Mo Money Mo Problems

The money part of the NYTimes handbook is basically logical, but I guess not to anyone familiar with "independent news".
I didn't actually think about the fact that reporters may own stock in companies they might eventually cover- it seems like an out-there predicament but I guess a good thing to cover. Considering our publication is a bunch of 20-somethings, I doubt we'll own stock in anything ever, so it's not something we'd want to directly address. However, the next few points that any conflict that their spouse or family has might create the same problem might apply. I think this is probably more for how readers might perceive this bias than any worry of actual bias.
(The next entire section is basically just telling anyone associated with business or business stories that they cannot own stock with any company beside NYTImes)
Transition to.... SPORTS.
Again for perceiving bias reasons, no one in the sports department may gamble on sports games. However, does this apply to things like Fantasy Baseball? Since our project isn't planning on directly covering sports, I don't think this will be in our ethics code. Not accepting tickets or anything from promoters is probably good from any section. To our application, this would also include theater tickets and anything from people with sports teams or even local businesses.
The next part involves culture: is this part implying that someone in the lifestyles section cannot take part in or help someone take part in writing a book? Because I feel like this happens all of the time. Not recommending people for hire makes sense, because then clearly that's showing some sort of bias. The next part about not taking part or suggesting anything in the news reporters cover would definitely be a part of our ethics code. Once a journalist steps in, it is no longer objective reporting. One should never become part of the story they cover.
As for photographers, they cannot accept gifts but (I didn't think of this one) they also cannot endorse anything relating to their art or even offer advice in their art.
Likewise, travel editors/writers cannot accept gifts or freebies from anyone in the travel business. Again, our website won't have enough money to send people on these trips anyway so I'm not worried about things like restaurant and travel reviews quite yet.

March 25 readings

"For the Code of Ethics en espanol, click here." Wouldn't it make more sense to put that whole sentence "en espanol"?
Anyway...
First web site: all around good advice. It seems like the basic guidelines for any journalist, which is probably good that it stays consistent. I found it a tad difficult to take, though, when the section in "Independence" was directly next to an ad about cameras. My favorite part: "recognize that their first obligation is to the public." Do not serve other journalists, think about the public first.
This next one would be PERFECT for that Denver video. Rule: do not make newspaper shutting down seem like a rap music video. Best thing I take from this section is not add or alter anything about photos or video that would make someone think something other than what the photo/video originally depicted. The rule about using effects sparingly, though, is so good. People too often use sounds and weird effects like they're in 3rd grade and just learned Powerpoint.
I agree that photos are often hard to take for what they are - if you're a good critical thinker. For our final site, I would say that we will fully avoid any misleading photos or doctored images in any way. People in their 20s distrust enough people.

"News photos in advertisements: Photographs taken specifically for news columns shall not be used in advertisements unless approved by the executive editor or managing editor." - I hadn't even thought that people do this. This is a horrible practice and confuses news with money.
Rochester's "Nothing recreated, staged or posed is represented as a candid situation" is the best advice for anyone. Because no one follows it. I think it confuses the idea that photos reflect truth.

March 18 readings

Redesign! Fun fact: Sara Quinn is super cool and I did a workshop with her in February.
Berlin makes a really good point: "what we've managed to do is take the way that you're used to reading a big-city broadsheet daily and just sort of turn it on its ear and make it into a daily magazine about Chicago." -It's interesting that just by changing a few small things can make readers think they are no longer reading a newspaper but a magazine. Also interesting is that they didn't just "redesign" things, they changed the way they approached certain sections that changed the way people read it as well. I think it's good to do both together. Quinn is also a big fan of "varied story forms" and I think Berlin's redesign does that well, with using the best type of storytelling technique to tell each story. -The Oklahoman says a big thing they changed was the way they told each story, through tighter writing, which probably helps with spacing. Lastly, I think it's important that two out of the three papers did focus groups or testing of some sort before sending their new version out to readers.
I like that Gude adds critical thinking into the process of visual journalism- the story, the visual, then thinking about it critically to put it all together. I think that most importantly, he and his students have found ways to tell the stories in ways they think are logical. For instance, what exactly do you want to see/understand about each story? Then tell it/show it in that way.
"made me wonder whether reading on the Web is like reading a tabloid" - I think it is. People want they information as quickly and succinctly as possible. The web has that advantage of being able to click on what you want, while the newspaper format is still harder to navigate. People (my opinion completely) probably want the newspaper to be more like the web in that you can pick and choose what you want to read.
The one myth that I think has some actual standing is the first one. I always learned this one in high school and I think it sometimes still stands but only in select circumstances. It's more of a judgment call most of the time. Myth 5 is also kind of misleading. Justified type is better if you know how to deal with it and make sure it's readable. Another fun fact: Poynter uses the Latin Web site that we use to put in dummy text.
Top image is another piece of proof that text/typography is getting way more popular in the world of journalism, if done well. I also think that one thing these papers have in common is the attention to all of the small details that make up the layout. "It means an impressive attention to layout detail."

March 4 readings

I think the best point Joe Mathews (an alias, I'm sure) makes is that what's "bad" about papers today isn't what's there -- it's what's missing. The stories that newspapers can't afford to cover anymore is what hits the hardest, because investigative work is probably among the first to go because it's so expensive. Papers get flimsier because they can only afford short AP stories for national topics and a few reporters for shallow reporting of local ones.
Osnos hits the business model problem pretty well, actually, saying that certain groups have found niches that work and certain ones just haven't found the model yet. Summing it up, he says: "The equivalent mistake among newspapers was to start giving away information in the misbegotten belief that mass distribution would attract lucrative advertising." It's very true. We expect that advertisers will back the important aspect of the world that is News, or that people will pay for their service. Problem is, people don't tend to see it as a service. They expect it as a given part of their (hopefully, daily) lives. I'm going to equate it, however, with something else we are simply used to. Internet. We pay for internet in most cases. It tends to be a flat rate for a certain quality of internet, but nonetheless we pay. So why can't readers/users understand that money goes into creating the news, therefore money needs to be put back into it? I think that maybe as a collective news group, that's the best thing that can be communicated. As a whole, news organizations need to decide on a solid business model that works across mediums and across types of news publications/papers, etc. I feel like if you had to pay for each one, people may slowly get used to it at least and accept the new model.
As for the Hartford story, I agree with the fact that larger papers cannot do the same kind of reporting that a local, tied-in paper can do in its community. The problem is that those local papers are slowly losing people and resources, so that their in-depth local reporting is becoming scarce. Their one fighting aspect is losing out to the big stories from bigger papers. ProPublica is, as they say, filling a real need. They put together the need for investigative work and the small niche market (exposing corrupt and untrustworthy officials) on someone's dollar that's not the reader. The only thing I worry about is once it loses some of its newness and novelty, will it become more popular and do more good or will it fade away into news organizations no longer used?