Jan. 28 Readings

(Just a basic overview of thoughts for all six readings)
I think the first article does a good job of illustrating what a journalist has become: the all-encompassing backpack-reporter. However, I think that it's rare for people to criticize this. While the idea of a journalist that can write, record, and edit all in one day is great, I also think it has become romanticized. How is a reporter that gets paid nothing supposed to even afford all of the equipment that we are supposed to own and master? On the other side of this, though, is the bright side of technology where news can break on a blog and be seen by millions by the end of the day.
Mark Briggs makes a good point about news without an audience. If you have a story, but no one to tell, what makes it news? I think that the "news as conversation" aspect is very important. To me, it means that news is nothing without someone to have that conversation with. This also takes into account one's audience, like how Vahlberg describes different demographics and their treatment of news sites. It is safe to understand why each generation won't use certain tools on the web for a news site in order to understand which you should be using. I do think that it is often unavoidable to fall into the "too much" on a site problem. So many organizations are trying to experiment with new technology that there is a lot going on. Once certain ideas get ignored or dismissed, however, I hope they will take the hint and do away with them.
The CEO of GE's quote (“This is not a time to skimp on resources but to focus them on your best businesses: stop the weakest, invest in the strongest.”) is what sums it up most accurately. The biggest fault of news corporations today is keeping on technology and ideas that no longer work. My favorite example of this is Twitter. People tried so hard to find good uses for it, and still are, but most younger journalists have left it behind because it just doesn't work. (Even though one of the article's authors, Katie King, still uses it.)
The last article makes a small but important point by saying that one step with new technology is learning how to use these tools. Without knowing what is possible, how can we say we are doing everything we can? So many editors rely on interns or news reporters to use the technology and look past the other possibilities for it.

How I would use this information:
I think that people marvel at technology often without trying to apply its uses to journalism in new ways. For example, when the president breaks news on his blog, like the article suggests, why aren't newsrooms across the country trying to link to it no their homepage immediately or get a live video feed?
Briggs' point about newsworthy conversation should be used to show that news organizations should understand their readers. With this I do not mean demographics or numbers, I mean that editors should know not only what readers want to know, but what they should know. So instead of assuming readers won't want or use something on a news site, it may be worth a little bit of effort to understand the reader first.
I'm surprised that more people don't take Vahlberg's advice and pay more attention to age groups. I would think that more news organizations would make entire sites dedicated to news revolving around the 18-30 demographic or something similar.
The best advice I read in this was to keep in mind how people see your site. Often there is too much clutter, but design and color and even small considerations like font are all editing decisions that should be carefully thought out.
For any news publication I founded, I would take this advice most seriously. Often, first impression (front page) is what sticks. If people like the front page, they may read more. I would try to keep it simple and think out the design specifically for my reader group.

Reading 1

(This blog is about the first four readings about copyediting for Jan. 23)

I think that this first one noting the importance of copy editors mostly labels the editor as the mediator between the reader and writer. Sometimes an article will make total sense to him/her but when read by another person makes no sense at all. I think that this reading makes a good point that the copy editor is the (almost) objective reader that can catch ambiguity and what may confuse someone else.
Since we're basically all going to have to be a rim-man at some point, I think that it's good training even though it's not necessarily someone's dream job. What the third reading does often forget is that some people live for correcting other people's grammar and could be someone's dream. Its advice to actively pursue editing, though, is good. I have learned more editing in my high school and now than I ever have from being taught the AP style book or in a classroom. Also because we are all journalism majors, the advice to start small is often overlooked. What I think people forget is that there are way more of us than there are jobs. We will still have to start small.
The last reading makes an interesting point about the little changes that copy editors often make. I've definitely been abused for wanting to change something late in the game because of syntax or grammar that another editor or writer doesn't see the use to change. Not only is the copy editor an underpaid job, it's often underappreciated. The layout part is probably the best, too, because I can see what I've done. The job is more clearly recognized. I think that this backs up the idea that journalists have to do much more now just to be considered on the same level as before.