Heroic Dog Owner Article

This story is fairly amazing, as far as content goes. Read about it here.
I would totally punch a shark for my Chihuahua, Lola, pictured at left. Or at least I'd really want to. What a brave guy!
As for the writing-- "Noooooo" definitely describes how I'm sure he reacted and how he was feeling, but it just looks kind of funny with all of the italicized o's. And I could have done without the description of his skin "hanging like ribbons." But it's very descriptive.
Another question I had was why the terrier was described as 28-months old. Wouldn't 2 years have been appropriate?
I can't be too harsh, though, because it was a very heartwarming story and I'm sure I make MUCH worse mistakes all the time.
I am very proud of LeNoir.

My Brain Turns Off When I Read Numbers

In Sunday's (today's) News Gazette, Steve Bauer has an article about fire safety here. It's National Fire Prevention Week, and I actually really liked the "Top five causes of home fires" picture explanations that surrounded the article that can be seen in the print copy of the Sunday article. There's a picture of a computer with cords even on the online edition, but on the front page of the paper there's a picture of a frying pan with chicken cooking, and it says that the number one reason of home fires is food left unattended while cooking. If it was just a list of the top five causes, I wouldn't have been as interested-- that was nice.
However, my brain really does shut off when I read numbers in the paper. Anything, really. In the third paragraph, the article says, "There were 399,000 home fires in 2007, down from 723,000 10 years earlier. Those fires in 2007 caused 13,600 injuries, 2,865 civilian deaths, and $7.4 billion in property damage." I'm assuming his is just in the United States, throughout the whole United States. Does it include Hawaii and Alaska? What's terrible is that I actually don't care if Hawaii or Alaska were included--that's probably because if they were it probably wouldn't affect my thoughts on the number. I know that home fires are down, but beyond that, I don't really know if this is a large number, really. I actually know someone, a few blocks away from my house, whose house burnt to the ground last spring--I never heard why (what a journalist I am, right?)--so I know that it can happen. I just know that I see numbers, and they just don't register.
Last night on SNL, Seth Meyers said on weekend update something about the bailout ordeal, and said something about how much money that is, and said something to the effect of 'let me try to explain that much money, I can't' because it was so so much money that it's totally unfathomable. I can image $740. I can sort of imagine $7,400. But $740,000 is too much for me to even begin to imagine $7.4 billion.
I thought the fire article was actually pretty good for just a fire prevention week article; this just goes to show that I become antsy every time I have to read numbers double digits and beyond.

I Sometimes Hate Journalism...

The title is misleading. I don't hate journalism, most of the time--at least not the kind that I think is true journalism. There are some journalistic endeavors that I have a problem with--especially the kind that most people aren't sure if it's journalism or a talk show. Is Oprah a journalist? I know people that think she is. What about that lady on that Inside Edition? What about Inside Edition itself? Ick.
I do think that some journalists get burnt out with all of the stuff that goes with it--like any job would, only journalism is special. They don't get to go home and forget about their job--it's in the paper or on the news the next night or they're running to cover some event.
Check out this link. It's by Robert Niles, and I think it's pretty good. Fairly accurate to how I think a lot of people feel--although I don't know about Stephen Colbert.

Outsourcing to India?

The idea of outsourcing copy-editing jobs has been thrown around by newspapers afraid of going down in flames. Because of the ever-present question of what the fate of newspapers will be in even 5-10 years, some newspapers are becoming desperate and trying to think of as many possibilities as they can.
But does anyone actually believe that a journalistic work sent to any other country to edit will work? Even if we sent it to England, where everyone speaks English, there would still be many errors that aren't really errors. British English and American English have a lot of differences, and it just depends on where you are to fully understand different meanings.
Take that another step further, and send it to a foreign-speaking country? I know that a lot of people in different countries do speak English; I speak Spanish. But that doesn't mean I would feel comfortable editing Spanish journalistic pieces. And there are a wide range of dialects and differences between Spanish in Spain and Spanish in say, Costa Rica.
Also, I have enough trouble copy-editing, and I've lived in the United States my entire life.
I personally think that the idea of outsourcing basically anything from American newsrooms is ridiculous. If we do that, then are they really American newsrooms?

Is This the Fate of Journalism?

As I'm sure everyone not living in a hole knows by now, Sarah Palin is the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republican party. I personally find her refreshing, and am surprised how much of a feminist I'm becoming. Not much of one, really, but I do think it's wonderful that she was John McCain's pick.
Although I feel very proud of my gender, I cannot say the same for my chosen profession.
The media's attacks on Sarah Palin have been atrocious and hypocritical, in my opinion.
Click here to find the Washington Post article on the fiasco. An interesting comment in this story is, "But it also sparked a new round of journalistic self-examination over whether such family matters should be pursued," talking about the allegations made that Palin's infant son was actually delivered by her daughter, Bristol. Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and she and her boyfriend are planning on getting married. I think this statement really should be looked into; how far is too far for journalists?
Left-wing bloggers and others have been touting the news from the first, and of course the mainstream media has weighed in with their opinions. Really, if you turn on any news channel at any point in time, you can be sure the Palin situation will be discussed.
And why not? It is newsworthy now, because she is running for vice president. However, the actual coverage given often makes me cringe.
If Palin wasn't a woman, would she be in the same situation?
I came into journalism hoping to write the truth, and really educate people. But a lot of what it seems like the media is doing lately, is writing a slanted truth and not letting anyone else speak. Is this just me? Am I the only one that feels that a majority of the media has already picked Barack Obama as their candidate, and won't take it any other way? No matter the consequence or actual truth?

Here are more articles about the ordeal:
Reuters Article
Politico Article
Telegraph Article
Daily News Article
Cindy McCain Article

Transforming American Newspapers

I visited the web site of "Transforming American Newspapers" by Vin Crosbie; at least the first two installations of it. I really thought it seemed more like it should have been called "American Newspapers Can't be Transformed Because They're Dying so Just Deal With It," at first, because it was so dismal, but the light began to shine through the clouds towards the end of the second installment, at least a little bit.
The first installment can be found here. When I started reading the article, my first thought was, where is all of this information coming from? Is this common knowledge? The article says that online editions are read "even less frequently and less thoroughly than their printed editions," and I just wonder if this person has done research on this or if this is just a fact that everyone should know. I think there should be some sort of a link here to someone who researched this data, but then again, what do I know, I'm just pursuing a dead-end career, apparently, as a print journalism major.
I thought that it was interesting that "more stylish typography" made the cut for what people commonly think of as a reason for the death of newspapers. Personally, if the typography of something is too stylish, I don't really read the article. I like my typical newspaper font; it isn't distracting, so you can get down to reading. I mean, sure, layout is important, but not necessarily the typography. Hmm. Maybe that's just me.
The phrase "conceptually myopic" caught my fancy. I personally didn't know what myopic meant, so I looked it up on dictionary.com, and it means, "unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted." In case anyone else was wondering. Perhaps words like "myopic" are bringing the industry down. Just kidding.
The author then makes a statement that more than half of the daily newspapers in America "won't exist in print, e-paper, or web-site formats by the end of the next decade." I was a little surprised that web-site formats were included, although from the beginning of the article I know that web-site versions of newspapers aren't visited often.
The quote, "Layoffs are becoming little more than the remedy of bleeding that was used in attempts to cure ill patients during the 18th century and cannot restore the industry's health," was a little melodramatic, I thought, and perhaps stretching, but nonetheless thought-provoking. The second article, which can be found here, was a little more straight-forward, and listed the principle of supply and demand through microeconomics as the most important cause to the fall of the industry.
Some thoughts on this article I had were:
1. Is Gutenberg really relevant here?
2. I understand the idea that people want things specific to their interests, but I don't think that magazines could ever replace news outlets. Even like Newsweek or something--I might read it if I'm outside of a doctor's office waiting or something, but they're news-oriented magazines, not newspapers. There's so much stuff that I'd feel like I missed if all I read was Time or Newsweek.

I do agree that I want more me-oriented things, like magazines and stuff, but I still like to know what's going on in the world, whether it directly affects me or not. So, I thought that the article was thought-provoking, to be sure, but not gospel or anything. We'll see in the next decade what happens, I guess.