Today at the White House Clinton denies alleged affair.
Clinton thanked everyone for coming.
Clinton said that he and his wife, Hill-a-re, have worked hard over the years in an effort to further the education system for children. Clinton is working on a budget that will reduce the class size nation wide to 18 in grades 1st-2nd-3rd.
Clinton said he will create a budget to build more schools.
Clinton said quote, “The hours from 3 p.m.-7p.m. are the most vulnerable hours for children, end quote.” Clinton said he is determined to help Americans succeed.
Clinton finished by looking in the camera and defiantly saying quote, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. La- win-ski,” end quote.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Final Project
My final project idea is to follow up on a "Unpublishing Webinar" I attended last week.
I have five interviews lined up with professore in the communication department. I plan to do a hard journalism piece on the webinar discussing it's main objectives.
I look to ask them what they know and have experienced with the term "unpublishing" in their work?
More importantly, as a editor what would there stance on the issue be?
Def: Unpublishing online content is becoming more relevant in society today and more and more organizations are having requests to unoublish material. The most common request to unpublish material is called "source remorse."
I plan to interview all of my sources and incorporate a picture of one of the doctorates with a possibly press release detailing the webinar on the day it happened.
I have five interviews lined up with professore in the communication department. I plan to do a hard journalism piece on the webinar discussing it's main objectives.
I look to ask them what they know and have experienced with the term "unpublishing" in their work?
More importantly, as a editor what would there stance on the issue be?
Def: Unpublishing online content is becoming more relevant in society today and more and more organizations are having requests to unoublish material. The most common request to unpublish material is called "source remorse."
I plan to interview all of my sources and incorporate a picture of one of the doctorates with a possibly press release detailing the webinar on the day it happened.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Extra Credit Unpublishing Paper
Joshua Cappannelli
Dan Caterinicchia
“Unpublishing” Online Content
Unpublishing: a word that may change journalism
Just because it is easy to remove digital content, does it mean we should?
At a time when the digital journalism landscape has changed everything we do- wider reach, faster speeds, and easier access- news organizations are finding they having even more problems with the content they publish online.
More and more news organizations around the world are receiving requests from people to ‘unpublish’ online content. According to Kathy English, public editor for the Toronto Star, to unpublish online content means, “To take down public content from an online news source.”
Now before deciding if it is ethical and practical to unpublish online content, news organizations have to understand why people want to take down content from online news sources. English says there are many reasons to why people want online content taking down, such as information that is inaccurate, unfair or outdated and privacy issues, but the biggest one is “source remorse.”
Source remorse is when a person gives a journalist information for any such reason and then later on request to have that information taken down, says English. “It’s not you, it’s me, like getting dumped on a bad day,” says Howard Finberg, host of the unpublishing webinar.
“Anyone who publishes has to think about unpublishing,” says English. For news organizations, it’s not always cut and dry. English says organizations have to weigh every publication between the possible harm it brings to the person who is requesting it to be taken down and the obligation that the news organization has to give its readers the truth.
English says it’s about fairness, “We have a responsibility to assure the ongoing accuracy of the information we publish.” And not only do we have to explain why we don’t unpublish something, says English, but “you have to unpublish for the right reasons, rare circumstances involving egregious error or violation of journalism ethics where it would be deemed necessary to remove content.”
And although the Toronto Star has a policy on unpublishing online content, but hasn’t published it to the public, English says all news organizations should have a policy. “Unpublishing online content should be carefully considered, in fairness to all,” says English, but stresses that source remorse is not a valid reason.
In the end English says that not one person should act as a censor and decide when to remove public content, but a group of minds, “unpublish by consensus.” And when you publish realize the consequences, “consider the implications of publishing content before publishing it, because news is easily accessible and lives forever,” says English.
Dan I didn’t get any interviews, but McClusky and Kraft both emailed back saying that would love to sit down with me and discuss next week. I would love to get all their input and use it for my final project, because I got a lot more ideas to write with or without the sources.
Dan Caterinicchia
“Unpublishing” Online Content
Unpublishing: a word that may change journalism
Just because it is easy to remove digital content, does it mean we should?
At a time when the digital journalism landscape has changed everything we do- wider reach, faster speeds, and easier access- news organizations are finding they having even more problems with the content they publish online.
More and more news organizations around the world are receiving requests from people to ‘unpublish’ online content. According to Kathy English, public editor for the Toronto Star, to unpublish online content means, “To take down public content from an online news source.”
Now before deciding if it is ethical and practical to unpublish online content, news organizations have to understand why people want to take down content from online news sources. English says there are many reasons to why people want online content taking down, such as information that is inaccurate, unfair or outdated and privacy issues, but the biggest one is “source remorse.”
Source remorse is when a person gives a journalist information for any such reason and then later on request to have that information taken down, says English. “It’s not you, it’s me, like getting dumped on a bad day,” says Howard Finberg, host of the unpublishing webinar.
“Anyone who publishes has to think about unpublishing,” says English. For news organizations, it’s not always cut and dry. English says organizations have to weigh every publication between the possible harm it brings to the person who is requesting it to be taken down and the obligation that the news organization has to give its readers the truth.
English says it’s about fairness, “We have a responsibility to assure the ongoing accuracy of the information we publish.” And not only do we have to explain why we don’t unpublish something, says English, but “you have to unpublish for the right reasons, rare circumstances involving egregious error or violation of journalism ethics where it would be deemed necessary to remove content.”
And although the Toronto Star has a policy on unpublishing online content, but hasn’t published it to the public, English says all news organizations should have a policy. “Unpublishing online content should be carefully considered, in fairness to all,” says English, but stresses that source remorse is not a valid reason.
In the end English says that not one person should act as a censor and decide when to remove public content, but a group of minds, “unpublish by consensus.” And when you publish realize the consequences, “consider the implications of publishing content before publishing it, because news is easily accessible and lives forever,” says English.
Dan I didn’t get any interviews, but McClusky and Kraft both emailed back saying that would love to sit down with me and discuss next week. I would love to get all their input and use it for my final project, because I got a lot more ideas to write with or without the sources.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Opinion vs Observation
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?_r=1&hp
Third paragraph down... Could debate both observation and opinion
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/united-flight-turbulence/100638/1?csp=hf
United flight
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-07-21-managerial-parade_N.htm
Opinion about mlb managers
Third paragraph down... Could debate both observation and opinion
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/united-flight-turbulence/100638/1?csp=hf
United flight
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-07-21-managerial-parade_N.htm
Opinion about mlb managers
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Gay Marriage Story
Mayor Supports Gay Marriage
Mayor of Columbus Dan Caterinicchia doesn’t veto bill
At 2:30 p.m., on July 20, Caterinicchia finally follows his heart
Mayor of Columbus Dan Caterinicchia says he just couldn’t sign a resolution vetoing gay marriage for the city of Columbus.
Caterinicchia, 33, says he hasn’t supported civil unions or domestic partnership in the past, and as late as yesterday night he intended to veto the bill passed by the city council.
It wasn’t until two years ago that Caterinicchia began to change his mind and realized that civil unions were a fair change.
Caterinicchia couldn’t bring himself to sign the bill, and go against something that was inconsistent with his values.
Ultimately Caterinicchia felt he owed the people of Columbus an explanation.
Caterinicchia, pauses, clears his throat, and says, “I couldn’t bring myself to tell an entire group of people they were less important, or deserving of marriage.”
In the end Caterinicchia says he had to follow his heart and his true moral ground when he knew not everyone will agree, “I’m trying to do what I believe is right.” “I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law.”
Mayor of Columbus Dan Caterinicchia doesn’t veto bill
At 2:30 p.m., on July 20, Caterinicchia finally follows his heart
Mayor of Columbus Dan Caterinicchia says he just couldn’t sign a resolution vetoing gay marriage for the city of Columbus.
Caterinicchia, 33, says he hasn’t supported civil unions or domestic partnership in the past, and as late as yesterday night he intended to veto the bill passed by the city council.
It wasn’t until two years ago that Caterinicchia began to change his mind and realized that civil unions were a fair change.
Caterinicchia couldn’t bring himself to sign the bill, and go against something that was inconsistent with his values.
Ultimately Caterinicchia felt he owed the people of Columbus an explanation.
Caterinicchia, pauses, clears his throat, and says, “I couldn’t bring myself to tell an entire group of people they were less important, or deserving of marriage.”
In the end Caterinicchia says he had to follow his heart and his true moral ground when he knew not everyone will agree, “I’m trying to do what I believe is right.” “I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law.”
221 Article Revision
I don't like the dash in the lede. .... confroted with a small but persistent mystery everytime he used the phone.
It was befuddling until finally... Is redundant in the third paragraph, becasue he just finished saying the Royster couldn't understand why. Just begin the next sentence with Finally, or Royster finally came up with...
Continuing on that put the second sentence in the third paragraph and the fourth paragraph quote together, better flow.
Is the second paragraph under diagnosis necessary?
I liked the quote about conversing with his mother. Would have liked to see more, perhaps a quote from her? Or even more quotes from friends and co-workers who have been around Royster on a day-to-day basis?
And how about a quote from his wife??? She knows him the best!?
Could have expanded more with researcher Sidtis? She had some great material and could have given some insight to why this could have gone so long without be diagnosised?
It was befuddling until finally... Is redundant in the third paragraph, becasue he just finished saying the Royster couldn't understand why. Just begin the next sentence with Finally, or Royster finally came up with...
Continuing on that put the second sentence in the third paragraph and the fourth paragraph quote together, better flow.
Is the second paragraph under diagnosis necessary?
I liked the quote about conversing with his mother. Would have liked to see more, perhaps a quote from her? Or even more quotes from friends and co-workers who have been around Royster on a day-to-day basis?
And how about a quote from his wife??? She knows him the best!?
Could have expanded more with researcher Sidtis? She had some great material and could have given some insight to why this could have gone so long without be diagnosised?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)