” quite a few times, but–I believe–not in a bad way. And Hart, when I spoke to her, was humble and had a great sense of humor–not “cranky, dismissive, angry, horny, obnoxious.”

So, good things to think about either way. What’s certain is that Poynter’s pieces couldn’t have come at a better time.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Examples:

Write a lede that is one or two sentences long and says, without any adjectives or colorful language, exactly what the story is writing about. Here’s a good example from Fox News: “Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa condemned the Police Department’s use of force against demonstrators and reporters at an immigration rally, saying he was ‘deeply, personally troubled’ by the clash.” [This is harder than it sounds. I still struggle with this, of course--I'm just starting out--but I know even well-established journalists have to pay special attention to their ledes. A class I was in last semester spent about seven weeks on writing ledes only--and half the students still hadn't got it by the end.]

Use “said” or “asked” when quoting someone. Do not use “shouted,” “whined,” or anything else. There are exceptions to this, but when in doubt, just avoid it. [I'm so glad I'm done with professors who hand out "Words to use in place of 'said'" sheets in their writing classes. Yes, people actually do this, and I'm baffled as to why. It's not doing anyone any favors to make students think that using a thesaurus indiscriminately--especially for dialogue tags--is good writing.]

There are more tips at the original post. I’d like to see a follow-up post about how to actually get your story seen by an editor (which maybe I’ll tackle later), but this is a great start. Check it out here.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

 I remembered learning something about how “Hispanic” was a term created not so long ago, not a term preferred by the people to whom we assign this label. What I was not prepared for was these paragraphs in the Wikipedia article about the word:

The confusion that arises is from the similarity between the words Latino and Latin, and between the concept of Hispanic and Latino. Latino is a shortened version of the noun Latinoamericano (Latin American). In the Spanish language “Latín” (Latin) is the name of the language of the Romans. This means that “Latín” is not confined solely to Hispanics, Latin Americans, or Latinos, but has always included such European peoples as the Italians, French, Romanians, Portuguese, etc.

Thus, of a group consisting of a Brazilian, a Colombian, a Mexican, a Spaniard, and a Romanian; the Brazilian, Colombian, and Mexican would all be Latinos, but not the Spaniard or the Romanian, since neither Spain nor Romania is geographically situated in Latin America. Conversely, the Colombian, Mexican and Spaniard would all be Hispanics, but not the Romanian and the Brazilian; Brazilians speak Portuguese as Brazil has evolved from the former Portuguese colony in South America. Finally, all of the above nationalities would be Latin, including the Romanian. To further clarify, a Latino is a US citizen or resident of Latin American descent or birth…

The term is oftern rejected by some Hispanics, because they consider Hispanic to be too general as a label, while others consider it offensive, often preferring to use the term Latino, which is viewed as a self-chosen label…

The majority of Hispanic Americans do not identify as Hispanic or Latino, but instead with their national origin, e.g. Mexican-American.

 What I’m getting from this is twofold. One: “Latino” is the proper term, though in a perfect world I would identify each person in Sunset Park by their national origin (which I believe is predominantly Dominican, judging by the turnout on Dominican Independence Day last summer). Two: Labels are damn confusing.

Next I’m going to blog about my journalism teacher who insisted that a writer who capitalized the word “Black” had made a typo in her query letter “because in the AP style manual, it isn’t capitalized.” See you then.

*Not really; I’ve been worrying vaguely about the problem all semester. Also, I don’t even think that “immigrants from Central and South America” is completely correct.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times front pages for April 13, 13, and 11, respectively. From Newseum and the NY Times.

Can we please lay Don Imus: The Scandal to rest? The media are jumping on this like he’s the next Anna Nicole Smith. And yet I have yet to hear anyone speak out on the fact that the man and his idiotic comments are overhyped, just like Anna was. What’s the deal? Is it because the man is, technically, a member of the media, and we love pointing out the mistakes of our own kind? (Probably.) Is it because the media gets a righteous satisfaction from pointing out examples of racism? “Look, we’re not nearly as bad as this guy!” (Probably.)

Imus was, still is, probably, a jackass. But that does not warrant the front-page treatment he’s gotten from major newspapers. On the 11th, Imus and the Rutgers girls made the front page of the New York Times, no joke. On the 13th, when Imus’s firing was announced, his mug graced the front pages of papers ranging from the New York Post and Daily News to the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Most of these ran the story above the fold. Slow news day? In Washington, DC? I doubt it.

The SF Chronicle teased the story on the front page but wasted no more space on it. Google News provides 4000+ hits for the man’s name.

Blogs are not exempt from jumping on the Imus-ragging bandwagon. On Technorati on the 13th, “Imus” was the top search and top tag for the day. Since the beginning of April, over 50,000 blogs have felt the need to weigh in on the “controversy.”

The problem is there is no controversy. Don Imus was a racist talk show host. He probably should have been fired a long time ago. Now he has been fired. Hooray! End of story. Rehashing tired “scandals” is not what citizen journalism is supposed to be for. The mainstream media isn’t supposed to leap on these stories either, but I think it’s pretty accepted now that they will, no matter how wrong it is.

It wasn’t so long ago, though, that we dreamed that blogs would fill in where the mainstream media left off. Bloggers would call attention to stories and issues neglected by the big newspapers and TV stations. Beautiful dream, eh? Instead, everyone with a keyboard feels the need to give their opinions about the exact level of jerkitude possessed by Imus. Enough! Where’s the outrage that important issues are being neglected for this circus? (The New York Observer’s Media Mob has started an Imus tally, a tongue-in-cheek count of the number of Imus pieces in each major New York City paper.) Here on Long Island, Imus’s firing topped the news hour on CBS, relegating the governor of New Jersey’s car crash to much later. Governor Corzine remains in critical condition.

On the blogosphere, I have no way of knowing which stories have been pushed to the side in favor of rehashing the “racist talk show host” debate. It’s up to you guys to tell me! There are so many things going on in the world at any given moment. Pick one. Inform me.

(For three takes on Imus that are more than just bashing or rehashing the news, try these: Chicago Tribune | Washington Post | Newsday)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This whole debacle is interesting, says a professor of mine, because we already have the technology we need to cut our greenhouse emissions to Kyoto targets or lower. This professor (let’s call him S), who’s teaching a seminar on global climate change, compares our situation now to the space race and moon landing in the 1950′s and ’60′s. Back then, we decided we wanted to go to the moon, but we had no idea how to get there. We had to develop the technology to get someone into space, and then we had to put it into practice.

Gore’s movie (which had its flaws, I’ll grant) made it perfectly clear that if we simply stepped up use of technology we already have, we could curb our emissions. Investing in clean power plants (though hydro, wind, and nuclear all have their drawbacks), more hybrid cars, more fuel-efficient cars, and so on, would be more than enough to clean up this country, CO2-wise. The one other significant factor–though I can’t find the graph anywhere online–was, I believe, advances in efficiency in homes and offices, along the lines of replacing incandescents with CFLs, installing energy-efficient appliances, weatherproofing walls and windows with insulation and double-paned glass, etc.–things you can do today! (Seriously. Go buy a CFL right now, will you?)

But I digress. The point is, unlike the space race, we already have the technology, says Prof. S. He also points out that his wife, who is from China, was shocked to see so few scientists appearing on American television. In China, she says, scientists are on the tube for something or other almost every day. Prof. S. said he told her “it’s not the America I grew up with.”

We can learn from the space race era. Why do you think there were scientists on American television in the ’50′s and ’60′s? Why do you think we were able to get a guy on the moon just eleven years after getting the first ever American satellite into orbit?

Easy.

We were terrified that the “dirty Russkies” were going to get there first and do something terrible to us.

Nuclear test. Things that go boom are cool scary. Public domain image, from Wikipedia

There’s no way to “compete” against the planet itself. Not only that, but I don’t believe our culture thinks it’s appropriate to compete against other countries the way we competed against the USSR. We don’t compete–not outwardly. We “cooperate.” (No, actually, we say we’re going to cooperate and then sit around with our thumbs up our asses for decades. Hello, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) Sure, there are studies published all the time about how our science students are lagging behind pretty much everyone else, but where’s the widespread panic we need to kick us into action?

Speaking hypothetically and completely off-the-wall fantastically here: If Iran developed a device that, I don’t know, fanned all the CO2 over the Atlantic to New York City, and turned each CO2 molecule into a microscopic spy camera, and, oh, throw in something to do with nukes for good measure, you can bet we’d be all over the Kyoto protocol in an instant.

Until then, we’re probably screwed.

Oh, and by the way? Recently this blog has been mostly about a) street art and b) environmental concerns (or as we cynical activists like to say, “tree-hugging hippie shit”). I promise the next post is going to shake things up a little.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“I personally find the word ‘alien’ offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children,” said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. “An alien to me is someone from out of space.”

She has introduced a bill providing that: “A state agency or official may not use the term ‘illegal alien’ in an official document of the state.” There would be no penalty for using the words.

In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, “we don’t say ‘alien,’ we say ‘immigrant.’”

Wilson said she preferred the term “undocumented immigrant,” but that she would also accept “illegal immigrant.” This isn’t sliding too far down the slippery slope of political correctness, but rather it’s giving back a measure of humanity to a group of people that is, really, reviled in most of the country. (Here in New York it’s better than some places, but even here you find instances of hatred that go beyond what one could reasonably expect, even if you buy into the idea that it’s a mortal sin that someone here illegally is picking your oranges or washing your floors.)

Wilson went on to add:

“There are students in our schools whose parents are trying to become citizens and we shouldn’t label them,” she said. “They are immigrants, through no fault of their own, not aliens.”

For even just this reason, this bill is a good idea. I’d love to see other states (hello, California) or even the federal government pick this up.

Full Story

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’ll admit it: Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” had its heart in the right place. It meant well. It did. But that isn’t stopping me from feeling it was heinously executed. I’m pretty sure Gore isn’t planning a surprise campaign for President in 2008, but the movie felt like nothing more than a Gorefest. I half expected to hear, somewhere into the last third of the film, “…and that’s when I invented the Kyoto protocols.” He’s got an important message, but he really is not the right vehicle for taking his message to the silver screen. When the melodramatic music began to wail and the film shifted into “flashback/re-enactment” mode for yet another teary-eyed recollection of Gore’s past, I felt like puking.

On the other hand, I could be in the minority here. I know the movie did very well in theaters, grossing over $24 million according to boxofficemojo.com. (That’s more than twice Super Size Me, and I remember well how many people were talking about that movie.) Then there were the Academy Award nominations, and the fact that for a while, nobody could stop talking about the movie. The buzz was incredible, and people still ask every now and then, “Did you see ‘An Inconvenient Truth?’”

My hypothesis is that the majority of the people obsessed with this movie had only vaguely heard of global warming, and “An Inconvenient Truth” really was a wake-up call. I could appreciate the depth of information Gore presented, but I was not shocked or even particularly impressed. For me, it was confirmation that the problem is as bad as they say, not a revelation.

Another probable reason for this movie’s success is Gore’s star power. He is a celebrity, after all, and a charismatic one at that. I believe I would have preferred to watch a straight-up recording of his PowerPoint presentation than the one the movie gave us, sliced up and interlarded with Gore’s egocentric anecdotes. I just recently saw the book version of “An Inconvenient Truth” in stores, and my heart leapt–at first glance, the book seemed to be free of any maudlinism. But alas, the noxious flashbacks remained in print form. Photographs changed from color to grayscale, and the font shrunk a few points in size—to indicate, I don’t know, emotions—but there they were.

Now that I’ve ejected most of my bilious hatred for Gore’s ego, I’m willing to go on to discuss the information itself. Gore did say in one of his asides that his mission was to make global warming/climate change understandable to everyone, and in that regard I feel he succeeded. His graphs and charts were accompanied by photographs and cute computer-generated models that could not be clearer. It’s hard to disagree with photos that show deserts where there were lakes, or lakes where there were glaciers. His presentation gives a good overview of the issues without getting too deep into complicated science or math.

As far as outside reviewers go, a quick scan of Hollywood’s critics shows that they, at least, loved the film. However, many of the positive reviews emphasized the educational aspects of the movie, not Gore’s aptitude as a presenter. Only three reviewers out of almost 150 on Rottentomatoes.com said anything about the movie as a movie. The other reviewers’ comments, pulled from places like The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and so on, all say the same thing: “I’m recommending what is essentially a non-film because I agree with its politics and I’d like for more people to agree with me than disagree.” (Actual quote from one Walter Chaw, from Film Freak Central–whatever that is.) The negative reviewers focused mainly on Gore’s ego and used it to form ad hominem attacks against the message. Surprise. A reviewer from 7M Pictures in Columbus, who does not seem to believe in global climate change, gave the film 1 out of 5 stars, saying “The film makes [Gore] out to be a bigger martyr and a better savior than Jesus Christ, himself.”

On the other hand, RealClimate.org, a site maintained by working climate scientists, praised the movie for handling the science “admirably.” That review noted that there are a few significant scientific errors–the scene I thought was incredibly powerful, where Gore points to an Antarctic ice core and shows where the carbon emissions have vanished thanks to the passing of the Clean Air Act, is apparently based on completely fallacious science. The RealClimate review is followed by two hundred and forty-five remarkably flame-free comments.

In the end, I’ve got to agree with the Wall Street Journal reviewer who wrote: “The film succeeds powerfully, even though it’s short on practical solutions…and, given Gore’s current ambiguous position in public life, requires a tighter focus on the message than on the messenger.” Next time, Al, skip the schmaltz.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Why the student paper of a 3,500-student college in the middle of Nassau County, received a copy is beyond my comprehension.

But receive we did! A glossy, colorful book, almost 100 pages long, just chock-full of useful information on how reporters in the field can survive attacks of the biological, chemical, or nuclear variety.

I’ve heard that the effects of tear gas can be mitigated by pouring Coke into one’s eyes. (Smartass in the room: “What about Pepsi?” Yeah, you know who you are. I’m sure Pepsi works too, now shut up.) But, well, tear gas is usually used on protestors, and journalists aren’t usually allowed to protest on their days off, so let’s see what handy tips the guv’mint has to offer about other chemicals that might be unleashed on us when we’re minding our own business in Baghdad. (Also, tear gas is not even mentioned in this book. It must not be destructive enough to pique the Bush administration’s attention.)

Under “Nerve Agents” we are told that the signs of exposure are “seizures, drooling, eye irritation, sweating or twitching, blurred vision, muscle weakness.” The next column over suggests that you “leave the affected area. Immediately remove clothing, place in a plastic bag, and shower or wash. Seek medical care if exposed.”

How am I supposed to get to the shower if I’m twitching on the ground in the middle of a seizure? And how will a shower help if most nerve gases will kill in one to ten minutes?

Okay, so the chemical reference chart is a wee bit understated. How about biological weapons?

Remember anthrax? This handy chart says that it’s not contagious–what great news! It also mentions that if infected, symptoms will begin to show themselves after seven days. These symptoms include blisters, nausea, flu-like symptoms, and severe breathing problems, depending on the type of anthrax contracted. Unfortunately, the chart fails to mention death as a possible symptom of an anthrax infection. And if an infected person doesn’t start antibiotics before symptoms begin, he or she is pretty much dead.

Every other fatal disease listed under “biological agents” neglects to mention the part about the disease being fatal. Also, I didn’t even know there was such a thing as botulism! This sure is educational!

Here’s my absolute favorite part: The orange section covers “radiation emergencies.” If a nuclear plant is attacked, the government says a “radiation release [is] unlikely–power plants are built to sustain extensive damage.” Right, I believe that. If terrorists are going to blow up or hack into a nuclear plant you can damn well bet that they’ll blow it up well enough to cause an explosion, or hack it bad enough that Chernobyl will look like an itty-bitty microwave.

Then the tour de force: The “nuclear weapon” section. The government is at least honest here, dedicating twenty whole words to the gruesome injuries and diseases you might contract if you’re near a bomb when it goes off. In another chart, we’re told that a nuclear weapon “creates a large fireball that would vaporize everything within it.”

And yet–in the event of a bomb going off, here is what you should do:

• Do not look toward the explosion.
• Seek shelter behind any shield or in a basement.
• Lie on the ground and cover your head.

Last I checked, this was 2007, and “duck and cover” got real old almost half a century ago. But the government has spoken!

I feel safer already. Don’t you?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.